Shagger

I don't know about that. I actually quite like how you could join and progress through any faction no matter what else you have done in the game like it was in Oblivion and Skyrim. It meant you could see everything the game has to offer on one playthrough. It's not like I don't get the appeal of memberships and factions affect your relationships and alliances with status with other factions (That worked in Fallout New Vegas), but I can't help but feel something might be lost in The Elder Scrolls if it were to work that way.

Rigmor of Bruma, a Skyrim mod. This is a huge mod that introduces a load of new characters and a massive, lore freindly story to the game. I enjoyed this story, but it was a real chore play through at times as the mod didn't work properly. There was checkpoint problems, AI pathfinding issues and characters you have to interact with not even appearing at all. Without console commands, I would never have got through it. However, I don't think the mod itself was the problem. I think recent updates to Skyrim SE in the wake of the anniversary edition content and possible conflicts with other mods I've installed may have been the issue.

These simulator games never appealed to me because they all have the same problem. I've talked very recently about how video games should be considered as entertainment media and should be allowed to offer the same varied experiences to all sorts of people, but the interactive nature of the platform dose make them different. Rather than being a pure observer, a video game (or at least any good video game) grants you the chance to fantasize at being someone else, more specifically the very someone else in that game's story or situation. I call it the empowerment factor. If a game fails to do that, then it fails full stop. Now, a game does not have to be a based on a fantasy to make this work. Who doesn't dream of being the F1 World Champion, winning the Superbowl, being the main event at Wrestlemania or winning the Champions League? Even though those things are real, they are still the dreams and fantasies of millions, if not billions of people. That is the base appeal of simulation games. To be someone or achieve something that you won't in real life. This is fairly straightforward in the aforementioned sport simulation games or fantasy based games, but it's much harder to do this when they simulate a job. You know, the kind of job people do because they get paid for it! Who would then pay money to do that very thing? Even if it is the kind of job a kid dreams of being like a policeman, firefighter or even a pilot, the reality rarely lives up to the fantasy, if ever. So game developers can do one of two things. Lean towards the fantasy within the real life occupation, or focus on making it as real as possible, a true simulation. You can't please both crowds. So I don't see the point in these sim games. To work as a video game, they can either deliver a boring, disappointing dose of reality, or an unrealistic fantasy that would be called called out immediately by the hardcore crowd. Maybe there is an appeal to them that I just don't get, but I can't think of any reason why they could really have mass appeal.

My nomination is for somebody who I think has criminally overlooked, that being @Yaramaki. Quality, well thought out posts, active and helpful person. His posts are truly worth reading every time.

What I need to point out fist of all is that you only including half of @Justin11's post to make it look irrelevant is not fair. By actually looking at the entire post; And I'm looking at both you and @Heatman, I'm not letting you of with this either; I'd say @Justin11 is on topic. I'm not gonna lie, it's not the easiest post to read and he neglected to mention that RDR2 came in 2018, but there is no need "call him out" like this. I at least understood what he meant. Rockstar haven't released anything and since RDR2 apart from "the trilogy" which was a disaster and the fact that Rockstar have only released one new game in the last decade is pertinent to this topic. I don't even know if this omission of RDR2's 2018 replace date is what you two are complaining about, and whether it is or not, you both completely failed to connect that or anything to @Justin11's post. It also doesn't justify this allegation @Heatman made that @Justin11 hasn't played the game. I can love a game without remembering when it came out. So if anyone is guilty of posting something off-topic and irrelevant as well as confusing, it's you two, not @Justin11. Might I suggest first and foremost that you worry about the quality and consistency of your own posts first, and if you feel something needs attention, report it. Especially you @Boblee since you actually double posted your "complaint" of @Justin11, but don't worry, I've already fixed that.

