Best overall game of this entire generation? Any system and pc included!

  • 166 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for Seabas989
#101 Edited by Seabas989 (13231 posts) -

So far it's Breath of the Wild. But I confess that thanks to graduate school I missed out on some games this gen (I did graduate).

Here's my list (including 3DS games).

  1. Breath of the Wild
  2. Persona 5
  3. Bayonetta 2
  4. Rocket League
  5. The Legend of Zelda: ALBW

Avatar image for cainetao11
#102 Posted by cainetao11 (35410 posts) -

Single player is the Witcher 3

Multiplayer is Halo 5

Avatar image for AzatiS
#103 Edited by AzatiS (14969 posts) -

@Diddies said:
@AzatiS said:

Best game overall ... ? Witcher 3 easily. It had it all. From graphics to soundtrack to massive open world to great and memorable characters and story to great quest system to length to voice acting to .. you name it. Easily the best overall game this gen, we like it or not. It had it all.

I have had a real hard time to get past a few hours of this game. I feel as if I mastered the combat fairly quickly and it was rinse and repeat on everything. Have my shield up. Put in a couple of slashes. Jump back and let the enemy throw some hits while I jump back and repeat.

Witcher 3s combat is casual friendly. Maybe too much of that . Similar to other popular games like Mass Effect etc. That for sure makes it feel cheesy, actually it is. What developers tried to do was to make the combat system easy to deal and itemization being the deciding factor more than combat itself if someone can deal with creatures etc.

Thats how many action RPGs working since forever. Personally i didnt have a problem. Cheesy yet it worked okish. Aside that game was a wonder.

Avatar image for vaidream45
#104 Edited by Vaidream45 (1140 posts) -

Rocket league and Breath of the wild for me

Avatar image for wizard
#105 Edited by Wizard (812 posts) -

@Vatusus:

Jesus, arent you dense... I already TOLD you I played a game, Nioh, that actually benefits from higher fps count, on both framerates (because its combat is, ya kno... actually good contrary to TW3) and still didnt think it was that much of a game changer. What part of that didnt you understand?

So you have not first hand experienced the difference in framerate in TW3 and instead rely on an unsubstantiated claim that it doesn't matter in this specific game, but does in others without any kind of supporting facts or rebuking those that I said last post.

In other words, you're talking out your ass.

Remasters often present more polygons, better visuals, technical performance, better framerate, etc, etc, etc then their older counterparts but its not because of that that they are considered different games, or is it?

And yet...people keep buying them. If the difference in experience wasn't significant? Why?

So now tell me why is TW3 PC a different game then the PS4/X1 versions?

Mods. Your previous statement included "different games" as a red herring, but mods actually does create an entirely different game. You should have read/comprehended my last post.

Avatar image for Vatusus
#106 Edited by Vatusus (8788 posts) -

@wizard said:

So you have not first hand experienced the difference in framerate in TW3 and instead rely on an unsubstantiated claim that it doesn't matter in this specific game, but does in others without any kind of supporting facts or rebuking those that I said last post.

In other words, you're talking out your ass.

I never ate sh*t either but for the smell alone I know for a fact I wouldnt like it.

I'm saying that if it doesnt matter that much in a game like Nioh, then it definitely wont matter much in a game like W3. Learn to interpret one's point before saying something foolish.

W3 combat is mediocre, riding the horse is bad. The game excells in everything BUT its gameplay, ya kno, the thing that actually takes advantage of a higher framerate count...

If something so simple cant get through ya head, and you'll keep with your fallacy that "you havent tried so you cant talk about it" then your point is mute. Arguments by comparison of facts are legit arguments and dont come tell me otherwise.

And yet...people keep buying them. If the difference in experience wasn't significant? Why?

Because of a little thing called nostalgia? Its very very powerful thing. Its the reason why Nintendo keeps on selling, the reason why tv shows like Stranger things got successfull.

Or, ya kno, to be able to play their favorite games on a newer console since most people sell their older consoles when a new one comes out? Why do people keep buying the same franchises over and over again despite their quality? Or lack there of? Are you really telling me people buy remasters because they'll think they'll have a completely different experience? To that I say AH

Mods. Your previous statement included "different games" as a red herring, but mods actually does create an entirely different game. You should have read/comprehended my last post.

Oh, so now you deviate your framerate/resolution argument to mods. It's not what we're debating here. Mods are nice but when it comes to chose the game of the generation I think mods cant be taken into account cause they're not part of the original concept of the game developers. Others may argue otherwise, and they're entitled to, but this is my personal view on the matter one that will always be subjective.

Answers in bold

Avatar image for lexxluger
#107 Edited by lexxluger (599 posts) -

@sHaDyCuBe321 said:

I’ll have to play the Witcher 3 I guess. But I honestly feel like it won’t resonate with me. Can’t say overrated based on me not having played it, but I usually hate things that others love unless I experience them first myself.

It’s almost like the expectation of greatness sours me on the experience.

GO WITH YOUR GUT MAN!

I wasn't even expecting TW3 to be great because I had already fallen for The Witcher hype by xbox and PC fans last generation...and Pt 3 STILL let me down.

