Warner Bros. is one of the first publishers to squarely feature PS4 Pro as one of the systems that is receiving an upcoming game like Shadow of War.
Ex-Warner Bros. executive reveals that the Nemesis system was designed to create a compelling game that would stick with gamers.
Harry potter could be a great game to use it. The students and the enemies could each have their own seperate tree.
I mean you didn't actually kill the orcs that came back in shadow...orcs don't have that power in the LOTR universe. Meanwhile you do kill enemies (human and beast) in hogwarts legacy.
No, you would defeat them and they would come back.
Yep,
Instead of WW, WB could've assigned Monolith for a current gen FEAR game that could've used the Nemesis system as its base. But alas. The WB IP is what supposedly killed them.
Hope Rocksteady gets to use Nemesis in their next Batman 1P game.
Warner bros is so full of it. Usually corporations cry about piracy but this was simply due to the second hand market and they don’t t like that.
It was a neat idea, but the game is packed with a lot of repetitive filler grindy stuff, clearly designed to make the game last longer. The sequel went overboard, with the filler as well, in order to nudge players towards micro-trash-actions, which were eventually dropped.
Thats why I couldn't get into the sequel even though I really liked the first one and so wanted to like the 2nd. Unfortunately twas not meant to be.
TIM WHITE WRITES: "Multiplayer or single player? Developers, you can do both, just not willy-nilly."
I hate when I see single player games and see people begging for multi-player. Jeez guys it don't need to be on every game. Latest one I seen was atomic heart.
Multiplayer or even co-op
If it was always a single player game then that's how it is
It's a trend that never really went away. For me multiplayer in a primarily SP focused game was an excuse for DLC. Then there's the mentality gamers had that adding multiplayer makes a game worth the price, otherwise it should be half price for half a game. A way of thinking devs reassured when they started adding multiplayer to their sequels. We see the same with multiplayer focused games getting SP in their sequels.
Tbh multilayer now is a way to add live service and mtx elements, very rarely does it come of well.
What single players game used to be in a lot of cases now require 3 other people for keeping to really enjoy it and I hate having to rely on others to get the maximum from a game.
Sp should be sp, if devs want to add a separate multi mode then that's fine with me, the legends addition to ghost of tshushima was fricking sick but totally separate to the main game. Sick of co op too.
I remember when certain single player games had them as included optional modes that was played on the couch. Had brilliant times with Syphon Filter and Golden Eye. Me and my bro used to used to fight over who would play as Gabe even though it was technically just a skin. Good times.
Here are 10 RPGs with great combat, including widely-known titles like Elden Ring and some of the lesser-known gems.
What would you say they're missing in particular? I'd say all the ingredients are there, NPCs, sidequests, consequences of actions, level grinding. Fully customisable gear with a lot of depth.
Quite a lot is missing. What you listed could be mistaken for an action adventure or any game with few rpg elements.
There's so many aspects, from non combat solutions to conflicts, fully fleshed out character, world role playing rules and elements(justice/crime/law systems etc), companions, story arcs (more than 1), illusion of a liveable/traceable world which means factions, capital, outcomes from choices (diplomacy, or other) etc etc
The story and world is fleshed out and not left to the imagination too much. Of course we still imagine certain things but they are well established and take full part in the story arcs. Which means not just world setting with bosses and lore through tidbits.
There's so so much more to it. I'm just being super brief.
Not many actual RPG's lately.
Dragon Age, Witcher etc are proper rpg games and many many older title.
That does not mean Soul's games are not rpg like, but they are closer to RPG Lite.
RPGs without player agency, outside of just character build and combat, don't really feel like RPGs for me.
They're just action games.
It's why I don't consider most JRPGs actual RPGs.
I'm just building a character and throwing it into your linear world.
I'm not discounting those games for what they are. I just don't feel they actually fit being called RPGs when player agency over the world is at a minimum.
I'm not sure how much of that is important to a game being a true RPG and how much is just what you personally like, I still think From games very much qualify even if they don't deal in certain clichés.
"Lore through tidbits" is technically accurate but it does the games a disservice. Yes it's delivered uniquely but the lore in their games goes deeper than anything else and shouldn't be underestimated.
''Lore through tidbits'' cannot guide you through an orchestrated range of emotions.
RPG will get close to role playing that fictional reality and drop into the world's story and you are usually emotionally affected at every turn, choice, outcome. Your connection with the story, its characters and your mentally constructed version of that reality is a lot deeper and stronger as well due to the depth and breadth of the rpg creations.
Not just fear and awe.
Also its not just what I personally like, I like all kinds of games.
It's the heritage of RPG games and all the foundations of rules and systems whose goal is to create an invisible veil between reality and illusion and allow you to partake in all of that illusions systems.
The thinner the veil, the easier to role play.
It's my type of RPG and fun as well. Some RPGs takes the fun factor out of it but I won't name those game's because a lot of fans will think I'm trolling. Witcher 3, Souls games, Final Fantasy, Knights of The old Republic, Mass Effect, Horizon Forbidden West, Persona 5, Tales games, and Oblivion (the best Bethesda game) is my favorite RPG games. I prefer third person RPG games though
I love all of those listed, honestly. But I still think Bethesda peaked with Morrowind and Fallout 3.
