Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,444 profile views
  1. That's curious. I thought these remasters were straightforward enough that they wouldn't need to bring the actors back to re-record lines. They're just PS3 ports. I know that Yakuza 3 had some 'problematic' content cut, and the games have been re-localised into English. But I wonder what needed extra Japanese voice acting? Enough to replace an actor because he couldn't come back? Edit: they've done a whole facial replacement on the character too, and the previous actor retired due to "allegations about his personal life", so it's very probably another drugs 'cancelling'.
  2. If you're not excited: Snowman Pokey is wearing a bucket as a fez.
  3. I really like it so far. I hope it carries on being sparse and simple -- like 25-minute stylish vignettes. I wouldn't mind if there was no dialogue at all, and I hope he never takes off the helmet.
  4. I don't think I liked it much (watched the NZ version edited as two episodes). It hit all the major scenes and setpiece images you would hope for, and it's set in the right period, and yet it didn't really feel as faithful as other adaptations. Too much time was spent in the first hour establishing their unconventional/disapproved-of relationship, but I never understood what it had to do with the story. And then it turns into Threads. Of all the things to mash with War of the Worlds... Threads was an interesting choice, but not right. So all the great scenes and moments are there, but they feel like detached flashbacks and seem oddly unconnected. I didn't feel swept up in the panic of an alien invasion. Partly because of the flash-forward/flashback structure, partly because of the stiff upper lip Edwardianism, and partly because Rafe Spall was miscast. I can't explain why Rafe Spall doesn't work... some of his "reacting to the CG" faces were comically bad, and I didn't like his character.
  5. Have you taken the hard path? If you go straight from Edgewater to Monarch, you must have landed on the "free" landing pad in the Monarch Wilderness. The game tells you that it's terribly dangerous and almost certain death, and that you should try to get a navkey for the much safer landing pad. If you do it that way, there are a few hours of things to do on the Groundbreaker, then a few hours of things to do in Roseway before you go to Monarch. By the time I got to the (safe) Monarch landing pad, I was very well-leveled from non-combat questing in three locations. The monsters on Monarch were trivial, and the game was far too easy from that point on. Supernova difficulty isn't the same thing though. It's like a different optional game type, rather than a way of keeping combat challenging. I happen to not want to play a survival resource game with no saving -- I just want to play the regular game without it getting too easy.
  6. The Digital Foundry article totally looks bought by Capcom. I'm losing faith in everything if Digital Foundry can be bought.
  7. Finished this last night. Very enjoyable and comfy game. The final section - no spoilers - was kind of frustrating though, in the sense that it was the only difficulty spike in the whole game. This is a VERY EASY game... by the half way point I was so well-levelled and overpowered that combat was trivial. I was almost one-shotting mantiqueens on Monarch. I turned the difficulty up to Hard just to give me the slightest reason to pay attention. But then the final section:
  8. I could just copy&paste my pile of shame. Literally -- I wrote it down in a text file to keep track of 1) The games I haven't bought but kind of want, and 2) The games I bought but haven't started. One big reason why games pile up unplayed is probably relevance. It shouldn't matter, it's illogical! But once a game is a couple of years old it feels... undesirable. Some of the motive to play it has gone. I think there's a social factor involved now, where you need to feel that other people are playing it too. Once the forum thread peters out, the game has "passed". Then if you wait too long, the next game in the series comes out. For example I didn't get round to Assassins Creed Origins, so a year later when Odyssey came out it felt downright inappropriate to still care about playing Origins. I've had the same thing happen with Far Cry, Tomb Raider, Wolfenstein. I think the ultimate albatross in my pile of shame is Breath of the Wild. I've had a Switch for two years, with a £55 purchase of BOTW ready to go the whole time. Never started. It taunts me. Every time I start something else, I must mentally put BOTW back to "The next game, I promise, I swear." But it's never the next game. Two Christmasses in a row were "The Christmas I play BOTW", and now Christmas 2019 will come and go the same way. Perhaps it's because I know it's a timesink game, and I always prioritise shorter games first... but all games are shorter... even a 50-hour RPG must come first, because I know you get stuck into BOTW for 100 hours at least. Or perhaps I think BOTW is too weird and I won't even like it, so I want to delay the awkward 30-hour process of "trying to like it" and feeling like I failed.
  9. I've always viewed the Yakuza series as being proudly Playstation exclusive (not counting PC), so it will feel a little odd to see them on Xbox. Still, the more people who get introduced to the madness the better.
  10. The day-1 patch was only 10GB for me on PS4 Pro. Other people report the same thing, with mild confusion because it had been reported as 18GB. 10GB is still too much, but I feel sorry for the Xbox One players -- 37GB is a full replacement for everything on the retail disc, and that's taking the piss. If I were the benevolent dictator who ran the videogame industry, I would force a rule that every game's development must reach true gold standard before they are allowed to go gold. The game should reach "day 1 patch level" before it even gets sent to the blu-ray pressing factory.
  11. I put in the first few hours last night - liking it so far! Still doing the stuff around Edgewater - coming up to what seems to be an interesting choice, and wondering whether the effects will be serious. Got Parvati so far, who seems written to be a bit too adorable. Combat against marauders has been piss easy, but those ape creatures are pretty scary. So scary, in fact, that I was offered a "Flaw" of being scared of them. Little annoyances: Every time you talk to an "extra" (someone without a real conversation) you draw your gun -- you also draw your gun when loading into a new area -- I'd prefer to keep my gun stowed most of the time. Whenever Parvati loses all her health in a fight, I lose her extra encumbrance points, so I'm suddenly over-encumbered until she becomes active again, which is annoying in a fight. General forum opinion seems to be that everyone enjoys this opening chapter of the game, and then it starts to disappoint -- so I'll enjoy it while it lasts!
  12. SqueakyG