The games were...ok and "competent" and not much more unless you absolutely LOVEEEE the lore associated with the game.

lol DO NOT be fooled by the glowing praise people on this forum give that game. It is NOT some amazing gameplay experience unless you feel the lore can make up for the average to mediocre gameplay.

The game isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before. In fact if you've played The Witcher 2...you've pretty much playd The Witcher 3 but now it's in an open world, oh and you got a horse!

The lore did not grab me nor did the melodrama story "Triss oh where is Triss I must find her?" I wasn't motivated by any of that.

The gameplay "could" have carried me thru this hohum plot but every time I tried (3 times) the boring side missions and cliche narration overshadowed the gameplay which can only be considered one step above Skyrim or Fallout for top level RPGs of the generation.

Avatar image for UssjTrunks
#108 Edited by UssjTrunks (11280 posts) -

@sHaDyCuBe321 said:

I’ll have to play the Witcher 3 I guess. But I honestly feel like it won’t resonate with me. Can’t say overrated based on me not having played it, but I usually hate things that others love unless I experience them first myself.

It’s almost like the expectation of greatness sours me on the experience.

It took me 150 hours to complete the base game, and another 50 hours for the DLC. And that's with completely ignoring the card game stuff and treasure hunts. It's by far the longest single player game I've ever played.

I thought TW1 was weak (gave up after an hour, just wasn't feeling the mini-game style combat) and TW2 meh (I had just binged on Mass Effect and Dark Souls before playing TW2 and it just didn't compare). TW3 is nothing like those games. The game takes place across 3 maps (2 base game, 1 DLC), each one many times bigger than the Skyrim map (except the DLC one, which might be around the same size). The world is teaming with life (unliked Skyrim). There are dozens of villages scattered across the land, each with their own problems. Cities in this game feel like cities. They have hundreds of densely packed buildings, with thousands of NPCs walking around (there are different districts with different NPCs, unique day-night cycles, etc.). Everything you do in the game has purpose. You feel the sense of dread that the NPCs feel through rich dialogue and impactful decisions that you're forced to make. The worldbuilding is just on another level in this game.

Combat is like a casual Dark Souls. It's deep enough to reward mastery, but not nearly as precise as something like Dark Souls.

Avatar image for UssjTrunks
#109 Edited by UssjTrunks (11280 posts) -

@Vatusus said:
@wizard said:

Witcher 3 on PC, not really much of a contest.

@BassMan said:

The Witcher 3. On PC of course. :)

I find it odd hermits feel the need to say "on PC" as if that makes it a completely different game then the consoles counterparts... sorry but better resolution and framerate doesnt make it a complete different game

60 fps, ultra settings (higher NPC count, longer view distance, higher foliage count, etc.), and mods absolutely make it feel like a different game. I completely changed the game's colour palette with Reshade (made it look like GTA V as I wasn't feeling the over-saturated colours of the vanilla game).

Avatar image for Vatusus
#110 Edited by Vatusus (8788 posts) -

@UssjTrunks said:
@Vatusus said:
@wizard said:

Witcher 3 on PC, not really much of a contest.

@BassMan said:

The Witcher 3. On PC of course. :)

I find it odd hermits feel the need to say "on PC" as if that makes it a completely different game then the consoles counterparts... sorry but better resolution and framerate doesnt make it a complete different game

60 fps, ultra settings (higher NPC count, longer view distance, higher foliage count, etc.), and mods absolutely make it feel like a different game. I completely changed the game's colour palette with Reshade (made it look like GTA V as I wasn't feeling the over-saturated colours of the vanilla game).

ugh, this again... I played Nioh on both framerates and still didnt think it was a "different game". How is TW3, with its shitty combat a different game at 60fps? Visuals? Cool, they're prettier. Nice. So are remasters visuals prettier then their older counterparts... thats still doesnt make them different games, sorry

All this "1440p/60fps makes games completely different" talk is overexageration and no one will convince me otherwise. People often mistake "better technical experince" with "completely different experince" wich is bullshit of the highest grade

Avatar image for lexxluger
#111 Edited by lexxluger (599 posts) -

@sHaDyCuBe321 said:

I’ll have to play the Witcher 3 I guess. But I honestly feel like it won’t resonate with me. Can’t say overrated based on me not having played it, but I usually hate things that others love unless I experience them first myself.

It’s almost like the expectation of greatness sours me on the experience.

There are 2 camps with TW3.

You either LOVE the game or feel it's pretty much overrated sheit with passable gameplay meant to get you to the next melodrama cut-scene.

Reference below:

@Gatygun said:

Played TW2 liked it.

Played TW3 never finished it.

The problem with TW3 is, endless cutscenes and god awful combat that just makes me want to be done with it.

....i'm here to play something not to stare at a god awful game story. Sadly with witcher 3 everything is gated so much in cutscenes that you just feel like a mail men, move from point 1 to point 2 to active cutscene. And without it you got no idea what's going on.

Therefore i quited the game.

Witcher 3 for me just isn't a good game because of this, it's actually a bad one.

See ^ this was my EXACT experience...

lol I went back 3 times after hearing how great the game must be by fans to try to find that "diamond" of amazing game that MUST be there because everybody said it was. But I didn't find it.