I couldn't agree with @NightmareFarm more. With the expectation of some games like interactive narratives (Life Is Strange and Telltale Games), platformers (difficulty options can be hard to implement is these types of games as the way game controllers and shape of the environment directly affects the gameplay), games for very young children and multiplayer focused titles like MMO's. Other than that, there is no excuse. However, for single player experiences, there is no reason for a game to have one difficulty setting, especially if that one setting is really hard or really easy. Having multiple options doesn't take away a challenge, on the contrary it may even add to it. For someone who wants a challenging game, you can turn it up, the challenge has not been lost. For everybody else who may be impaired or be more interseted in art style, storytelling and exploration, the game opens up for them. And even better, it forces developers to so those other elements making a game more interesting, immersive and just generally better. The Souls game have other problems that I won't go into (like not even allowing a player to pause), but compare something like a Souls game to Horizon Zero Dawn with it's Ultra Hard mode, HZD is better. Better story, better graphics, better world building and exploration and better, more rewarding combat, all in a game that is at least a challenging as Soul's games tend to be. It has those advantages because the game had to work at lower difficulty settings as well harder ones. Having multiple difficulty options makes a game better, simple as that. Besides, when was the last time you saw somebody gush about the story, graphics or anything besides the difficulty in a Souls game? Nobody cares about it because it's possible to have a conversation without talking about one thing, the difficulty. It's a shame as I'm sure there are souls games that have a lot going for them other than just the difficulty. I see what you say @kingpotato, but I disagree. A game being challenging can make it more tense, but that doesn't justify having one difficulty setting. Tension and that daunted feeling can also be created (And I would argue is better being created) by the atmosphere the game itself. Once you faced and been killed by the same, cheap boss 15 times, that feeling tension disappears replaced by frustration, so it's the wrong way to do it. That kind of tension doesn't last. It's just as bad if the boss end up being to easy, that's why being able to adjust it is a good thing. There is something else about this, the worst thing of all actually. Now let me make this clear, I understand that this isn't strictly the game's fault and I'm not painting every Souls fan or people who do believe that games should only have one, brutally hard setting with the same brush, but the toxicity and generally bad attitude that comes from this sector of the gaming community can't be denied. They have have earned this unfortunate reputation for a reason and that reason ties very closely with these games difficulty and lack of difficulty options. It does breed arrogance and a condescending, superior attitude that I absolutely cannot stand. Accessibility options and difficulty options make games better for everybody, especially those who play for the challenge.

The problem is you were in to much of a rush to reply. Before you even decide to post a reply, read the thread and information already contained therein. Odds are that you'll find that the more obvious questions, like "What platform(s) is this a game available?" will have been answered.

Why on earth would that happen? Epic has nothing to do with PlayStation, PlayStation Network nor FIFA. As this is about FIFA 22 being added to PS+ for May 2022, I'm merging this thread with the PS+ Games Update Thread as that is where rumours about games coming to PS+ are supposed to be discussed. Also, it is expected that add links to "Gaming News" stories on VGR to confirm the details and offer more information. I'd ask that you please do so in future. Here's an the information I found form PlayStation Blog as well as the full line up of PS+ for May 2022.

I'd say the guy was a snob. 60fps is effectively the frame rate of real life for a human being. The human brain literally can't process a sequence of still images appearing at a higher frequency than that. You how fly's have those huge eyes made up of hundreds on small lenses? These amazing eyes allow these insects to process images at a much faster rate than a human can. It's a big part of the reason the creatures have such incredible reflexes. The eyes actually connect to fly's motor function so the fly doesn't even have to think about taking evasive action, it just happens immediately. With these eyes, if a fly was to look at a movie playing, it would see each individual frame from that film, the frames wouldn't behind into a smooth image like it does with us. So this guy and others like him is either a snob, or he's some kind half human, half insect mutant, like this; The only real reason to run a game higher than 60fps to account for frame rate instabilities. Like if it is at around 60fps-70fps on average, but it's dipping to below 40pfs on occasions, you might want set the parameters for the game to run at around 120fps on average so those dips never let the go below 60fps. That's fair. The only other reason is just immature dick measuring.

At least you were successful in sorting it out.

Aside obvious limitations by being on the PSP, I couldn't agree more. Burnout Legends was a gem of a game. I don't know why I failed to mention it in the my original post.

Nice examples @Withywarlock I look at the Croc one and can't help but wonder what exactly our pal Croc is looking at. Given how exited he seems, I suspect it's nice lady Croc further down the beach wearing something unladylike.

@Boblee and @Heatman were talking about Burnout in a Dirt Rally 2.0 thread and mentioned me as I had mentioned I had played the Burnout games. I wanted to answer them back, but decided to do so in a new thread so as not to derail the other one. As I have said, I hated Burnout Paradise. I hated it for serval reasons; The open world concept was stupid. It made finding the right game modes and challenge types a chore. Seriously. what was wrong with menus? The open world concept also meant you were racing around the same bits of track with the same environment again and again, so it actually felt less varied than in the older games. They kept the traffic check system from Burnout 4. This was stupid feature that should never have existed. Basically you ran through traffic moving the same direction of you to build up boost which is not only ridiculous to look at, it made the challenging and heart pounding risk of driving into oncoming traffic pointless. But by far the worst thing, and this is really sinister and greedy of EA considering the game released very soon after the launch of the PS3, they removed local multiplayer completely from the game. Even crash party, a staple of the franchise being a local multiplayer mode that involved passing the controller from player was removed completely. They knew if they included crash party even as a one player only option, people would still pass the controller to have a go. How dare people crowed around one console to play one bought copy of our game! We can't have that happen! They didn't even develop and online version, just removed it from the game entirely. The worst thing about this is that, for reasons that will forever baffle me, they made this philosophy for racing games popular, it became the norm'. So not only did EA ruin Burnout (the franchised died with Paradise), they ruined the arcade racer. Fuck EA. So yeah, first tip, avoid Burnout Paradise. Unfortunatly, it's easily the most accessible game in series now. It's the only one that was released digitally and on more modern platforms and even got a remaster a couple of years ago. The only way to play the good games is on original hardware, that being a PS2 or the original Xbox.. Speaking of the PS2/original Xbox era games, for a start I'd recommend trying Burnout 2 first. The original was good, but would have probably aged the worst of them and feels a bit basic today. One done with Burnout 2, get ready for, imo, the best arcade racer ever. Burnout 3: Takedown. This was pure intensity converted to digital code. The series was always risk = reward, but this was another level. For the first time it was possible for a skilled player to keep boost going indefinitely, even in time trial mode. Taking down other players, drifting, approaching oncoming traffic and near misses all charge the boost and you fought for every bit of boost you could get. So yeah, Burnout 3 is the daddy. the other 3 PS2/origonal Xbox era games are really good as well, but 3 was expectational. Since this is a thread now and not a reply, let me know what you all think of this series.

