Gaming News

Mitch Connor

Zero-Cool wrote: »

I saw a leak from ign that's since been deleted that there will be VR modes for ps4 and pc. VR space battles could be class.

VCG say VR.

https://twitter.com/VGC_News/status/1272546797941112832

Varik

Also not full priced, meant to be $40.

Markitron wrote: »

If the SP isn't an afterthought, I may allow myself to consider the possibility of potentially becoming interested in it.

No PS5/XSX version mentioned though.

The Dev are the ones who made the SP for battlefront 2.

Zero-Cool wrote: »

I saw a leak from ign that's since been deleted that there will be VR modes for ps4 and pc. VR space battles could be class.

Battlefront 2 had it.

Zero-Cool

Varik wrote: »

Also not full priced, meant to be $40.



The Dev are the ones who made the SP for battlefront 2.



Battlefront 2 had it.

I just installed battlefront 2 last night, must check out the vr side.

Grumpypants

Battlefront 1 had a VR mission (it is amazing) , 2 has space battles but no VR.

JimBurnley

Grumpypants wrote: »

Battlefront 1 had a VR mission (it is amazing) , 2 has space battles but no VR.

Exactly this. Just said something similar on vr thread

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Theres a 2 hour trial for Session on the Xbox store. Might give it a go later, craving a skateboarding game since the Tony Hawk news a few weeks back.

Played this the other night and not a fan of the controls they want you to use. A/X to push with left or fight foot and LT and RT to steer. Sticks are for doing tricks and for the left and right feet. Couldn't figure out then how to pan the camera.

There is a legacy control scheme which is more like Skate but they say this is an experimental feature and it crashed my game both times I tried to use it.

Markitron

Varik wrote: »

The Dev are the ones who made the SP for battlefront 2.

That is not exactly a positive

Retr0gamer

Mr. Driller DrillLand coming to Switch and PC for 25 June.

Varik

So apparently Pokemon is getting DLC now instead of a refresh game and the problem is the DLC is tied to each version of the game, so people are mistakenly buying the DLC for the wrong version.

Nintendo so far are just saying to make sure you buy the right one and if you don't you're not getting a refund.

Mr Crispy

WB have announced a DC virtual fan conference type thing for August 22nd, where they'll be showcasing "special programming, panels and content reveals from a wide variety of films, TV series and games". So speculation is mounting that we'll finally see the new Batman, and whatever Rocksteady have been working on.

Source - DSOG

Markitron

Mr Crispy wrote: »

WB have announced a DC virtual fan conference type thing for August 22nd, where they'll be showcasing "special programming, panels and content reveals from a wide variety of films, TV series and games". So speculation is mounting that we'll finally see the new Batman, and whatever Rocksteady have been working on.

Source - DSOG

Rocksteady have been working on their game for 5 years, WB Montreal has been on theirs for almost 7 years.

It is a minor miracle they haven't leaked.

AlmightyCushion

Varik wrote: »

So apparently Pokemon is getting DLC now instead of a refresh game and the problem is the DLC is tied to each version of the game, so people are mistakenly buying the DLC for the wrong version.

Nintendo so far are just saying to make sure you buy the right one and if you don't you're not getting a refund.

Would it have been so difficult to put in a check, that checks they own the base game when they try to purchase it?

OptimusTractor

Markitron wrote: »

Rocksteady have been working on their game for 5 years, WB Montreal has been on theirs for almost 7 years.

It is a minor miracle they haven't leaked.

What if there's nothing worth leaking?

Zero-Cool

https://twitter.com/EAAccess/status/1272939912040333313?s=19

Zero-Cool

In case there are any mma/ufc fans, there is a closed beta you can register for the upcoming unannounced (great job with that) EA UFC game.

https://www.ea.com/games/ufc/ufc-beta-registration

Retr0gamer

Who cares about Last of Us 2, A new Pokémon Snap was announced!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYuNkNJUyeA

Potential-Monke

I've never played a Pokemon game because Nintendo refuse to let them come out on other non-Nintendo devices. Plus, they need to release a version that isn't turn based/whatever you call that stupid combat system. Give me a Pokemon game where it's all in 3D and you control the Pokemon you release, then I'll finally cave and get a Nintendo console.

panevthe3rd

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I've never played a Pokemon game because Nintendo refuse to let them come out on other non-Nintendo devices. Plus, they need to release a version that isn't turn based/whatever you call that stupid combat system. Give me a Pokemon game where it's all in 3D and you control the Pokemon you release, then I'll finally cave and get a Nintendo console.

