That was original Xbox, not Dreamcast
Probably jumped the gun anyway. Surely it would be a Saturn first. That would be great oc course, but it's much harder to go back to than the Dreamcast.
Clueless article? I said VR will continue to sell millions, simply that it will fail to become a genuinely mainstream product for quite some time. Same with Stadia. Both will probably get there in time, but right now, the tech isn't there for genuine mainstream appeal.
Wait, everyone seems to suggest VR is doing great? Hasn't PS VR sold less than 5 million units? To put that in to context, Kinect sold nearly 30 million?
Ok, I've clearly hit a nerve on the whole VR thing. Just yo be clear, VR is great, but if you think it's doing great, you're out of your mind. Outside of the hardcore gaming crowd, I literally know nobody who owns VR. And as for not being cumbersome....come on. It'll be genuinely user friendly one day, and yes, it might go genuinely mainstream, but VR is a long way from that. Stadia will have the same issues. Something just like it will hit big in like 6 years, but again, not ...
When I criticise VR, it is again from that mainstream perspective. It's impressive technology, but it is cumbersome. It's also oddly intrusive. It's fun as an experience, but I'm convinced that most people don't want to use technology on a regular basis that totally blocks out the rest of the world. I don't mind playing a video game when my wife is in the room, but VR is a different beast. I wouldn't sit there with that on my head with anyone else in the room.
I think you wildly overestimate how many people have that kind of internet speed. In places like the UK and US, I'm guessing the average is far lower. What you will be looking at is an inconsistent service that won't be able to deliver the promise of 4k gaming to the majority of punters.
VR is here (as I make clear in the article), but it's far from mainstream. I'm suggesting Stadia will have similar issues I.e. it will do ok, but will fall well short of true mainstream success
I totally agree. It should be good now, but that doesn't mean that it won't be good in the future. That's still bitterly disappointing of course, but at least there is the potential for a good game. Some 'bad' games (not that I think Anthem is actually bad) are bad forever....I suspect that EA and BioWare will at least turn this around. They've made a mess of it, but at least it's not all bad.....glass half full I suppose.
You can never know 100%, but given how much is riding on this, I'd say it's a safe bet that EA will stick with it, and yeah, if they iron out its myriad issues, there is enough at the core of the experience to suggest that it will be great. That doesn't absolve the parties involved of blame now and it doesn't mean that the game is worth it's current asking price, I'm just saying that, despite the disappointment in the now, Anthem still has a chance at greatness. I know...
Oh, I agree. Nintendo are a different class. I just think that (while far from ideal), we just have to accept the games as service model. It still sucks, but at least the core of a good game is there. Ironically, this game will be much better when it costs £15...is that ironic? I don't know. You know what I mean.
I totally agree, but games as service are somewhat unique in that regard. If you buy a Nintendo game, it'll more than likely be the exact same game when you come back a year later - Anthem though, it'll be a different beast with loads of refinements and additional content. It's just part of the games as service model....not that it's a viable excuse for some of Anthem's issues.
I guess expectations play a part too. I like loot shooters too, but I'm usually happy to play through the story and call it a day. 15-20 hours is plenty with so many other games sitting on my shelf.
I do agree that games should be ready out of the box so to speak, but that's never the case with games as service. We know it will be a different game in 12 months, and while I appreciate that some of the issues should have been ironed out pre launch, I'm just saying that the experience has a chance at greatness on the basis of it's fantastic core mechanics.
Much the same story. As much as I loved the original, that was years ago, and 3 looked bad...terrible first impression, and then suddenly, it was 5 hours later and I was still playing it. It appears that video games can occasionally be bad and fun.
I appreciate a lot of people love this game, and yes, the critical response was amazing positive, but I'm amazed that so many are able to overlook such clumsy gameplay. I always feel the same about the big Bathesda games. On paper, I should love them - the scope, the aesthetic, the storytelling, but as soon as I start, I can't get past the disappointing gameplay. Probably why I ended up playing Dragons Dogma rather than Skyrim
Saying it was the 'biggest disappointment', doesn't mean that I'm saying it's a bad game. It's all relative. It was hugely disappointing because my expectations were sky high. As stated in the article, much of Red Dead 2 is exceptional, but for me at least, poor design choices and clunky gameplay undermine much of the experience. The fact that everything else exceeds expectations makes those issues all the tougher to take as I want to enjoy it, I want to love it, but d...
I think it has done decent numbers and it was always likely to do out of the gate, I'm just not sure it'll be a big hit in the long run. Is it worth it to dilute their message? Perhaps it'll be a massive hit, but I'm not convinced.
What does it mean when an article is 'fresh'? Does it just mean newly added / approved?
I know, but it was the only picture I could find. I was going to go for 30, but 20 (ok, 21) felt like a more realistic number. I actually agree on the NFL game, but it was such an inonic game for the DC.