Yeah, a lot of them are just wish fulfillment visual novels, or rather cringey stuff like Gal Gun.
An exception to the rule would be Dungeon Travelers 2. It has the scantily clad female heroes, scantily clad enemies, but by God the battle and levelling system is incredibly deep and allows for creative freedom, combat can reach white knuckle thrill levels (especially some of the tougher bosses) and the tricks and traps of the various dungeons constantly keep you on your toes...
Ah yes, the backlog. I too have one of those, which is caused by a few things:
- I work 12 hour shifts, and sometimes 60+ hours a week, so spare time can be hard to come by.
- Many of the games I buy are 40+ hour RPGs that I have to make a determined effort to plough my way through, otherwise I'll put it back on the shelf, not play for a few weeks, then come back and forget where I was.
- My interests span a wide range of genres, so at any one time there are t...
Well, we are lucky, actually. Because there are tons of other games out there besides Battlefront 2 and Need For Speed: Payback. :)
I finally got around to playing Front Mission 3 last year and the game blew me away. Easily one of the best SRPGs I've ever played despite it being released almost 20 years ago. A modern Front Mission would be awesome, provided they stick to its SRPG roots instead of an action game. (And given the tepid reception of Valkyria Revolution they'd be better off in doing so)
True. I'm kind of jealous of Mario Odyssey and Breath of The Wild right now but... What's this? All I have to do is buy a Switch and I can play those games? What sorcery is this!?
True, a lot of Japanese devs pick and choose which systems their games will go to because an "all out" effort on every single system isn't viable for them. We see a lot of PS4/VITA releases from them, not because Sony paid them a pretty penny, but because that's where their fanbase is.
Absolutely. Plus if there was only one system, who's to say that one system is preferable to every gamer? Then there are the devs who had help bringing their game to life (Media Molecule, Sucker Punch, Team Ico, Cuphead devs etc) and wouldn't have been able to fulfil their vision otherwise?
The downside of "I might have to spend money on multiple systems" really isn't that bad at all, and to pretend exclusivity is "evil" or "anti-consume...
"Keep moaning about the loot boxes but everyone will still buy it anyway."
;)
"Why crappy articles belong on gaming sites and what they really mean."
In the UK, PS4 games (at least in stores) have gone up from the established £40 of the PS3 era to £50, even £55 at times, and digital versions are usually at the £50 mark. To get games for cheaper you need to shop around online and find the best sellers, and even then some games (like Persona 5 or Danganronpa) were £45+ everywhere. So honestly, I don't know where this "games are still the same price" thing is coming from. It certainly isn't the case ...
It was developed by Team Bondi (who are now defunct), not Rockstar. They just published it.
The games are only expensive to produce because the developers/publishers choose to make them expensive. As far as I'm aware I don't remember asking devs to spend such inordinate amounts, and most of my favourite games of the current and previous gen are a far cry from the massive budget AAA juggernauts. Lest we forget Minecraft became the 2nd best selling game OF ALL TIME (after Tetris) on development budget of peanuts? And just look at the popularity of games like PUBG and FNAF. Hec...
Even if it was at the level of "we can't feed our families otherwise," I personally don't remember asking devs and publishers to spend way more than they can afford on making a game. Not my fault if they do that on a product that I don't consider to be worth the money.
Sony had a chance, but made some massive errors:
- They dropped support like a hot potato the second the PS4 was released.
- Black Ops Declassified, the surefire hit, was utterly terrible, thanks in part to the developers only having 6 months to make the entire game.
- The marketing was almost nonexistent, (seriously, so many people haven't even heard of it) and what little there was, made the system look bad.
- They pushed for digital gaming...
@Bronxs15
"If you like the game they are playing wouldn’t you buy it to support them to make more games like that ?"
I don't see anything wrong with consumers deciding a game is worth renting but isn't worth buying. A game is worth however much we, as consumers, decide for ourselves. If we want it cheap we wait for a price cut etc, and there is no shame in that. Even if a studio goes bankrupt because of poor sales absolutely none of the ...
I'd been holding off on buying this as I really wanted a physical copy. Glad to hear they're doing just that!
@Dante
So I guess anyone who writes about murder is a closeted psychopath? Better rein in the developers behind 90% of video games on the market then, eh? Not to mention gamers themselves, who want to gun people down in GTA. IT'S AN INDICATOR.
Uhhhh, what? If kids kissing is automatically paedophilia, I guess the writers of Jumanji, The Tweenies, and a thousand other children's shows/movies are written by paedophiles. Or maybe... there's nothing wrong with it. At all.
If they start using tongues and putting hands down each other's pants then yeah, sure, that's weird.
It's a sad day when games are treated as disposable stop-gaps and not timeless pieces of art or entertainment.
"EA starts new scheme where you give them $200 to obtain deadlier bullets and double health in all their online shooters for a one month period. And collect exclusive digital art cards which degrade over time unless you buy digital card protectors for $10 each for that authentic card collecting experience."
Jinger - "They're just offering options, nothing wrong with that."