Moonface

Dead Space. When I first played it, I only got as far as grabbing the Plasma Cutter and noped out very shortly after. Didn't touch the game for months and only went back to it and got through it by using a guide so I could at least prepare myself for anything jumping out of vents at me and stuff. Eventually I stopped being so scared by the game but not until after I had beaten the campaign, so I didn't get to experience anything blind and appreciate the surprise encounters and stuff. At least I got to do that for Dead Space 2 though.

I bought one with my wife and honestly besides the few gems still stuck on it like Wind Waker HD, it was an utter waste of money and I think it was a poorly executed idea that didn't get properly realized until the Switch. If anything I hope Nintendo just learned their lesson when it comes to naming console successors poorly because this plus the New Nintendo 3DS was a period of atrocious naming and marketing by Nintendo for their systems.

Resident Evil 4 (Remake) Dead Space (Remake) Octopath Traveler II Star Wars Jedi: Survivor The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom There are others. but they don't have a confirmed 2023 release date/window so I'm not going to list them for now.

Yes. I've done a speed run in the Uncharted games, and Stray. However, the only reason for it is because there are trophies in those games that require you to beat the game in a certain amount of time, and if you don't play the game as fast as you can you probably won't do it.

I just find most TV shows to be rather uninteresting or straight up bad. That aside though, I prefer gaming because it's an active activity, whereas watching TV is very passive as it requires nothing on my part except staring at the screen doing nothing else.

I hope it doesn't happen, since I prefer physical media over digital for most of my games. Plus I can't see a good reception to consoles that are solely streaming or digital with no way to preserve your library or purchases.

No. Not going out doesn't equate to being lonely, it's the lack of any human interaction that would cause that type of thing. To me, getting together with friends to play a game online together is no different to getting a group together to go for drinks at a bar. Both are socializing moments, just in different forms.

Probably PS4/PS5. My total playtime on that platform was 628, and although my Steam Replay doesn't give a playtime number I doubt I managed to get that high on PC.

God of War Ragnarök (PS5) Beat the main story on New Years Eve, so I've been spending time just doing all of the side content I hadn't done yet in each realm so I can get 100% completion and the Platinum trophy.

Recently news broke of Crash Bandicoot: On The Run, a F2P mobile game in the runner genre, would be closing down in Feb. 2023. When that date arrives, the game will become entirely unplayable, as it requires a connection to the servers in order to be played. Obviously, that's a rather small and niche title, but there's large games that use this approach too. Overwatch is entirely online, and when the sequel launched the original game was entirely closed down, leaving nothing from it in a playable state. Even single player games with a multiplayer component will have part of the experience lost forever when the servers are closed for those games, of which I'm sure everyone here can think of at least one example without me giving any. While there are plenty of ways to preserve old games, whether it be through digital copies, emulation, etc. all of those games are offline experiences. But when it comes to games that rely on a server connection, how can those games be preserved at all when they become unplayable without the server? The best you can do is keep the game files on your PC/mobile/console, but I don't consider that preserving those games for history when you can't play them to see what they were like. I suppose YouTube videos could be made of the gameplay, but I'm sure even in the most popular games with an online element don't have every single thing in them extensively documented and recorded so we'd lack a complete picture of the experience. So do you think anything can be done when it comes to preserving online-only games, or games that feature an online component that will eventually be turned off?

Ha ha, good spot on the lights resembling the Xbox logo but no, they're orbs from Spyro 2. The whole statue is based on that game, with Spyro himself taking on the pose from the box art and the stand he's on is of the portal you have to power up with orbs to get back home at the end of the game. XD

Someone has to act like a really obvious dickhead for me to dislike them right away, otherwise my opinion will form over time. I find it doesn't really take long for me to tell that someone isn't going to be a person I'll like though.

Some of the best collectibles I have are from First 4 Figures, who make incredibly good statues of game characters. This was the most recent one I purchased:

To me, art style matters more than graphic quality. Nintendo games for example rarely have graphics that push the limit of what can be done or set a benchmark, but they always look good because of a very solid art style. It's why despite the graphical quality being very high, I think every single one of those Unreal Engine remakes of a Nintendo game you see on YouTube look absolutely awful; they strip away the art style of the original game in favor of super high levels of realistic detail, which just don't work for those games. Other things like gameplay and story and such also matter more than graphics, because The Order: 1886 on PS4 was designed with very good graphics but other than that had very little going for it. Minecraft for example is not a game with high detailed graphics, yet has sold more copies than anything else. In fact, out of the 10 best selling games of all time, I'd argue only two of them feature graphics that are highly detailed; the rest are games that look good because of their art style and not their graphical fidelity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

Sony hasn't released any sales records for HFW yet; the most we know is that HZD reached 20 million sales in November 2021, but no distinction was made for how those sales were spread across PS4 and PC (although PS4 is obviously going to be higher). I also would expect PS4 sales to be higher for HFW anyway, because the game is $10 cheaper on PS4 compared to PS5 and the upgrade to PS5 is free, so even those with a PS5 may have purchased a PS4 copy just to save money. HFW did have the PS5 bundle though and given how hard it is to get one of those consoles I wonder how many people just bought that bundle purely for the console without caring for the game. Considering the upgrade from PS4 to PS5 is free for HFW, there could be a chance Sony is trying to push people over to PS5 by putting stuff like this DLC exclusively on the platform, since nothing would dissuade someone from playing the game on a PS5 if/when they get one due to no payment needed for the version upgrade. Regardless of sales, I think it's only going to come down to either Sony wanting to encourage people to move over to PS5, or this DLC genuinely has something that can't be achieved on PS4. I found this article that describes how HFW had to compromise in places to run on PS4, and how patches after release were done to improve the PS5 version, so maybe it's just that the developers don't want to have to try and work around the limits of the PS4 any longer, especially when it seems to have resulted in the PS5 version having to receive improvements post-release because of the time spent on the PS4 version: https://screenrant.com/horizon-forbidden-west-burning-shores-dlc-ps5-exclusive/