Yeah people forget that the proprietary memory nuked the excitement for the device. Honestly it should have had 16 GB at least built in, with SD for expansion.
I remember one fall (it may have been the second fall it was out), they did a bundle with a 4gb memory card and assassin's Creed liberation for $200ish (I'm thinking $189 for some reason but that sounds weird), and they couldn't keep it in stock anywhere.
I've been thinking the same thing for years (since everyone has been going on and on about how the PS4 processor is just a mobile processor). So many people would already have a library of games, and devs who were already familiar with the platform wouldn't have to learn anything new.
I remember after getting the PS3 at age 16 talking to my brother and saying that it would probably be the last PlayStation I would get because of how much older I would be the next time, but that even if I was still in for the next one, there's no way I'd get a PS5. Lol.
Fair enough. You'd be surprised how many people don't though. I've had so many people argue to me this gen that buying physical games saves hdd space because you don't have to install the entire game (which of course was true last gen). Then when you send them an article pointing out that a game is the same size whether installed via disc or download, they claim that it may be true for a specific game, but that it isn't true generally and that "everyone knows" ph...
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.
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...
And specifically that it was being developed at Sony mid-PS3 era. Had it come out in like 2015-2016 instead, they probably would have made much better decisons. Also why they didn't call it PSP2 is beyond me.