It's not your "expectation" that would sour you on TW3, it's the actual game that would do that. You "could" love it like many others, but you've been warned lol.

Avatar image for Gatygun
#112 Posted by Gatygun (1164 posts) -

@UssjTrunks said:
@sHaDyCuBe321 said:

I’ll have to play the Witcher 3 I guess. But I honestly feel like it won’t resonate with me. Can’t say overrated based on me not having played it, but I usually hate things that others love unless I experience them first myself.

It’s almost like the expectation of greatness sours me on the experience.

It took me 150 hours to complete the base game, and another 50 hours for the DLC. And that's with completely ignoring the card game stuff and treasure hunts. It's by far the longest single player game I've ever played.

I thought TW1 was weak and TW2 okay. TW3 is nothing like those games. It's the greatest single player game ever made. The game takes place across 3 maps (2 base game, 1 DLC), each one many times bigger than the Skyrim map (except the DLC one, which might be around the same size). The world is teaming with life (unliked Skyrim). There are dozens of villages scattered across the land, each with their own problems. Cities in this game feel like cities. They have hundreds of densely packed buildings, with thousands of NPCs walking around (there are different districts with different NPCs). Everything you do in the game has purpose. You feel the sense of dread that the NPCs feel. The worldbuilding is just on another level in this game.

Played TW2 liked it.

Played TW3 never finished it.

The problem with TW3 is, endless cutscenes and god awful combat that just makes me want to be done with it.

That's something botw does really well, combat doesn't feel as clunky as witcher 3 ( even while the menu is just uff ) and cutscenes are pruned to the point of not wanting to pull your eyes out.

I honestly can't care about cutscenes in games, i'm here to play something not to stare at a god awful game story. Sadly with witcher 3 everything is gated so much in cutscenes that you just feel like a mail men, move from point 1 to point 2 to active cutscene. And without it you got no idea what's going on.

Therefore i quited the game.

Witcher 3 for me just isn't a good game because of this, it's actually a bad one.

I booted it up a while ago to see what was up. obviously i lost my save file which somehow this game isn't pushing towards a cloud solution by itself ( 2017 almost 2018 guys ), but i had the same issue's still and quited the game after a few hours of being utterly bored.

I rather have witcher team, stay with the tw2 kind of concept to be honest. Which i liked more.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#113 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (24479 posts) -

@Vatusus said:
@UssjTrunks said:
@Vatusus said:
@wizard said:

Witcher 3 on PC, not really much of a contest.

@BassMan said:

The Witcher 3. On PC of course. :)

I find it odd hermits feel the need to say "on PC" as if that makes it a completely different game then the consoles counterparts... sorry but better resolution and framerate doesnt make it a complete different game

60 fps, ultra settings (higher NPC count, longer view distance, higher foliage count, etc.), and mods absolutely make it feel like a different game. I completely changed the game's colour palette with Reshade (made it look like GTA V as I wasn't feeling the over-saturated colours of the vanilla game).

ugh, this again... I played Nioh on both framerates and still didnt think it was a "different game". How is TW3, with its shitty combat a different game at 60fps? Visuals? Cool, they're prettier. Nice. So are remasters visuals prettier then their older counterparts... thats still doesnt make them different games, sorry

All this "1440p/60fps makes games completely different" talk is overexageration and no one will convince me otherwise. People often mistake "better technical experince" with "completely different experince" wich is bullshit of the highest grade

And yet again, you ignore mods. You know, when debating, you can't just ignore factual things just because you want to. That usually means you've lost the debate.

Avatar image for henrythefifth
#114 Posted by henrythefifth (1726 posts) -

Fallout 4. Aint perfect, but I've played it more than any other current gen game.

Avatar image for Vatusus
#115 Edited by Vatusus (8788 posts) -

@DragonfireXZ95 said:

And yet again, you ignore mods. You know, when debating, you can't just ignore factual things just because you want to. That usually means you've lost the debate.

uh, no. I did not "ignore" mods. I adressed the mods argument in a reply above to another user. If you dont want to look for it I'll quote again the response below:

Oh, so now you deviate your framerate/resolution argument to mods. It's not what we're debating here. Mods are nice but when it comes to chose the game of the generation I think mods can't be taken into account cause they're not part of the original concept of the game developers. Others may argue otherwise, and they're entitled to, but this is my personal view on the matter, one that will always be subjective.

Avatar image for with_teeth26
#116 Posted by with_teeth26 (8900 posts) -

@Gatygun said:
@UssjTrunks said:
@sHaDyCuBe321 said:

I’ll have to play the Witcher 3 I guess. But I honestly feel like it won’t resonate with me. Can’t say overrated based on me not having played it, but I usually hate things that others love unless I experience them first myself.

It’s almost like the expectation of greatness sours me on the experience.

It took me 150 hours to complete the base game, and another 50 hours for the DLC. And that's with completely ignoring the card game stuff and treasure hunts. It's by far the longest single player game I've ever played.