    Unable to kill

    Here's an interesting test: If someone could mod an Uncharted game to replace all the enemies with dogs. Setting #1 has the dogs behave realistically, making real dog death sounds when you shoot them. Setting #2 has the dogs comically go "Woof woof ARRGHH!" when you shoot them. Play for 10 hours. Then report how you feel about killing dogs. Okay that's silly. Apologies. In the Uncharted remasters the human killing stood out to me because it felt outdated... it seemed "last-gen". I feel like this decade had less games with human killing, or tried to make killing have an emotional impact -- a general attempt to improve on the ludonarrative dissonance of previous generations. Tomb Raider 2013 was an attempt that failed by today's judgement, but at least the writers intended Lara's killing to have an emotional effect on her. So then we jump into a remaster of a 2007 Uncharted game, and it's back to popping humans like bags of random polygons - no emotion, no PTSD or haunted memories. I just thought of something... In recent years I have really enjoyed the Yakuza games, and one of the reasons is the way it handles its violence. The fights are utterly bone-crunching. But when the fight is over, all the baddies are just sat there rubbing their knees and elbows , then they get up and run away. I like that. It's part of the bonkers charm, and it doesn't spoil the satisfaction of the brawling. It's a game - you're at play - so it's like play-fighting. It works.
  13. I've yet to properly start the game, but now I've read up on the last few pages of a few forums - here, Neogaf and ResetEra - and certainly on those forums a pattern is emerging. A lot of people saying that they loved the first few hours but started to think the game was boring and mediocre around half way through. I was going to put in my first proper play session today... I probably shouldn't have read those threads. Regarding neogaf's feminist complaints: Yes, quite a few people there have made the observation that all the strong characters are female. I'm not familiar enough with neogaf to know what their general political leanings are -- whether they are more likely to complain about that stuff than we would. If it doesn't break etiquette to quote other people from another forum:
  14. SqueakyG

    Unable to kill

    Good idea for a topic. I have had exactly the same thoughts in recent years, but didn't know whether I should express them. I'd never want games to be censored, and I don't believe that videogame violence can make a mentally healthy person go out and commit an act of violence. So it's not like videogame killing is harmful. Yet... in recent years I lost my taste for shooting human enemies in videogames. In my middle age I now often prefer violence to be more abstract and cartoony. However, it depends on the game. It's hard to pinpoint why killing feels wrong in some games but not others. The Tomb Raider and Uncharted games hit me the hardest. I played The Uncharted Collection a couple of years ago on PS4, and even though the graphics of Uncharted 1 and 2 were no longer very convincing, it just felt... distasteful... to have so much human killing. Perhaps it's because the gameplay and cutscenes do not match at all -- the killing of hundreds does not match the wisecracking hero character. Also the lack of consequence -- he's still the good guy who will never be considered a murderer, and he'll never even personally have PTSD from what he's done. So it's a game that makes killing humans feel just as videogamey as killing space invaders. I feel like some kind of traitor to videogames just for typing the above paragraph. I had no problem with games like that when I was younger! Have I become some pathetic wanky adult who thinks that human life is precious, and so videogame killing is distasteful? Is that why those pompous adults in the 80s and 90s were afraid of videogame violence affecting us, while we were just having a merry old time? Anyway, Lara Croft is a fucking psycho too. The problem with the newer Tomb Raider games is that she becomes a hunter/stalker kind of killer. I think you're supposed to enjoy the act of creeping around and hunting your human prey and then going in for the kill; after all the game devs made it such a detailed part of the game. But then I don't have any of these ethical concerns with some other games! It's hard to explain. Agent 47 in Hitman is literally an assassin who plans his kills more than Lara Croft... yet you're roleplaying that job, so it works. Multiplayer killing never feels wrong, because that's a competition between real people. Most games set in fantasy or historical settings feel detached from reality. I also had no problem with GTA5's single-player, perhaps because the characters are criminals, and the violence befits something that is happening in Trevor Philips' world. Perhaps also the thick layers of satire and comedy in GTA also prevent it from feeling realistic. COD military campaigns also look too "edgy" to cause concern -- ironically because they are trying really hard to make you have mixed emotions and ethical dilemmas, it just makes me roll my eyes. I'm far more concerned about Nathan Drake treating low-polygon henchmen like space invaders.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.