Feel like you will be waiting a while...

Retr0gamer

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I've never played a Pokemon game because Nintendo refuse to let them come out on other non-Nintendo devices. Plus, they need to release a version that isn't turn based/whatever you call that stupid combat system. Give me a Pokemon game where it's all in 3D and you control the Pokemon you release, then I'll finally cave and get a Nintendo console.

I feel sorry for people that feel that way about turn based combat. Think it's way better than real time. You should give a good turn based game a go like xcom (and not pokemon as it a Abit basic until you power game it!)

Potential-Monke

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I feel sorry for people that feel that way about turn based combat. Think it's way better than real time. You should give a good turn based game a go like xcom (and not pokemon as it a Abit basic until you power game it!)

I just don't like the waiting. You hit, I hit. It's not the revolutionary war where volleys took ages to load! I prefer to be in the action, doing the action rather than telling them what to do.

The only turn based game I managed to finish was South Park: The Stick of Truth. Couldn't finish the second one. And nearly every other turn based or sit and wait games I just can't. Final Fantasy is another one (and the remakes combat system didn't do it for me either).

I got close to finishing an Armored Core game on the PS1/2 but again gave up as I just got bored. I tried Persona 5 while it was on Now, and I would loved to have kept playing, but again, the combat is not for me. I am looking forward to Persona 5 Scramble though.

Edit: I'll add to this, I did try (is Dawn of War considered turn based? Can't remember, but I remember putting a good bit of time into it, however it could be due to being one of the few games I owned on PC when I got my M1710). But like the Soulsborne games, just not for me. Even in D&D tabletop, it annoys me. But our DM created a side quest where we were all levelled up to 20 for the duration, and I had 55% more health than everyone else (Barbarian Dwarf) and could soak up the damage and usually kill in 1 go. That's about the only turn based thing I'm into.

Retr0gamer

Fair enough. Just find it way more strategic. I find turn based games don't give a good first impression. It's just keep hitting attack to win but branch out and get more strategic later. Persona and the likes get very tactical.

I think xcom is the barometer for if you really like turn based or not if you don't like it then you have no sou.... I mean don't like turn based.

Varik

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I just don't like the waiting. You hit, I hit. It's not the revolutionary war where volleys took ages to load! I prefer to be in the action, doing the action rather than telling them what to do.

The only turn based game I managed to finish was South Park: The Stick of Truth. Couldn't finish the second one. And nearly every other turn based or sit and wait games I just can't. Final Fantasy is another one (and the remakes combat system didn't do it for me either).

I got close to finishing an Armored Core game on the PS1/2 but again gave up as I just got bored. I tried Persona 5 while it was on Now, and I would loved to have kept playing, but again, the combat is not for me. I am looking forward to Persona 5 Scramble though.

Edit: I'll add to this, I did try (is Dawn of War considered turn based? Can't remember, but I remember putting a good bit of time into it, however it could be due to being one of the few games I owned on PC when I got my M1710). But like the Soulsborne games, just not for me. Even in D&D tabletop, it annoys me. But our DM created a side quest where we were all levelled up to 20 for the duration, and I had 55% more health than everyone else (Barbarian Dwarf) and could soak up the damage and usually kill in 1 go. That's about the only turn based thing I'm into.

For FF7 isn't really a turn based game, you're choosing actions but there's no turns. you could set it to pause when in a menu but it's still not really turn based and the remake you could play it as an action game. South park is one.

Don't think that was Armored Core you played unless it was some PSP version you're remembering, those are souls game (also made by From) with jetpacks and lasers.

Dawn of war is a real time strategy, all about moving around the map and clicking so not in anyway a turn based game. Even then I'd say turn based RPGs and turn based strategy games are very different.

Grumpypants

Skate 4. It's real

Potential-Monke

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think xcom is the barometer for if you really like turn based or not if you don't like it then you have no sou.... I mean don't like turn based.

Well, I am ginger... I might give Xcom a go at some stage so. Think I might already have it with PS+ actually...

Varik wrote: »

For FF7 isn't really a turn based game, you're choosing actions but there's no turns. you could set it to pause when in a menu but it's still not really turn based and the remake you could play it as an action game.