I thought TW1 was weak and TW2 okay. TW3 is nothing like those games. It's the greatest single player game ever made. The game takes place across 3 maps (2 base game, 1 DLC), each one many times bigger than the Skyrim map (except the DLC one, which might be around the same size). The world is teaming with life (unliked Skyrim). There are dozens of villages scattered across the land, each with their own problems. Cities in this game feel like cities. They have hundreds of densely packed buildings, with thousands of NPCs walking around (there are different districts with different NPCs). Everything you do in the game has purpose. You feel the sense of dread that the NPCs feel. The worldbuilding is just on another level in this game.

Played TW2 liked it.

Played TW3 never finished it.

The problem with TW3 is, endless cutscenes and god awful combat that just makes me want to be done with it.

That's something botw does really well, combat doesn't feel as clunky as witcher 3 ( even while the menu is just uff ) and cutscenes are pruned to the point of not wanting to pull your eyes out.

I honestly can't care about cutscenes in games, i'm here to play something not to stare at a god awful game story. Sadly with witcher 3 everything is gated so much in cutscenes that you just feel like a mail men, move from point 1 to point 2 to active cutscene. And without it you got no idea what's going on.

Therefore i quited the game.

Witcher 3 for me just isn't a good game because of this, it's actually a bad one.

I booted it up a while ago to see what was up. obviously i lost my save file which somehow this game isn't pushing towards a cloud solution by itself ( 2017 almost 2018 guys ), but i had the same issue's still and quited the game after a few hours of being utterly bored.

I rather have witcher team, stay with the tw2 kind of concept to be honest. Which i liked more.

i mean the cutscenes and story are a HUGE part of the Witcher 3 and why people (including myself) like it. If you can't get behind that aspect of the game then not liking it is understandable

Avatar image for valgaav_219
#117 Posted by Valgaav_219 (1833 posts) -

@aigis said:

nothing comes close to Persona 5

That'd be my second choice alongside The Witcher 3

Avatar image for duane33319
#120 Posted by Duane33319 (22 posts) -

@Vatusus: you sir deserve a trophy, the fact they don't realise you're acknowledging their points and yet they are still trying to argue that framerates COMPLETELY change the experience of the game just shows they can't comprehend your point. Just leave them be bro, maybe they just need to reread your posts after they have gotten off the framerste high horse. Lol. And then they bring up mods, as if that was what the argument was about. Guys he's simply saying the actual framerate you experience on pc compared to console will not greatly affect your overall experience of a game like the witcher 3 because it does not require quick reflexes or great accuracy for the combat, which is where a higher framerate could potentially make a difference. He's already acknowledged it would make a difference for other games, such as competitive shooters, just not this game. Now everyone chillout and play some games.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#121 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (24479 posts) -

@Vatusus said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:

And yet again, you ignore mods. You know, when debating, you can't just ignore factual things just because you want to. That usually means you've lost the debate.

uh, no. I did not "ignore" mods. I adressed the mods argument in a reply above to another user. If you dont want to look for it I'll quote again the response below:

Oh, so now you deviate your framerate/resolution argument to mods. It's not what we're debating here. Mods are nice but when it comes to chose the game of the generation I think mods can't be taken into account cause they're not part of the original concept of the game developers. Others may argue otherwise, and they're entitled to, but this is my personal view on the matter, one that will always be subjective.

And again, you plug your ears and go, "nah nah nah nah." That's the exact quote I was referring to. You can't ignore factual pieces just because you want to. That's like saying, "Well, I don't think the sky is blue because this is my personal view."

Avatar image for jasonofa36
#122 Posted by JasonOfA36 (918 posts) -

Witcher 3 on PC.

Avatar image for bronxs15
#123 Posted by Bronxs15 (123 posts) -

i played a lot of the games everyone has mentioned so far. and maybe my game is not on the same level as a witcher 3, but i really loved ori and the blind forest!

Avatar image for Orchid87
#124 Posted by Orchid87 (2551 posts) -

DOOM for singleplayer, Rainbow Six Siege for multiplayer.

Avatar image for Vatusus
#125 Edited by Vatusus (8788 posts) -

@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@Vatusus said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:

And yet again, you ignore mods. You know, when debating, you can't just ignore factual things just because you want to. That usually means you've lost the debate.

uh, no. I did not "ignore" mods. I adressed the mods argument in a reply above to another user. If you dont want to look for it I'll quote again the response below:

Oh, so now you deviate your framerate/resolution argument to mods. It's not what we're debating here. Mods are nice but when it comes to chose the game of the generation I think mods can't be taken into account cause they're not part of the original concept of the game developers. Others may argue otherwise, and they're entitled to, but this is my personal view on the matter, one that will always be subjective.

And again, you plug your ears and go, "nah nah nah nah." That's the exact quote I was referring to. You can't ignore factual pieces just because you want to. That's like saying, "Well, I don't think the sky is blue because this is my personal view."

Wtf?! How can "mods should not count when choosing game of the gen because it isnt the developers original concept" even remotely be compared with "the sky is blue"?

