Shagger

I played the original back in the day. It was a decent arcade racer with impressive graphics for it's time. The game controlled OK for a game of it's time, but by modern standers it doesn't hold up well. It was slippery and floaty. It was also sevely lacking in content with only 6 tracks and I think 8 cars (Well, 16 given there was a manual and automatic of each car). I also don't recall there being any multiplayer of any kind, which is admitantly difficult on a PC game from 1995. Whare the game excelled was it's soundtrack. You could select the audio files on the game disk (CD-ROM) to play as the in game music and it sounded fantastic. This new game is certainly a very drastic change in style. The trailer implies a very similar approach to the core gameplay, and arcade style racer with drifting and so on, but it will have to be further developed and improved on.

Yeah, this is AI generated visuals. There are subtle inconsistences with colour boundaries and shading that just don't look right. For example, no competent human artist would have so much pink and purple on both the character models (the focus for the eye) and all over the backgrounds. That happend because the "developers" specified those colours and likely negated to specify thier use or add more colours. Even the game description on Steam reads like a checkbox for an AI filter. Don't get me wrong, it looks pretty. Very pretty. I was especially impressed with the fur effects and animations, but it's also complelty shameless.

The longest single session I had playing a game was Uncharted 4. I started after breakfast, then the next thing thing I knew it was thing I knew it was time to call it a night 16 hours later. Weird thing it I do t actually rate the game that highly, but it was obviously doing something right.

I finds games calm me, give me focus. Even in frustrating moments I'm quite chill, just sorting of muble my frustrations out then get back to it. There are other things in life that provoke more of a reaction.

I saw a topic posted just the other day about Cyberpunk 2077, and this is what I had to say then; And I'll echo similar sentiments here. We gamers have no good reason to care about game sales. In the case of Elden Ring, I will never buy it because I'm not interested. I don't care if a billion people buy it, I still won't. And if I did buy it, then they got me! Good for them, I bought the game! The sales figures, if anything, would mean even less to me then. The point is there are games I love that I feel as if I'm almost the only person who has played them (Like The Vagrant or Nights of Azure). Likewise, there are games that are bought by everyone and thier mother that I can't stand (GTA IV, Bloodborne, Destiny and Call of Duty come to mind). I know that typically when games sell well it's for a reason, but it garuntees nothing. In the end, it means nothing. And once again, I do not get why people are so obsessed with this.

The more I think about, the stranger the idea of drinking cow's milk actually is. And I love milk... I mean somebody looked at a tone of smelly animal and decided "Yes, I'll drink out of that" when the idea of drinking human milk, something most of us did as babies, is generally consided a vile idea. An alien looking at that behaviour would be baffled.

I'm merging your thread with this recently active thread as they are both centered arond the same topic.

Moving this to the "video games" sub-forum as this is not a Playstation exclusive discussion. I'll say this everyone somebody posts a thread like. Why care? We're not CDPR investors, executives or employees, we're gamers. Honestly, who gives a shit about game sales? It doesn't make a game better nor worse, it doesn't make a game more or less suited you one's taste, it means nothing. Why gamers are so obsessed with this I will never understand.

I disagree. Kids may be impressionable, but they're not insane. Human beings are sentient. That means we have an inherent ability to fantasise. as part of that ability, we also are naturally able to recognise the difference between fantasy and reality. If anyone, beit child or adult, is not able to differentiate between fantasy and reality then there is something wrong, something that has nothing to do with being a child. Children spend more time in fantasy, especially when it works into play. That might make it seem like that line between fantasy and reality gets blurry to them, but trust me it's not. Obviously, parents should not let young kids play games that are only suitable for adults, but only for the same reasons they should not let them watch adult rated movies.

The main reason FMV isn't used anymore is simply because high quality FMV files take up too much space. I once modded Final Fantasy XIII to upgrade the resolution of the cut scenes (that were digitally animated FMV videos) from 720p to 1080p and the game took up 90GB more space. That's a game from 2009. Even the standard game unmodified on Steam takes up more than 50GB and it's because of the cut scenes. There are other things like how the difference between cut scenes graphics and in-game graphics can be jarring, the cost of producing such videos and that the improvements we've seen in motion capture and game rendered ani actions have made FMV unnecessary. But basically, it's mostly a technical and cost issue.

I don't think so, There was a time FromSoftware was making exclusive games for Playstation (The original Demon Souls, for example) and I find it very difficult to believe that Sony won't let FrimSoftware make the game they know folk buy. Fans of FromSoftware games are amongst the most petty and stubborn gaming fan bases there is, and here that is a good thing because they won't accept FromSoftware making anything that isn't "FromSoftware" regardless of who owns them. Sony, like the rest of us, know that.