Ah yeah, but there was still attack, wait for bar to fill, attack, magic, heal, attack, etc. Meh. The remake was kinda interesting, but it still didn't tick the box for me.

Varik wrote: »

Don't think that was Armored Core you played unless it was some PSP version you're remembering, those are souls game (also made by From) with jetpacks and lasers.

You're right. It was Front Mission 4 I believe. Plauyed a good bit of that, but think I got to a point where I was being destroyed over and over and just gave up.

Varik wrote: »

Dawn of war is a real time strategy, all about moving around the map and clicking so not in anyway a turn based game. Even then I'd say turn based RPGs and turn based strategy games are very different.

Yeah, I didn't think DoW was turn based. Been so long since I played it (some DLC with green dudes came out when I was playing it).

Edit: Sorry, keep forgetting this isn't the GGD thread!

EoinMcLovin

https://twitter.com/gematsucom/status/1273825295909269504?s=19

Zero-Cool

Grumpypants wrote: »

Skate 4. It's real

I......i thought I'd be more excited. Maybe it's because i wanted it for so long and still don't even know when it will be out. Sounds like it's very early stages but we will have tony hawk's and skater xl this year anyway.

Retr0gamer

Potential-Monke wrote: »

You're right. It was Front Mission 4 I believe. Plauyed a good bit of that, but think I got to a point where I was being destroyed over and over and just gave up.

Front Mission 4 was not a great game. Was massively disappointed in it. Also... doubt it was that game as it never got a European release.

Front Mission 3 though, that game was *little chef kiss* amazing.

If that was the game you played then I know why you got stuck. Nothing to do with you. The game is badly explained. You get parts for your mech, you upgrade them and then because the HP is so high it looks like you don't need to change parts as the ones you have already have higher HP. However if you upgrade those parts they become better and you get new better abilities from them.

It caught me off on my first playthrough, got to a tunnel on the way to china and intercepted by special forces and could not beat them until I figured that out. Then the game was a breeze.

Retr0gamer

EoinMcLovin wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gematsucom/status/1273825295909269504?s=19

Don't really have high hopes for this.

Firstly Crash Bandicoot was never amazing.

And secondly the developer is kind of unproven and made some bizarre design choices that added unnecessary frustration to the Crash remakes.

Mark Hamill

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Fair enough. Just find it way more strategic. I find turn based games don't give a good first impression. It's just keep hitting attack to win but branch out and get more strategic later. Persona and the likes get very tactical.

I think xcom is the barometer for if you really like turn based or not if you don't like it then you have no sou.... I mean don't like turn based.

I like turn based games, but I hated xcom.
For some reason turn-based like Final Fantasy's or Dragon Quest's is fine, your character's in a line against the enemies in a line. But when you have SRPGs, where positioning and movement is important and you have situations like the above, where your accuracy is not reflected in the representation of the game, it just feels really artificially constricted to me and destroys any and all immersion.

For me, either do full abstract turn-based (where the strategy may be in how you set up your characters before combat and/or how you manage their actions in battle) or do full real time control and keep realism-based immersion.
With real time control you also might have the opportunity to go against higher level enemies and use your skill to beat them (or in my case, cheese it :pac:) despite being weaker than the game expects you to be. In abstract RPGs, it doesn't really feel bad to lose against such characters, you are just too weak and they do too much damage. But it's incredibly frustrating in SRPGs when your guys all have what should be enough to win or you feel like you could win if it was a real time action game.

Retr0gamer

Well I can abstract myself away from a ridiculous situation like that. I'd laugh at it but realise it's just the underlying mechanics of the game and it's what makes the game work and makes it fun and balanced. In fact I'd find it way more annoying if the game broke it's own rules for the sake of realism. And as a one time game designer you learn that a game breaking it's own rules is WAAAAAY more to both annoy the player and break immersion.

In the case of xcom you do have all the tools to win but the random occurrences keep the game fresh as you end up having to change your plans and think on your feet.

I think a lot of people are way too obsessed with playing a srpg or strategy game perfectly. And some games like the older fire emblem games don't exactly help matters with losing important characters permanently is pretty much a mission reset. However I think a lot more people should try Iron man XCom or deal with the consequences of a bad round. It adds another layer to the game.