One is a "fact" (wich it isnt if you understand electromagnetic waves), the other is subjective. That argument is completely asinine

Oh, and btw, the sky isnt always blue fyi. It depends on the frequency of eletromagnetic waves when in contact with earths atmosphere. Its most of the time blue but not always, so it isnt a "fact". Educate yourself first

Avatar image for SecretPolice
#126 Posted by SecretPolice (33780 posts) -

Forza Horizon 3 takes the checkered flag with all others 10 laps down. Also, Rise of the Tomb Raider, takes a giant dump all over anything on the kiddy crap Bait & Switch Handheld.

Avatar image for Vatusus
#127 Posted by Vatusus (8788 posts) -

@duane33319 said:

@Vatusus: you sir deserve a trophy, the fact they don't realise you're acknowledging their points and yet they are still trying to argue that framerates COMPLETELY change the experience of the game just shows they can't comprehend your point. Just leave them be bro, maybe they just need to reread your posts after they have gotten off the framerste high horse. Lol. And then they bring up mods, as if that was what the argument was about. Guys he's simply saying the actual framerate you experience on pc compared to console will not greatly affect your overall experience of a game like the witcher 3 because it does not require quick reflexes or great accuracy for the combat, which is where a higher framerate could potentially make a difference. He's already acknowledged it would make a difference for other games, such as competitive shooters, just not this game. Now everyone chillout and play some games.

Exactly. Good to know there's at least one smart person on SW ;)

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#128 Edited by DragonfireXZ95 (24479 posts) -

@Vatusus said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@Vatusus said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:

And yet again, you ignore mods. You know, when debating, you can't just ignore factual things just because you want to. That usually means you've lost the debate.

uh, no. I did not "ignore" mods. I adressed the mods argument in a reply above to another user. If you dont want to look for it I'll quote again the response below:

Oh, so now you deviate your framerate/resolution argument to mods. It's not what we're debating here. Mods are nice but when it comes to chose the game of the generation I think mods can't be taken into account cause they're not part of the original concept of the game developers. Others may argue otherwise, and they're entitled to, but this is my personal view on the matter, one that will always be subjective.

And again, you plug your ears and go, "nah nah nah nah." That's the exact quote I was referring to. You can't ignore factual pieces just because you want to. That's like saying, "Well, I don't think the sky is blue because this is my personal view."

Wtf?! How can "mods should not count when choosing game of the gen because it isnt the developers original concept" even remotely be compared with "the sky is blue"?

One is a "fact" (wich it isnt if you understand electromagnetic waves), the other is subjective. That argument is completely asinine

Oh, and btw, the sky isnt always blue fyi. It depends on the frequency of eletromagnetic waves when in contact with earths atmosphere. Its most of the time blue but not always, so it isnt a "fact". Educate yourself first

Lol. So, these drastic game changing mods existing is not a fact. Okay, we're done here.

I love how you went on a tangent about how the sky is not blue, either. That's when you know you've lost the argument.

Have fun with your self-deception.

Avatar image for Vatusus
#129 Edited by Vatusus (8788 posts) -
@DragonfireXZ95 said:

Lol. So, these drastic game changing mods existing is not a fact. Okay, we're done here.

I love how you went on a tangent about how the sky is not blue, either. That's when you know you've lost the argument.

Have fun with your self-deception.

Jesus... what is your IQ? Seriously. You severely lack reading comprehension.

What's NOT a fact isnt the fact mods exist but the subjective perception they should or should not be counted towards "game of the gen" title.

Do you understand now? Want me to draw it out? Jesus... it's like I'm talking to a wall here

And your "sky is blue" asinine argument wich you tried to present as a "fact" (and failed) was proven false. So no, you lost your argument, not me.

Avatar image for Star67
#130 Posted by Star67 (4277 posts) -

I'm going with Yakuza 0

I know at best it's a AA game for most, but to me it's AAA all the way.

I love the humor, the serious story, and brawler gameplay. I liked the game so much I ended up buying Yakuza Kiwami, 3 and 4.

Honorable Mentions go to Bloodborne, Horizon Zero Dawn, and Mario Odyssey

Avatar image for gameofthering
#131 Posted by gameofthering (11199 posts) -

Rocket League

Avatar image for sonny2dap
#132 Posted by sonny2dap (1441 posts) -

Played TW1 and 2 fell in love with the characters really grabbed me in a way few games do, went and read all the books thoroughly enjoyed those and then TW3.

I can honestly say TW3 was one of those games that just felt great the whole time I was playing, the story/characterization for me is so well done it's enough to eclipse the sometimes fetch quest nature of some of the missions.

The use of regional British accents for the localization was also spot on, the heavy use of welsh and west country accents was perfect in creating a believable society.

Avatar image for GarGx1
#133 Edited by GarGx1 (10258 posts) -

@Vatusus said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:

Lol. So, these drastic game changing mods existing is not a fact. Okay, we're done here.

I love how you went on a tangent about how the sky is not blue, either. That's when you know you've lost the argument.

Have fun with your self-deception.

Jesus... what is your IQ? Seriously. You severely lack reading comprehension.

What's NOT a fact isnt the fact mods exist but the subjective perception they should or should not be counted towards "game of the gen" title.

Do you understand now? Want me to draw it out? Jesus... it's like I'm talking to a wall here

And your "sky is blue" asinine argument wich you tried to present as a "fact" (and failed) was proven false. So no, you lost your argument, not me.

