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/

I wonder if sales might have anything to do with it. I'm curious to see how FW sold on PS4 compared to PS5 and whether maybe the sales were higher on PS5 to the point Sony/Guerrilla don't think it's worth bringing this expansion to both platforms. It's certainly something I could see having more weight behind it as a reason if nothing in the expansion ends up coming across as something not possible on PS4. Especially now that I know things the developers said weren't possible before on PS4 with ZD ended up happening in FW on PS4.

I tried my best to find a source but failed to do so, but my belief was that at some point Guerilla said flying mounts were cut from Zero Dawn due to limitations with the PS4, and because of this expansions trailer showcasing a flying mount I was under the belief that it was PS5 exclusive to allow that feature to finally be possible. However, in my attempts of finding said source I found out that apparently Forbidden West has flying mounts, so I guess if there was a limit for it on PS4 in ZD a solution was found. Since something that was a notable cut in ZD that had been attributed to the PS4 managed to end up in FW on PS4, I don't know now what this expansion would have that isn't possible on PS4. My earlier post was written with the belief that gameplay features such as flying mounts had been impossible because of the PS4's limits and that that had been carried over into FW due to being a cross-gen game, but I've since learned that was not the case, so I want to retract my comment of being glad that ideas that weren't originally possible might now be with the expansion being PS5 only since it turns out what I was thinking of are already part of FW.

It wasn't an exclusive in the end, but the initial announcement for Rise of the Tomb Raider being only for Xbox was a huge slap in the face. My issue wasn't with it being exclusively on Xbox, but being exclusively on anything at all, because the series had just been rebooted on all platforms with Tomb Raider 2013 to much success. Any fans who had supported that game but didn't own an Xbox were now being shafted because Square Enix wanted the money Microsoft were offering for exclusivity, but again, the initial announcement didn't show any signs this was a timed exclusive. Even then, making it timed was still a slap by Square to all the fans who had made the reboot successful, and more fans were shafted than not by this decision because Xbox was the platform that Tomb Raider 2013 sold the least copies on by a notable margin. Again, this isn't to say that had it been exclusive to PS4 instead (where TR2013 sold the most copies) that it would've been any better, because to me no company should be rebooting a series to then immediately throw the fans under the bus with the sequel by making it exclusive to a particular platform if that reboot had been successful. It isn't like say Bayonetta (not that this was a reboot) where the second game would have never been made had Nintendo not funded Platinum to make it, in which case by all means make that exclusive to the people who made the game possible. But TR2013 made more than enough money to fund a sequel, if we ignore that Square sets stupidly high expectations on their games that most aren't going to reach in a decent timeframe.

LittleBigPlanet 3. Compared to 2 it's a downgrade in just about every way, and it was also riddled with problems that are still present today. It being the sequel to my favourite game of all time made me have high hopes for it, and instead it came close to killing the entire franchise. Although that wasn't the case due to Sackboy: A Big Adventure, I do think it put the nail in the coffin for another LittleBigPlanet title which I think is a huge shame. Especially since Dreams has utterly failed at filling the void if you ask me.

Not a problem at all if you ask me. I already disliked that this game was cross-gen because Guerilla had been saying that ideas they had for Zero Dawn weren't possible with the PS4 but were possible on PS5, and then the second Forbidden West was announced as cross-gen I knew that the ideas they had been unable to do were probably not going to end up happening in that game. Assuming that the ideas didn't get to be done in that game (I've not played it and don't wish to spoil myself on it) then hopefully that means the ideas finally get to show up here, and if ditching PS4 is what it takes then good.

With Christmas around the corner and the thought of gift giving on my mind, I was remembering times in the past as a kid when I received gifts that I either didn't want at all or just disliked, and wondered if anyone else here has ever had that? For me, it was one particular Christmas when my mothers parents decided to randomly buy me a bunch of books about football (soccer) and diving, despite the fact I had never shown any interest in either subject. Despite being young I can recall my parents even questioning it between themselves, and I even get the feeling that I got similar books the following year too. Another time was for my 18th birthday, my parents bought me a tankard because I was now legally allowed to purchase/drink alcohol, and at the time I found it a very odd gift because I wasn't going to drink from it, and I also didn't really even care to drink alcohol anyway so it felt odd getting something focused on a thing I wasn't going to start doing. They did offer to return it and get me something else, but over time it grew on me just as a thing to look at on my TV unit so I ultimately kept it, but it was something I initially wasn't very receptive to.

If you didn't see, The Last of Us Part 1 was announced as coming to PC on March 3, 2023 at The Game Awards.

@ImmersionGaming22 The Last of Us Part 1 is coming to PC at some point soon but a date has yet to be announced for it. I would expect Part 2 will also go to PC eventually too because of that, so you won't need to emulate either of them in that case nor buy a PS4.

I only tend to play mobile games that let me pass the time briefly, such as Two Dots or 2048. I won't touch mobile games that are built around the expectation of player spending. As for a mobile game I played that was actually a full game that was very good and something I'd highly recommend, Lara Croft Go is incredibly good and was worth every penny I spent on it. I wish more mobile games were like that one where you just put down a one-time payment and then get a full game with no predatory practices tucked inside it.

Coloured pencils has generally been my go-to, since they're easier to blend compared to things like crayons. I'd probably never want to colour with markers because of the risk that if I make a mistake it'll be very hard to fix it, plus I really hate how it can cause that streaky look when you overlap areas with the same colour pen.