Let me be clear. I agree, that it is a joke to try to legislate video games in this fashion. I do not think Violence in video games is a problem. Now legislators are just trying to monetize video game violence as well, which is no better than loot boxes. I am simply pointing out that the impact on a person is very anecdotal in general and can vary largely from person to person. Which is why I do not want government in video games for any reason.
Yes, you are making VALID points. Good for you. You are still missing the larger point.
You are burying the lead. I am not even going to entertain the conversation at this point. It's the internet, you can find ANECDOTLE arguments all over the internet. I am just pointing out the obvious, that depending on person/personality, it would be silly to argue that violent video games CANNOT have a negative psychological impact on young minds, while arguing the video game CAN have a negative psychological impact in other area's. If you want to have a real conversation it&#...
Cloud gaming is a threat to Sony. With Microsoft's Azure cloud services they are in a power position to drive cloud gaming. The money isn't in the hardware anyway; it's in the games. Sony will need to develop their streaming service sooner than later.
Also, it's unlikely Sony will be able to partner with an Amazon or Google since we already know that those two companies have already started investing in cloud gaming platforms.
The lag i...
Gamers in 2019.
Loot boxes are gambling, this is terrible, loot boxes can have a negative psychological impact on a persons well being.
Also gamers in 2019
Violent video games are great, there is zero chance a VIDEO GAME can have a negative psychological impact on someone.
I mean, are we really to the point where we need to just add sexual preference as a customer character attribute?
Seriously, I can now see someone taking a Character based on sexual orientation, rather than who is the better complimentary person for the team. From an LBGT community standpoint this comes across as pandering and dilutes and real conversation. Quite honestly this type of pandering probably does a disservice to those who are gay or otherwise.
While I am glad that there is more representation for everyone in games, what the hell does sexual orientation have to do with Battle Royale. Is this to assist in the creation of porn? Just to make sure it's accurate? I have never been playing a shooter and wondered "hmmm, who does this character prefer to have sex with?" "Favorite position?"
This!
Well the good news about the internet is that you could review it and give it your own score. Im glad to see sites use the entire review scale instead of just 7 to 10.
No, it reveals how many people didn't finish RDR2 or AC odyssey. I didnt like red dead 2, and I enjoyed AC but didn't need 80 hours of it. Articles like this are dumb, they take one metric and conflate it to represent the entire industry of games. Who every made this connection would fail miserably in business.
@sampsonon Did you read the last part of my post, did you, because if you did you would actually have the answer you seek. But since gamers prove once again that they are morons I will restate it.
"That said, legacy PC hardware, not consoles, is most likely what holds pc gaming back."
Now, AGAIN, if they were not worried about lowest common denominator then yes, super high end pc parts will destroy mid range pc parts. It's accounting for ...
Of course not, because they are porting from a console leading platform. But, if PC was a lead platform, with zero intent of putting it on a console, it would be silly to think that a console can compete with a 2080ti, 32gb ram, and a 9700k. Consoles are just mid range pc parts. The advantage is it's the only hardware they need to worry about. If someone only worried about high end PC the results wouldn't even be close, which is the point of the article. But like I already said, ...
In fairness, the reason PC most likely hasn't just destroyed consoles in visuals is that any game on PC still has to accommodate for consoles. If devs only needed to worry about PC and start with the high end cards and scale down from there Last of us part 2 would pale in comparison.
Your comparison would work if we had an equivelent on the PC side, which is the exact point of this article.
The last of us was built for one specific piece of hard...
I might be in the minority, but I have never really cared what store I need to use to buy or launch my games. I usually buy where cheapest, play it, and move on to the next game.
And why was that? Because nintendo fans say they are all about the games, and the wiiu had great games, which is obvious by the sales numbers on switch, but yet nobody bought the wiiu. Probably because gamers are a bunch of group thinkers that were told the wiiu sucked by media even though itnhad piles of new nintendo games. So i guess nintendo fans really dont care about games based on wiiu sales.
Yes i would be fine with it too if we were actually getting quality new first party Nintendo games, but we arent. If we were people wouldnt be constantly asking for more ports.
I guess not. Well count me in asa person who would love new Nintendo games. A new side scrolling mario, a couple new sports games that arent rehashed tennis. A proper pokemon. That metroid game will go a long way. Maybe a new donkey kong. Little big planet: yoshi might be ok.
Does no one want new games anymore? As an owner of every nintendo console through the years Im getting tired of ports.
The biggest reason, its still getting unique experiences and exclusives instead of port after port.
People are such cupcakes. You make some solid points and they just get stuck on calling smash a remake. Ok, lets call it BRAND NEW. Then it's even worse that they missed projections.