2Chalupas' forum posts

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#1 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7121 Posts

@Coolyfett said:
@Archangel3371 said:

Probably a pretty good number of games. A few that spring to mind are:

- The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

- Super Mario Odyssey

- Resident Evil 2 Remake

- Devil May Cry 5

- Dragon Quest XI

Sorry man, remakes CANT be classics. RE2 on PS1 is that, but never the remake. Just so things are understood here.

A ground up remake? Sure it can. If the new game stands as a great game in it's own right. RE2 basically only takes the story universe and characters, a retelling of the story, everything about the gameplay is new and (mostly) modern feeling.

I'd say "remasters" can't be classics, remasters just makes a classic more playable at higher resolution. But by definition if their gameplay is identical they remain classics of whatever generation they came from.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7121 Posts

Wait, what do they mean "planned for later....AI teammates"? Is this game not a squad shooter? How the hell do you have a squad shooter without "AI teammates"? Isn't that one of the fundamental gameplay elements?

I guess this game is designed for "online only" and microtransactions so they got lazy and didn't even bother with AI? "Adding AI is a major undertaking that will still require time". LOL Wow. Game developers in 2019. Release game now, figure shit out later.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#3 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7121 Posts

@Sushiglutton said:

You are still in the honeymoon phase :)! You need to complete the game, then let a month pass and then decide if it was the best ever.

I fall for this every time. Like RDR2. First it was like: "wow this is the most incredible game of all times". Then after a while: "the shootouts are not that fun" and then after finishing: "this game was incredible tedious and a pain to suffer through".

How many hours on RDR2?

Honestly, any open world or RPG game feels like a chore towards the end of 100+ hours or whatever. I basically feel like quitting gaming every time I finish off 100+ hour RPG or open world type game. RDR2 was still brillaint though, but like any game of it's ilk it was a massive time sink. Playing Poker inside RDR2 is Like inception of video game time wasting, but I probably did that for at least like 10 hours while playing it.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7121 Posts

Unless Sony totally drops the ball somehow or there is a huge price/performance gap vs. Scarlett, most likely I'll stay in Sony ecosystem and go with PS5.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#5 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7121 Posts

@FinalFighters said:

Who cares? you can use external HDD's on your consoles now.

buy a 2TB - 8TB external HDD, plug it into the USB port and call it a day..

Nah. The console should definitely still have enough space to store games internally, that's a basic function. Let's not go the Nintendo route of not providing the basics of a functioning console. Depending on how much next gen games take, 1TB or 2TB should suffice (replacing 500GB or 1TB options from this gen).

The only question is how fast that storage is, can they manage a full 1TB SSD or chip based storage. Or maybe to cut costs, we see just the operating system stored on a fast SSD and then game data on a separate HDD, as someone suggested 128GB SSD and 1TB HDD. I could see that possibly happening.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#6 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7121 Posts

Games are different from TV shows. The audience isn't nearly as big for a AAA game as it is for a TV series. You are talking hundreds of millions of subscribers vs. just a few million.

That being said, if you can lock people in to paying $10 a month that gets you pretty good base of revenues to play with. If they could ever get Xbox Live numbers (like 50 million+ people paying over the top just for game pass) then I could see it being legit for AAA games. But they need to get locked in customers, not people signing up at $2 and then cancelling or whatever. It's still in the early phases where they are trying to lure in customers with the $2 deals.

Personally I don't like this direction so I hope it fails.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#7 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7121 Posts

@Jag85 said:

@warmblur: Most of the Silent Hills after the original PS1 and PS2 games have sucked. The lack of Team Silent killed the franchise. And the Western outsourcing made it worse. Kojima was the last great hope of reviving the franchise. But with neither Team Silent or Kojima, there's little hope left for Silent Hill.

Depends. There are competent devs out there. Just depends if they outsource it to a competent dev or not. They should really just remake the 1st game at this point.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#8 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7121 Posts

They have some great IPS, but it's hard to build studios from nothing. I guess if they throw enough $$$ at it they can get some talent to come back. But starting from scratch, on an AAA project that hasn't even started yet, it would be at least 2-3 years most likely before anything could realistically be put together... and that's if things actually go well.

Of course on their last "AAA" projects they were pretty much outsourcing work to outside studios, so I guess they could always do that. But it would still be years off.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#9 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7121 Posts

BF1 I thought was pretty good, even though you had to wait for all the content drops for it to be really good (the only real complaint I had was not enough maps and modes at launch). But once all the DLC was out, and eventually made free, it was a pretty solid package IMO. Probably my most played shooter this gen at least.

BF2 unfortunately was a cluster. All they had to do was take BF1, and refine it and have a more complete game at launch. They wrecked that game with greed and poor "monetization" choices. I assume it was EA corporate suits fault more than stuff DICE actually wanted in there, but still...DICE made the game. Also the campaign was your typical pathetic DICE campaign. Worthless.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#10 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7121 Posts

I wouldn't mind this if they were charging $5-7 for it. Basically just a slightly enhanced port of the PS1 game with some extra features/cheats and trophies/achievements if you want to go for completion. But to charge $19.99 for that laziness? GTFO. I'm not sure if Square is the laziest/worst with their remasters (though they probably are), hard to dispute them as the biggest ripoffs.