Not only will I state categorically that gaming is not for kids alone, I can even prove it. And that's not me being a 30-somthing grown man trying to justify what some might regard as a juvenile hobby, I promise. This is about the facts. Back in th 70's and 80's, gaming was very much a kid's pastime. Games were only made for and marketed to children, whether it be in the booming arcades or on the early home consoles like the Atari 2600, Intellevision, Colecovision, various Pong Consoles and Vectrex consoles. Think and say what you will about the games, there were obviously primitive, but there were kids toys. Even some of the big names in gaming like Nintendo were toy makers first and that was thier pull into the video game's industry. So yes, games were toys. But then in the 90's things started to change. As games became more ambitious and detailed, the line between action and violence started to get blurry. Games like Mortal Kombat and Carmageddon caused controversies with thier violence and detailed gore. Parents were angry that toys like this were allowed on the market, because face it they were toys, so to me they actually had a point. Something had to change. Video Games needed regulation. It wasn't long after this that things like these started to appear on game game boxes. The moment this started to happen, video games were not toys anymore. The are rated with the same scrutiny as movies and TV broadcasts, making them an entertainment medium. Like any entertainment medium, any work that within it is made for a target audience. They can be made for very young children, but they can also be made only for adults and everyone in between. So for me, it's not even open to debate. Video games are not kid's toys. If they were, there wouldn't be any of these ratings and warning labels. Organizations like the ESRB and PEGI wouldn't even exist. The fact that they exist and enforce these rating systems is actually what has allowed video games to evolve into the entertainment medium they are now. An entertainment medium that can, and does, cater to adults as much as anyone else. Yes, organizations like the ESRB and PEGI aren't prefect, but we should all be grateful that they exist. Without them and the systems they enforce, video games probably still would be toys and games like The Last of Us, Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto, Assassin's Creed, The Witcher, The Elder Scrolls just to name few would not have been allowed to exist.

A quick note @Ryan Blake, it good practice to include links in gaming news topics. Since you mentioned "Verge" in the the title, I'll assume it's this this article from The Verge that you are referring too. This has no place in a game that is pay to play or that you need PS+ to play online, simple as that. Same story on Xbox with Xbox live. Paying to watch ads is where I draw the line.

Chromium is an open source version of Google Chrome. It's basically a base version of Chrome for people to develop further and add thier own features and so on. For regular internet use, I see no good reason to use Chromium instead of regular Google Chrome.

You need to stop with this "natural flow of conversation" bullshit. I feel like I've said this to you in every way I can say it and I don't know how to make it clearer. This a forum. It is not twitter, it is not reddit, it is not discord and it is certainly not a real life conversation. It is a forum. Structured, organised discussion and debate is what happens on a forum, it is not a chat around a cup coffee with your friends. A thread has topic, and you stick to that topic, that's the deal. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