I'm hoping Starfield really delivers for me.
''Lore through tidbits'' cannot guide you through an orchestrated range of emotions.'
An orchestrated range of emotions sounds like something like Uncharted, which is definitely not an RPG.
The point I'm making is that there is a series of core technical things which makes a game an RPG on a basic level and From games meet all of them. Anything else that people feel is missing is a matter of taste and personal experience.
There's no right answer to what is an RPG. A game can be a legit RPG and have a very different focus to another game in the same genre.
''An orchestrated range of emotions sounds like something like Uncharted, which is definitely not an RPG.''
Its not exclusive. Might want to read the rest.
It is not about taste and personal pref,experience etc. The rpg term being coined and used for a long time has a basis. Learn it. Many can fit the rpg spectrum, but there is a spectrum and souls is on the lighter side.
Souls is an rpg but rpg lite, coors light lite.
Here's a definition of an RPG I found which seems fair enough.
"Defining RPGs is very challenging due to the range of hybrid genres that have RPG elements.
Traditional role-playing video games shared five basic elements:
The ability to improve your character over the course of the game by increasing his statistics or levels.
A menu-based combat system with several choices of skills, spells, and active powers as well as an active inventory system with wearable equipment such as armors and weapons.
A central quest that runs throughout the game as a storyline and additional (and usually optional) side quests.
The ability to interact with elements of the environment or storyline through additional abilities (e.g. lockpicking, disarming traps, communication skills, etc.)
The existence of certain character classes that define the characteristics, skills, abilities, and spells of a character (e.g. wizard, thief, warrior, etc.)"
That's a From game whether you like it or not. Not so much the ability to interact with the environment but the depth of lore and world building more than makes up for that.
I think you've got a rigid image of what an RPG is in your head and you can't see past it.
Yup Soul's games are Coors ultra lite in those asepcts.
While the RPG RPG games are heavily fleshed out on most aspects and beyond on some.
Double RPG hey, you're inventing a new genre. There's nothing light about From's games in fact the opposite is true they're thematically rich and dark and dripping in more interesting lore than any series of games I've played.
If you think From games only touch lightly on the five classic RPG features that I posted then you don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing light and fluffy about their upgrade systems or their storytelling.
Maybe they're not to your taste because you prefer things to be spelled out but their subtlety doesn't make them any less of an RPG.
Replies(1)Replies(1)@LordoftheCritics
Grow up, nobody destroyed anybody and if they did it certainly wasn't you. No, I don't have an alt account never have for any forum I've been in. Thanks for the discussion.
Funny thing is, I actually don’t enjoy Souls combat at all. The world and exploration is all I really like. It’s not even that it’s too hard, I don’t mind grinding and learning, just like I would do for a JRPG or many other games. Just don’t feel like it’s that fun after 5-10 hours of fighting.
Replies(1)This is a good choice, although I would argue playing this game on a console or controller completely eliminates it from the discussion.
Eh.
I have it on both the PC and Xbox. It's better on keyboard/mouse, but I don't think it's bad on a controller.
Not a bad list at all. The only one I haven't played there is Mortal Shell, but all the other games are great choices, with Shadow Of War and MOTHERFUCKING KING SHIT SUPREME DRAGON'S DOGMA as my personal favorites there.
No. They're good at letting you in on the story. If you have it on GoG/Steam some minor stuff carries over, but you don't really need to play the older games to fully enjoy the third.
I do recommend playing the second game in general though. It's really good. I love the original, but it's really antiquated by today's standards. I think you could only fully enjoy it if you played it back when it released. Also has some pacing issues.
Unfortunately I've only got a ps4 and I dont recall TW2 being available on the platform. I guess I could watch story recaps of both 1 & 2 on youtube or entire walkthrough if need be. Thanks for clarifying. You're alright 😁
I would love to see exactly why I'm getting the downvotes.
I don't actually care about them, I just think it's obnoxious being I didn't say anything I don't find true.
That's why the voting system shouldn't even be. You get a lot more information from actually verbally stating your point, thus actually adding to the conversation, than just hitting a nothing button.
Replies(1)
Super excited! Absolutely loved the first game, the nemesis system is badass.
'there has been no major third party emphasis on showcasing new and upcoming games running on the Pro'
Did the journalist miss the Pro reveal?
First game had its flaws, mainly story and lackluster DLC. But the game itself was excellent. The nemesis system was superb.
As long as the world is bigger with npcs,towns sidequests,etc and everything isn't brown I'll be a happy camper. Oh and def a better story with a longer playtime. I truly did love the first one mostly because of The combat and nemesis system but that won't be enough this time especially after playing the witcher 3 and horizon since
Think I paid £8 for the first and I was surprisingly pleased. If this one looks good I expect I'll be picking it up much sooner. Only just watched the reveal trailer, very cool.