I don't think that they are. My point is that they are a separate thing. There are a number of good third person RPGs, but playing in first person is a different experience that far fewer devs seem to get right in the RPG context.
I'm just trying to be clear about why I appreciate Bethesda despite their issues and why I think some of the criticism is unfair. If I were critiquing a first person shooter, I'd compare it to other FPSs rather than third person shoote...
Oh yeah, it does. Here's the thing; doing my option doesn't preclude yours. They could add the hardware to get 100% BC, then do upgrades on a case by case basis like they are doing now where they can work out the licensing issues. There's no law that says a console shalt only employ one backwards compatibility solution.
Honestly, I wonder if it wouldn't be worth it to include 360 hardware inside the machine, like Sony did for PS2 in launch PS3s. That way the games would actually be running on on their original hardware, eliminating all or most licensing issues. Possibly there's some component from the 360 that would be way more expensive now due to lack of production, but presumably it would be more viable than Sony including PS3 hardware in PS5, given the cell processor.
I just th...
Lol "who can't afford a PC." As people keep noting, you don't need a good PC to play these games well. I have a laptop from 2017 with a decent processor but integrated graphics that runs both of these games (and really anything from that era) at a great framerate. You could buy such a PC now for less than what a series X will cost.
It seems like you don't understand the appeal of splitscreen. It's the convenience of having a console hooked up to my...
@Zombieburger638
That's a great idea. I actually really enjoyed both Bad Company games for both single player and multiplayer. They also have the medal of honor license that they've managed to totally tarnish, but which could theoretically be used for a different focus than Battlefield.
Oh gosh, what's a PC? I've never heard of that. Guess I'll have to Google it. I'm sure that, since I specifically mentioned local multiplayer in my comment, you wouldn't have recommended this "PC" thing unless it was just as capable for split screen gaming as a console? I mean, I'm sure it's not going to be a thing where many games lack the splitscreen modes that their console versions have, and others require a janky workaround to make it work. Because ...
I love that people think I don't know what a PC is, and that I don't own these games there. However, there are friends I play co op with, especially RSV2, who only play split screen in the same room as me. A high end gaming PC could descend on them from the sky with every game in existence already installed and a free lightning fast connection, and they wouldn't play PC.
Because you totally are going to go back and play a 3-hour tacked on campaign 15 years after release when the servers shut down. There would be no value in the game without that.
It sucks, because if you are a major game now and you don't have a campaign, you get a landslide of bad press. A lot of people will immediately jump on the "look how cheap EA is cutting out campaign in this game! This never would have flown ten years ago!" Ironically, in the early to mid 2000s, it was perfectly acceptable to have multiplayer focused games without a traditional campaign. Battlefield 1942 and the 2000s Battlefront games could be played offline, but these modes wer...
Sony does niche games in May: "May PS plus sucks, no one wants these games."
Sony does AAA shooters in June: "June PS plus sucks, we all already have these games."
The hardcore gaming credibility police are going to be monitoring this comments section, so make sure you mention Morrowind.
"You can think it sucks and also admit that it's not easy to do right at the same time."
I think we are using a different definition of sucks. It sounds like you basically just think First person western RPGs are bad generally. Which is a fine opinion for you to have, but not a useful one in discussing which ones are good. Like I think all EDM music is terrible, so if people are talking about the most famous artist in that genre and debating their merits, yeah...
This meal sucks because I had a meal at a famous, five star gourmet restaurant five years ago that was better.
This person sucks at basketball, because Michael Jordan was better.
This platformer sucks, Super Mario Bros 3 was better.
This car is garbage, because a Ferrari is nicer.
You prove my point by going to Witcher 3. As noted, it isn't even first person, which shows that you have to expand the category to even find a favorable comparison. Secondly, Witcher 3 itself is five years old, which also goes to show how hard this is to pull off. Finally, Witcher 3 is one of the best games of all time; using it as a comparison is actually a compliment to the thing you're comparing it to. If I want to say someone sucks at basketball, but the comparison I make is that...
Publishers have now known for almost 9 years (really longer because Oblivion and Fallout 3 were big as well) that a single player first person western RPG could be a huge success if it is made well. Somehow, other than another Bethesda game (Fallout 4), we have gotten two serious attempts at this genre in that time (Kingdom: Come and Outer Worlds). If Skyrim "sucked" as much as people pretend it does, it would have been surpassed many times. Yes I know about Witcher 3. It's thir...
If they make it so I can play Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 at 60 fps, I might buy it just for that. Hopefully they also make signing in multiple profiles to do local multiplayer on prior generations more seamless. Google "Left 4 Dead 2 split screen backwards compatibility Xbox one" and look at all the reddit threads talking about how annoying it is if you don't know what I'm talking about.
I have friends who wanted me to download it, who argued that I might as well because it is free. Then I saw it would require me to give up like 175 GB of space and I said no way. I understand from a marketing perspective why they make you download the entire game just to play warzone (so that if it convinces you to buy the full game, you don't have to wait to play), but I think they are underestimating how many people will be turned off just by the space required.
Honestly I think each has their downsides. For the hardcore, obviously Sony's option is better, since we'll have more options of how to expand storage. However, MS's proprietary card will be easier for the regular consumer, because they don't have to worry about whether an upgrade has all the correct specs, etc. I know the PS5 upgrade sounds easy to you, and tutorials will be readily available showing how to do it, but I guarantee you that there will still be tons of forum pos...
Your console downloads the entire game even if you buy physical on PS4. Unlike on PS3, games don't run from the disc. The disc is just another installation method, and you only have to keep it in the console afterwards for licensing purposes (because obviously people would just install a game and then immediately sell/trade the disc if you didn't have to put it in the console after installation).
On the second point, yes, you can download PS4 games from PSNow (not P...
I fail to see how naming one superior game in 9 years invalidates Skyrim. Actually, using such a masterpiece as your comparison works as a pretty strong compliment.