I can understand what you are saying about mods being counted or not. However. having the option for end user mods to be added should be seen as an advantage for any game.

In the case of The Witcher 3 (and others such as Fallout 4 or Skyrim) issues that have never been dealt with by the developers, have been by the modding community, it's not just naked NPC's that look like Barbie dolls and pretty sunsets.

Oh and 60+ fps is a game changer in any game not just The Witcher 3, especially when the consoles often drop to the low to mid 20's (PS4 version in the swamps for example).

Avatar image for jaydan
#134 Edited by jaydan (1556 posts) -

I'm gonna have to go with Bloodborne as it is an incredible package all the way through, packed with that signature world exploration that From Software has perfected after all the Souls games.

I pick Bloodborne because it's a completely new entry for a series and not an ongoing franchise that extends beyond this generation. No, Bloodborne is THIS generation.

It has incredible world-building, and the H.P. Lovecraftian vibe is something unique in video games both atmospherically and thematically.

Bloodborne is intense gameplay all the way through, and some of the greatest boss battles this gen are within too.

The reason why I pick Bloodborne as one of the defining games this gen, is because it's not fresh on my mind at all. I haven't played the game since it launched, and yet it's still that one game I think about and make reference to as often as it applies to conversation. The game's experience has literally stuck to my mind, and during times when we play games just to forget about after we beat them, it has real sentimental power to think any one game will haunt any of our minds long after an initial play, and Bloodborne is that game.

Avatar image for wizard
#135 Posted by Wizard (812 posts) -

@Vatusus:

Smell and taste are biologically exceptionally similar stimuli.

I'm saying that if it doesnt matter that much in a game like Nioh, then it definitely wont matter much in a game like W3. Learn to interpret one's point before saying something foolish.

You're claiming that without any supporting points. Why does framerate in TW3 not matter? Because its not Nioh? That's such a piss poor argument and yes...it's foolish.

W3 combat is mediocre, riding the horse is bad. The game excells in everything BUT its gameplay, ya kno, the thing that actually takes advantage of a higher framerate count...

This is a ridiculous fallacy.

If I devised a game that relied on pressing a button within 0.250 seconds of a red frame appearing it would be much, much, much easier at 1000FPS than at 30. That doesn't make it good gameplay but objectively, frame rate matters.

If something so simple cant get through ya head, and you'll keep with your fallacy that "you havent tried so you cant talk about it" then your point is mute. Arguments by comparison of facts are legit arguments and dont come tell me otherwise.

Normally I'd agree with you, but since we're comparing a differential between option A and option B that depends soley on experience (which is what we're comparing) you'd have to experience option B. It's like saying "A Ferrari drives X better than a Porsche, but I haven't driven the Porsche." People would just tell you to **** off. So this is a Fallacy Fallacy.

Because of a little thing called nostalgia? Its very very powerful thing. Its the reason why Nintendo keeps on selling, the reason why tv shows like Stranger things got successfull.

Or, ya kno, to be able to play their favorite games on a newer console since most people sell their older consoles when a new one comes out? Why do people keep buying the same franchises over and over again despite their quality? Or lack there of? Are you really telling me people buy remasters because they'll think they'll have a completely different experience? To that I say AH

Nostalgia is a powerful emotion, but so is boredom, ie. the lack of intellectual stimulation. Remasters play with more polish and present a superior experience on past enjoyment. You're making an argument of contribution not substitution.

Oh, so now you deviate your framerate/resolution argument to mods. It's not what we're debating here. Mods are nice but when it comes to chose the game of the generation I think mods cant be taken into account cause they're not part of the original concept of the game developers. Others may argue otherwise, and they're entitled to, but this is my personal view on the matter one that will always be subjective.

And this is the most ridiculous part of your argument. You lack complete objectivity and have discounted one of the defining arguments of "Why the PC version is far different than the console version" because it doesn't align with your subjective world view on what counts. That's not only stupid, it's childish.

Mods are a Trump Card, not a deviation. They are in the PC version and not the console version no?

FTR, when did I just say framerate and resolution? Graphics quality is a thing as well, as is population density, etc. It all creates a far more rich and believable world which changes the experience. That on top of everything else said.

Avatar image for Vatusus
#136 Posted by Vatusus (8788 posts) -

@wizard said:

Why does framerate in TW3 not matter?

So much worthless shit written to prove nothin. But this sentence above ^^^ is what you're getting wrong and demonstrates your lack of reading comprehension.

Never, EVER, said framerate didnt matter. My arguments clearly pointed to the fact they do matter, just more on certain games then others. Games wich require quick and precise reflexes do take advantage of a higher framerate, games like Nioh, while others dont, games with problems with hit-detection, movement, etc, etc, examples like TW3. Simple. Most understood my points, but I guess you didnt cause your PC allegiance doesnt let you see reason.

So, again, if I didnt think that in a game with actual good gameplay like Nioh the difference between framerates wasnt that much of a game changer, it definitely wouldnt be on TW3. Framerate is definitely important, just not at the extent PC fanboys think it is.