I was inspired to create this thread by something that I saw whilst updating the Free Games with Epic Update Thread and... well... we'll get to that. Anyway, this is to discuss Video Game Cover Art. What you think is good cover art, bad cover art, interesting, dull, funny or just plain weird. I also want people to say what they think masks good cover art, what covert art needs to do to work. Anyway, like I said, I was inspired to create this thread by something that I saw whilst updating the Free Games with Epic Update Thread and seen one of the games upcoming to the service and I have never been more lost for words looking at... quite frankly, anything in my life. I mean, what the hell am I looking at here? There's sloth with a bleach blond "Trump" parting behind a thumb with a face minus the nose with massive tumours all over it. Somewhere, there is a man with a tranquilizer gun and a big net looking for whoever it was that deigned this nightmare fuel, and we'd better hope that he finds them. I'll try wash that out with some good box art. Street Fighter 2 I love this because it's such a good still of action. Ryu has just been knocked over by Blanka, but hasn't landed yet, Chun-Li is extending her leg to counter Blanka, but looking you can't be sure if she'll do so in time. Even the trash can in the background that hasn't quite fallen over really helps add to this image's sense of motion. And look at that sinister grin on Blanka's face, he knows what he's doing! Also, is it just me, or does Blanka's skin look a lot darker than it is in the game? I don't know, maybe they did that because they're in dark ally or something. Either way, it get's the point across. This game is about action, but also something supernatural as well. The detail is great, the shading is incredibly well done with great use colour and negative space. Another good one would be the original Doom It looks like the cover of an 80's thrash metal album. Enough Said. Bad ones? Well, other than than Paradigm that I'm just gonna class as bizarre, I'm gonna go for the original Mass Effect Great game, don't get me wrong, but actually stopping and looking at this box art the fact I'm struggling to think of things to say kind of summarises what's wrong with this. It's uninspired and it's boring. If the words "Mass Effect" could be replaced by the title of a sci-fi B-movie from the late 90's-early 2000's and you probably wouldn't recognise it at first. It's just not distinctive. Unlike the Street fighter 2 and Doom box arts that both inform you and excite you for what's coming in the game, that doesn't sell Mass Effect at all. Yes, the sci-fi theme is nailed down, but what else? It's static, it's dark and it's dull. They play it too safe, really. The future titles improve in this regard, but not by much. So, let's have your input.

Good old @Reality vs Adventure, always ready to be "Mr The-Glass-is-Half-Empty" no matter how positive and uplifting a story may be. 😂

To answer the question in the thread title, nothing. Absolutely nothing. Winter is cold, wet, dark, expensive and even dangerous, there is noting to like.

OK, time to hit the breaks. This thread has been of topic for quite long enough now. This was supposed to be about League of Legends: Wild Rift, not Fortnite or whether or not people know what a loot box is. @kingpotato, this is your thread and you are helping keeping this thread of the rails. I would expect the OP to try and keep things on topic, but if anything the opposite is true here. If you want to discuss these other "issues" with people such as @Justin11 or anybody else, do so in a PM or in a more appropriate thread please. I understand why you're frustrated here, but you handled this badly and I expect better from you. And @Heatman and @Justin11, in the future if you see a thread go off the rails, don't join in with the the derailed conversation, it's only going to make it worse. Also @Heatman, I must point out that this actually started with you and this post here; When @Justin11 mentioned Fortnite in post you quoted, it was in reference. He said he was reminded of Fortnite by the trailer, so that's still on topic, but your post had no connection to the subject of the thread at all. And it was then @Justin11's misinformed quote of this where the trouble started. If you hadn't made the 100% irrelevant post, none of this would have happened. You have got to think things through. Just because somebody references Fortnite in a LoL thread, it is not an invite to steer the conversation towards Fortnite and solely Fortnite. And we all saw the consequences. This is why it's import to stay on topic and just think for a moment before you post.

I believe the original Postal: Classic and Uncut was free on GOG anyway, but they are from the time of this post doing a giveaway for Postal 2 until 10pm BST (5pm EST) tomorrow (22nd of April 2022), so get in there quick. Postal is an infamous series of shooter games very much made for adults only with gratuitous violence, extreme language and gross out shock humour, so you consider yourself warned. The games have remained popular over the years due to thier modabilty. So get ready to "Go Postal", but both myself and the games will make no apologies to your sanity. Postal 1: https://www.gog.com/en/game/postal_classic_and_uncut Postal 2: https://www.gog.com/en/game/postal_2 (Remeber, free only for a limited time)

Well, technically this isn't my own artwork or customisation, but my current PS4 Pro is a pretty sweet Star Wars themed limited edition. I actually found it second hand at my local CEX (or Entertainment Exchange) store for about £200 I think a year or two ago. I was only looking for a replacement for my broken console, so I was pretty chuffed to find this.

These days, you can use just about any controller on a PC. I even saw an article just today that confirms Sony now make Dualsense controller updates available for PC players without needing a PS5 console. Not that your wrong @Heatman, far from it. Xbox controllers have been the accept default for gamepads on PC for quite some time, so a lot of games, especially games that are a little older. Many games never had PlayStation button prompt graphics added to them at all, whilst using a PS4 or PS5 controller will work just fine, it's not without it's problems. Back to original topic. The best thing that Xbox and (Windows) PC's share is indeed your Microsoft account, making a lot Xbox games you bought digitally available on your PC as well. And then there is Gamepass. It's been discussed a lot on the forum, so I won't go into the details, but It really the best thing about the Xbox brand right now.

I'm not so sure about that. If somebody does a painting of a view that includes, let's say, a country house or a a landmark, the owners of that landmark can't claim to own that painting. I see a similar issue with game developers claiming ownership of works created using a photo mode, not to mention it would be terrible PR and probably not very economical to bring to court anyway.