Metavoidal looks like a sweet little game. Reforged look like they are keen on investing in these quirky, indie studios without trying to take control creatively. That is something to appreciate and respect.

I think most game needs to generate at least some anxiety and frustration, it's just a sign your invested in what your doing. There are obvious exceptions such as like Flower that are ment to be relaxing and relieve stress, but in a test of self, a challenge, of course some stress is bound to build up. Otherwise, it's probably not a very good game.

I don't think "toxic" gamers are more numerous, they just louder and get more attention.

No, I actually don't understand. I don't understand the point of going to a long dead thread then compiling a post "pretending" to be a part of the conversation at the time. I'm not going to go to a thread discussing, let's say, the 2020 US election then make a post saying why I prefer one candidate over another. That would serve no purpose. That's posting anything just for the sake of posting something. What is sometimes refered to as post farming. Whilst you're right in that it's not against any rules, it is frowned upon given the problems such posting habits have caused the forum in the past. So please, if you have something new, current and relevant to say on an old topic by all means make a reply, but otherwise please just leave them alone.

You are so right about Star Citizen fans. They are insane. $750 million of thier fan's money spent plus an undisclosed sum in loans and investment and all that have to offer to thier fans in an alpha with the most ludicrous DLC options in video game history. As scams go, NFT's wish they could be Star Citizen.

Why do you keep digging up old threads like this? Until your reply it had been two years since somebody replied to this. Consequently those two games have both been out for quite a while, and you reply to this thread like you were completely unaware. And this isn't the first time I've noticed this. Either you're replying with no thought nor care, or there is something going on here. Care to explain this?

Welcome to VGR. If there is anything you want to ask, feel free.

Is it possible that they did this because this is a feature that tends to be built into games on thier own? This, it would be kind of unnecessary?

Light of Motiram is an upcoming open-world survival game being developed and published by Polaris Quest, a video game developer and subsidiary of Tencent Games. And it's this Tencent connection whare I believe the bad press this game's has been getting is rooted from. First, here's a look at the trailer. And... yeah; And yes, everyone is saying the same thing. However, this is Tencent, the Chinese entertainment giant. This is how it works. Everyone knows that what thier doing is stealing somebody else's copyrighted thing, they get sued, Tencent ignores it, then that's the end of the matter. If I'm understanding this game in terms of it's mechanics and concept, it actually looks like more of a cross between ARK and a creature gathering game like Pokémon or Palworld. But what comes to light with that is yet another game my better half plays on mobile called Mecha Domination: Rampage, which also has designs very similar to what we see in Light of Motiram; Tencent is truly shameless. It's little wonder so many are so concerned about the sheer scale and influence that this company has been gaining in recent years. Is this something that we're supposed to just expect going forward? To the point whare even giants of the industry like Sony aren't safe?

The new song from Gloryhammer is an absolute slapper! And an amazing music video to boot.

Given the fact that rumple controllers are still a thing nearly 30 years later, it's hard to label this as a gimmick. I loved the rumble pack, but a stupid feature of the N64 made it impossible to use. You had to plug the damb thing into the same slot as the memory card, making the rumble pack basically impossible to use. Frankly, it's a miracle the idea caught on at all.

The whole album, so I'll post the link to the playlist instead.

There actually is an ifficial Stranger Things video game, specifically a game based off season 3 of the show. It's a retro style, isometric action RPG. Here's a trailer for it.

The issue with autonomous vehicles is not thier ability to drive safely and accurately under normal circumstances. Technology exists right now that will make that very possible. The problem is how such technology responds to moral dilemmas. For example, you're in your autonomous car and the breaks fail. If you turn one way, you'll plough head on into oncoming triffic. Turn the other way you'll drive off the end of a high overpass to a certain death. Straight ahead of you are a bunch of school children crossing the road. What does the autonomous vehicle do? It sounds reasonable to assume the autonomous vehicle would be programmed to protect it's occupants, but with that logic it will deliberately plough straight through those children as that's the scenario the occupants are most likely to survive. But the vast majority of people would do whatever it takes to avoid that because it's the wrong choice morally. The only option for the makers of autonomous cars would be to have them programmed to make the correct choice morally, which in the above scenario is drive off the overpass, killing the person who bought it. That way the children are safe and no other lives are put at risk as with the other two options. That would mean that people who buy autonomous vehicles would buy them knowing that, under certain circumstances, they are programmed to kill you. Would you buy such a car? The point is, there is no way that autonomous vehicles can be designed that everyone, both inside and outside of them, can fully trust them. That is why they can't work.