I'll say it again, just in case this didnt get through your thick skull: The Witcher 3 with 60fps is preferable BUT it doesnt dramatically change the overall experience cause, as it was already pointed out a thousand times before, what makes TW3 actually good are the things outside of the gameplay (Story, characters, world), things that dont take much of an advantage with higher framerate. Pretty simple, no?

Avatar image for pelvist
#137 Edited by pelvist (7146 posts) -

I dont think Arma III counts as this gen so ill go with BOTW. I havent really enjoyed a console game this much since the Dreamcast days.

Avatar image for Nike_Air
#138 Posted by Nike_Air (19242 posts) -

I'm a flip-flopper , but today I'm feeling Bloodborne.

Avatar image for Boddicker
#139 Posted by Boddicker (4376 posts) -

I only own a PS4 so I cannot judge PC games, but I'm going to say Bloodborne for this gen.

And I HAAAAAAATE japanese games, but Bloodborne just clenches it for me. Victorian England-esque setting, Lovecraftian overtones, etc.

Avatar image for jackamomo
#140 Edited by Jackamomo (970 posts) -

**** that generation.

Prison Architect.

Avatar image for appariti0n
#141 Posted by appariti0n (2665 posts) -

@GarGx1: I agree.

If witcher 3 was absolutely rock solid 30 fps at all times on console like Horizon Zero dawn was on PS4, then it wouldn't be that big of a deal to me, but it's not.

If the PC version didn't exist, I would have still picked it up for console though. It's just that good of a game imo.

Avatar image for wizard
#142 Posted by Wizard (812 posts) -

@Vatusus:

So much "worthless shit" and than you type this out?

Never, EVER, said framerate didnt matter. My arguments clearly pointed to the fact they domatter, just more on certain games then others. Games wich require quick and precise reflexes do take advantage of a higher framerate, games like Nioh, while others dont, games with problems with hit-detection, movement, etc, etc, examples like TW3. Simple. Most understood my points, but I guess you didnt cause your PC allegiance doesnt let you see reason.

We are comparing TW3: PC to TW3: Console. If you cannot defend the point that the increased framerate on PC doesn't greatly impact the game than you are wrong. I don't care if in other games it matters more. It's irrelevant and disingenuous.

So, again, if I didnt think that in a game with actual good gameplay like Nioh

As I previously demonstrated, "good gameplay" is completely seperate from "framerate objectively enhances capabilities". Why is this so difficult to understand.

the difference between framerates wasnt that much of a game changer, it definitely wouldnt be on TW3. Framerate is definitely important, just not at the extent PC fanboys think it is.

Which I've asked you to explain in detail time and time again, but you don't. Is it perhaps because you have no objective argument and are poor at reductionism?

I'll say it again, just in case this didnt get through your thick skull: The Witcher 3 with 60fps is preferable BUT it doesnt dramatically change the overall experience cause, as it was already pointed out a thousand times before, what makes TW3 actually good are the things outside of the gameplay (Story, characters, world), things that dont take much of an advantage with higher framerate.

Again, prove it! And again "good game play" is completely independent from framerate affected gameplay.

All I'm asking is for you to provide facts on the issues. You still haven't, you haven't accepted mods as a huge perk of the PC version, and you've conveniently ignored how graphics immerse the experience.

You have no argument, I don't care how condescending you can type.

Avatar image for BenjaminBanklin
#143 Posted by BenjaminBanklin (2875 posts) -

This gen is definitely Zelda, The Witcher 3, Persona 5 and Cuphead for me. All amazing games for their genres.

Avatar image for Vatusus
#144 Posted by Vatusus (8788 posts) -

@wizard said:

@Vatusus:

So much "worthless shit" and than you type this out?

Never, EVER, said framerate didnt matter. My arguments clearly pointed to the fact they domatter, just more on certain games then others. Games wich require quick and precise reflexes do take advantage of a higher framerate, games like Nioh, while others dont, games with problems with hit-detection, movement, etc, etc, examples like TW3. Simple. Most understood my points, but I guess you didnt cause your PC allegiance doesnt let you see reason.

We are comparing TW3: PC to TW3: Console. If you cannot defend the point that the increased framerate on PC doesn't greatly impact the game than you are wrong. I don't care if in other games it matters more. It's irrelevant and disingenuous.

So, again, if I didnt think that in a game with actual good gameplay like Nioh

As I previously demonstrated, "good gameplay" is completely seperate from "framerate objectively enhances capabilities". Why is this so difficult to understand.

the difference between framerates wasnt that much of a game changer, it definitely wouldnt be on TW3. Framerate is definitely important, just not at the extent PC fanboys think it is.

Which I've asked you to explain in detail time and time again, but you don't. Is it perhaps because you have no objective argument and are poor at reductionism?

I'll say it again, just in case this didnt get through your thick skull: The Witcher 3 with 60fps is preferable BUT it doesnt dramatically change the overall experience cause, as it was already pointed out a thousand times before, what makes TW3 actually good are the things outside of the gameplay (Story, characters, world), things that dont take much of an advantage with higher framerate.

Again, prove it! And again "good game play" is completely independent from framerate affected gameplay.

