So, I know this is for current gen discussion (Kind of an odd limitation to a general conversation thread, but whatever), but I want to talk last gen for a minute:
I've been noticing no user reviews for last gen, at all.
Ok, I get last gen is obsolete, and many current gen games are barely upgraded ports of last gen anyways, so why would a journalist/content writer bother with both? That's fine, in the end "game journalists" are hacks trying to sell something and earn enough money to eat.
But are you telling me there's NO users of last gen? EVERYBODY upgraded?
It's just odd, that nobody owns a PS3 or 360 and wants to post a review about it.
__________________ What CDTM believes;
Never let anyone else define you. Don't be a jerk just to be a jerk, but if you are expressing your true inner feelings and beliefs, or at least trying to express that inner child, and everyone gets pissed off about it, never NEVER apologize for it. Let them think what they want, let them define you in their narrow little minds while they suppress every last piece of them just to keep a friend that never liked them for themselves in the first place.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Disclaimer: This will be a fairly rambling review about some things I noticed from looking at various game related message boards. It is NOT inspired by Gamergate at all, even if it sounds like it does.
This pattern is quite common on the internet:
1. Someone complains about something. (Remasters/hd remakes being a scam/"new money for old rope" money grab, say.)
2. Others defend/justify whatever's being complained about. ("You don't understand the costs behind HD Remasters. They are NOT cheap cash in's!")
3. Argument breaks down into petty stuff, thread dies.
This observation coincides with also noticing there's a LOT of tech people on message boards. Coders, engineers, marketing folk may be disproportionately represented on video game boards. This is supported by the fact that many of the boards I've been to have adapted rules about transparency: E.g. a dev for a game must be upfront about the fact that they're devs if they're promoting said game.
Naturally, some of these devs argue against transparency, claiming they're simply enthusiastic about what they're working on. It's not about pimping their wares, they claim.
I believe they mean what they say. Hell, the mere fact someone admits they have a stake in a debate proved they're "trying" to be honest (Example: Sony vs MS debate ended with one guy saying "But what do we care who wins. Not like we have a stake in it". And the other says "But I DO have a stake in it!") This also reinforces the stereotype that many tech folks are socially clueless, because they can't see how this could be a conflict of interest.
Anyways, my main point of this rambling post is: Don't listen to anyone online about anything.. Odds are, just about everybody who talks up anything has a stake in whatever the hell they're promoting, whether it's by direct involvement, being in the industry, being an affiliate of some kind... You just don't know, but there's enough examples out there where you should be very critical of anything bring promoted to you.
Look at it another way: If 50-70 percent of Amazon/Yelp reviews are getting purged as frauds, what does that say? That the Net is a swamp of self interest, and reviews are for suckers. Don't believe a word of them, whether on review sites or message boards (Even this one, lol. )
__________________ What CDTM believes;
Never let anyone else define you. Don't be a jerk just to be a jerk, but if you are expressing your true inner feelings and beliefs, or at least trying to express that inner child, and everyone gets pissed off about it, never NEVER apologize for it. Let them think what they want, let them define you in their narrow little minds while they suppress every last piece of them just to keep a friend that never liked them for themselves in the first place.
With their last exclusive being Dead Rising 4 to end 2016, this game getting cancelled, and the only AAA ones we know coming out are Halo Wars 2 & Crackdown 3, things don't look good for Xbox One at the moment.
Gender: Male Location: In Luna's mane, chasing STAAARS!
Saw the Nintendo Switch presentation. On the one hand, I'm excited that No More Heroes is back and that new Mario game with the modern day environments looks gorgeous. On the other hand, the online will be charged like XBL and PSN. WTF Nintendo?
Their online service has gotten better now. Even some virtual console games on the Switch like Super Mario Kart will have online added (according to sources like mynintendonews anyway). It's just more the fact that all 3 main companies charge for online now is what's got others peeved, understandably, but I guess it was inevitable.
Since it's Nintendo though, I doubt there'll be free games monthly for supporting the service like with XBL & PSN. How invested I'll be with online if I get the Switch depends on the price for it.
Anyway, yeah. Super Mario Odyssey and No More Heroes look great. Also kinda interested in trying Skyrim on it.
Seems I stand corrected on one part. If you're subscribed to the online service you'll get a Nintendo virtual console game for free per month, some of which'll also have online, but they'll only be free during that month till they rotate to the next game. Better than nothing I guess.
Personally, if Microsoft made that announcement regarding free games, people would flip their shit. Sony is probably in the same league.
But.....for Nintendo to announce that, somehow, that's OK? I have no idea why Nintendo gets away with this shit. So you pay money for online and you receive a free game from the Virtual Console for only a month...even though most of these games are ancient. Or you can go with Xbox One and get 2 free games until you sub ends and 2 free Xbox 360 games forever attached to your account.
It's bullshit in my opinion.
And the worst part, how many games will be available online. I have no problem paying money for online because it's freaking expensive to run those servers at good latency. But....at least with the two major consoles, I know every game (or at least every game) will have an online component.
In Canada, I have to pay $450 dollars to get the Switch, $90 for one game and if I want to play with friends (and that's what the Switch is being released as), I have to pay $80 - $100 per conroller...for a grand total of over $700.
Wasn't saying I was okay with that. It is pretty dumb, but even for Nintendo and the lower standards I have for it now, having free games at all like that is considered progress, given their history of practicality never lowering the price of their games after awhile and stuff.
The Switch will be $300 for 'Murica. Would've preferred $250 or something, but yeah, it is a ripoff in other countries due to the inflation, especially Australia from what I hear. Ugh.
Thinking I may get it at some point when there's enough games that interest me, though not really convinced that they've learned from the Wii U's failure.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to single you out. I just I have seen and discussed the same and people are somewhat cool with what Nintendo is doing.
I agree. It's a ripoff for a machine that is underpowered. As well, I think it's a mistake because trying to do two separate things with a hardware device rarely works out. As a console, it's a piece of shit (in my opinion) and while as a handheld, it's pretty damn powerful, the point remains, the battery life is garbage and it's competing with Apple and every Andriod maker.
I don’t see the problem myself. I was paying for X-Box Live long before Games with Gold came out and never thought it to be terrible or a rip off. With that said, no I will not pay of Nintendo’s online service. I’ve always felt their games were better suited to playing with friends together and not online.
Always thought more of Nintendo's games could use online besides the select few or couple they normally support, and if we actually get more of that then I won't complain too much about the online fee, though I only see myself paying an occasional month to play online rather than yearly or anything, and it's not worth it with the way the free monthly games work on the Switch (letting you borrow a ROM of an NES or SNES game and then having to pay for it if you want to keep it a month later even as a subscriber) which is objectively inferior to how XBL and PSN handles the free games.
PC now being the only platform to not have paid online service is dumb, but it was inevitable.
It's a really shit deal, and thankfully a lot of people have called out Nintendo on their "you only get this game for one month" BS.
I just don't get Nintendo. They just seem really out of touch with modern day gamers and the industry as a whole. I can appreciate them wanting to do their own thing, to a certain extent, but then they go and look at what other companies are doing, make their version objectively a worse value, assuming the price is identical, and announce it expecting there to be no blow back. Instead they just come off as greedy and clueless.
What they should do is offer a subscription service similar to PS Vue or something, pay a certain amount of money a month and get access to their entire catalogue.
Anyways, Switch itself looks potentially pretty cool. I'll probably get one at some point, I like the idea of them merging their handheld and home consoles into one. And the Zelda game looks pretty great. But I'm in no rush. I suspect it'll have the same issues other Nintendo consoles have had - solid first party lineup, crap third party lineup.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 21st, 2016 01:01 PM
)