All I'm asking is for you to provide facts on the issues. You still haven't, you haven't accepted mods as a huge perk of the PC version, and you've conveniently ignored how graphics immerse the experience.

You have no argument, I don't care how condescending you can type.

*Sigh

No. You keep repeating the same sh*t over and over again. I keep pointing out the falacy of your "never tried, cant comment" argument. Thats asinine.

Arguments by comparison of facts are still legit arguments. Same thing goes for the following example: "I never went to a sauna, but since I dont like humid heat I can conclude I wouldnt like going into a sauna".

Simple, no? I guess limited brains cant think outside of the box

Same thing can be applied to the simple notion of "I never tried TW3 on 60fps but since I tried a more gameplay focused game at 60fps and didnt think the difference was abismal thus I can conclude it wouldnt be abismal on a less focused on gameplay game".

Any person with an IQ of over 100 would understand this simple notion and yet you keep at it like some scratched record. As long as you keep at it your stupid argument wont go anywhere so... keep your ignorance, I'll keep my rationality

Avatar image for wizard
#145 Edited by Wizard (812 posts) -

@Vatusus:

No. You keep repeating the same sh*t over and over again. I keep pointing out the falacy of your "never tried, cant comment" argument. Thats asinine.

Using "fallacy" as a counter argument doesn't make you intelligent if it is misapplied. You presume to know the experience and intricacies of a high end PC on a particular application without actually owning one. It's really quite ignorant to be throwing out fallacies when the entire premise of your argument is based on an assumption you have no experience with.

Nor have you provided a logical reason why you can assume (in which the fallacy would be valid), but instead misapply the fallacy and repeat in a cycle.

Arguments by comparison of facts are still legit arguments. Same thing goes for the following example: "I never went to a sauna, but since I dont like humid heat I can conclude I wouldnt like going into a sauna".

Facts of which you've provided very little. Worse, the few you have provided are mostly irrelevant.

Simple, no? I guess limited brains cant think outside of the box

Ironic.

Same thing can be applied to the simple notion of "I never tried TW3 on 60fps but since I tried a more gameplay focused game at 60fps and didnt think the difference was abismal thus I can conclude it wouldnt be abismal on a less focused on gameplay game".

Holy shit you are dense. "Gameplay focused" =/= "Gameplay more sensitive to framerate". You repeat this fallacy time, and time again.

Any person with an IQ of over 100 would understand this simple notion and yet you keep at it like some scratched record. As long as you keep at it your stupid argument wont go anywhere so... keep your ignorance,

Ok...nothing worthy to argue here...

I'll keep my rationality

Virtually your entire argument relies on your own self-admitted subjective preposition that "mods don't count" and you think you're being rational? LMFAO.

I don't expect SW to be completely textbook objective, but this sets a new standard for arguing within your own rules.

Avatar image for jaydan
#146 Posted by jaydan (1556 posts) -

I gotta side with Bloodborne on this one. I think it's a masterpiece design, gameplay and challenge.

Avatar image for Vatusus
#147 Edited by Vatusus (8788 posts) -

@wizard said:

This debate quite expired by a few days but k

Using "fallacy" as a counter argument doesn't make you intelligent

No. It just makes me more intelligent then you, cause I actually know wtf I'm talkin about, contrary to you.

It's really quite ignorant to be throwing out fallacies when the entire premise of your argument is based on an assumption you have no experience with.

And here you are again, repeating the same drivel yet again as the ten posts before... Are you parrot? I've already explained why TW3 gameplay wouldnt change my perspective about it 30fps or 60fps. It could even be played at 140fps and it still would be mediocre gameplay cause the fundamentals of its gameplay ARE mediocre. I already pointed out "arguments by comparison of facts" are legitimate but you'll keep making deaf hears because your PC fanboyism doesnt let you be rational about something so elemental even a 12yo could understand.

Facts of which you've provided very little. Worse, the few you have provided are mostly irrelevant.

Elaborate. They're definitely more viable then "hur dur you havent tried so you cant comment hur dur". The mentality of a halfwit

Ironic.

I think you dont understand the definition of "ironic".

Holy shit you are dense. "Gameplay focused" =/= "Gameplay more sensitive to framerate". You repeat this fallacy time, and time again.

Again, elaborate. Dont just say "it is not because its not", cause thats exactly what you're doing.

Ok...nothing worthy to argue here...

There isnt. Cause its true.

Virtually your entire argument relies on your own self-admitted subjective preposition that "mods don't count" and you think you're being rational? LMFAO.

Uh, we're not debating mods here but framerate. Kinda of a pathetic flip flop there. This is nothing short but you throwing a tantrum. The caps give it away. You kinda sound butthurt

Avatar image for Cloud_imperium
#148 Posted by Cloud_imperium (14734 posts) -

The Witcher (Legend) 3: Wild Hunt.

Avatar image for Baconstrip78
#149 Posted by Baconstrip78 (1047 posts) -

The Witcher 3

Bloodborne

BotW

In that order...

Avatar image for DJ-Lafleur
#150 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (35601 posts) -

Shovel Knight Treasure Trove

Super Mario Odyssey

Overwatch