If you read my review of Black Ops for PS3, you'll note I was none too happy about it. For convenience sake, I've linked it here: http://n4g.com/channel/call...
It's now been over a month since Black Ops has been out. I've played it intermittently, always drawn back by the promise of having fun in the latest COD outing, and every time I've gone back, I've turned it off in frustration only a game or two after.
Last night when a few mates came over for a rainy Saturday night indoors, I had a revelation. You see, we bill these nights, in jest, as simply 'pwning noobs'.'Come over and pwn noobs' I'll sms to them when we're asking each other what's on for Saturday night. We tell the girlfriends we're having 'boy's night', and 4 or 5 of my friends come over, we sit in my bedroom with beer and wine, and we get a little drunk, passing the controller on after a few deaths on shooters. It's a great way to catch up, sit around and just chill out with friends.
A few games will get a run over the course of the night. Killzone 2, Bad Company 2 in the beginning. But the staple of these nights is always the fast an frantic action of Call of Duty online. But last night at about 9pm when I went to pop Black Ops into the PS3 there were 4 voices of uniform protest. 'Not Black Ops, it's shit!'; 'The graphics are worse!'; 'You can't stay in a lobby, it keeps disconnecting!'; 'It lags too much!'.
All four of my friends present are PS3 owners. All four bought Black Ops day one, like me. All four feel like they got burned. So I didn't put Black Ops into the PS3, I put in Modern Warfare 2- a game I hadn't actually played since purchasing Black Ops. The game loaded up, we were immediately put into a full team deathmatch lobby, and a game started in Highrise.
We all started singing the same praise. We noted first, how smoothly it ran compared to the frame-fucked stutter sessions of Black Ops. It was smooth as silk! You could actually target your enemies, line them up in your sights! See them running, and all animated smoothly! The resolution, oh the resolution! It was crisp! Things just didn't blend into the distance, you could see your enemy, not just a pile of brown and green pixels! People started getting care packages and killstreak rewards. AC130's, Predator Missiles, and all sorts of explosions everywhere, and the game handled it without missing a beat! Frames weren't skipping so players just appeared and disappeared in front of you. Bullet hits weren't delayed but a half second. It all came together so nicely.
We all just sat and played for the next few hours, and came to the same conclusion. Black Ops is a con. We were sold an unfinished inferior product. We bought it on the back of our experience with Modern Warfare 2- which we realised how much we had missed- and surmised Black Ops gives Call of Duty a bad name. Treyarch couldn't reach the hurdle Infinity Ward set, and they missed it by a longshot.
Over a month on and it's still not fixed. Treyarch and Activision haven't bothered patching the PS3 version to fix its numerous issues. It's still the same stuttering mess it was on launch day. It's got more bugs than the Amazon jungle. In short, I just can't play it anymore. I'm listing it on eBay.
Yet it's still one of the highest praised games released all year. Spike TV lauded it with the best shooter of the year award- which in my opinion definitely should have gone to Bad Company 2. Numerous websites canvassing GOTY contenders slip Black Ops into the discussion. It's rated highly by nearly every major gaming website, but its one of the most disappointing releases of 2010.
So here's my humble opinion. The only conclusion I can draw is that gaming journalists are not independent media sources. They are cash for comment advertising officers. This opinion is nothing new, plenty hold this view.
Gaming 'media' outlets are too afraid to bad mouth big releases like Activision's cash cow, because the publishers spend so much money on advertising. If they give a bad review- they risk a advertising accounts, they risk losing 'exclusive' interview privileges. They risk losing getting things like review copies, or invites to 'reveals' and other big corporate events. Many gaming 'journalists' are not journalists at all. They're closer to a salaried cheer squad, who's livelihoods and lifestyles revolve around having their backs scratched by the industry in return for the ego trip of 'exclusive' treatment.
I've no doubt the same thing happened with Modern Warfare 2. In-fact it was widely reported at the time. But the difference was, Modern Warfare 2, despite some minor flaws, was a good game. It just wasn't and isn't possessed of the same fuck ups that Black Ops is. 'Nuff said.
A number of leaks have popped up that reference Pokemon Black and White remakes in some way. Are they all coincidences or real in 2024?
The Final Fantasy VII Rebirth combat director has expressed that he wants the final part in the trilogy to offer players "even more freedom".
I love the game so far but please don’t make the final part a mini game fest
Everytime I get to a new part in Rebirth it’s “mini game time”
Hope ya don't mind me asking since it seems like you've played it, did it feel like a decent step up from the last game or was it more like the best from the last but more polished?
It makes Remake feel like a demo.
9.5/10 imo. And I think the “mini games” did a great job of adding variety to the gameplay. Purely optional as well.
Here's my thoughts
I think it's a big step up from the first instalment, I'm enjoying it way more.
I thought keeping it just in Midgar was silly, it felt dragged out and it didn't have much variation in terms of the scenery.
However with Rebirth, as soon as you get out of Kalm you have a big world to explore and it's great to just wander round and explore.
Now that I'm half way in though, despite still liking what I'm playing, the gameplay loop is now starting to slow down on me. I've got to a new region and I'm like "Yaaay...need to go and find those towers again, oh look another special beast marker, is that a bird I see in the distance? Better follow it to another Mako Crystal"
It's like....you know how Peter Jackson was only supposed to have two Hobbit films then Warner Bros wanted a third film so he stretched the second film out as much as he could so he could keep stuff for the third film making a trilogy? Yeah it feels like that, so these mini games are a part of that overall gameplay loop to keep us going and stretch the game out overall so they have something for the third and final game.
I personally think you could have had the first instalment get you out of Midgar and through to Grasslands / Junon and the second game finishes things off.
I had a weird cycle of love/hate for all the mini games as I played through. At first I really hated the seeming need to check all these boxes while exploring the grasslands. I didn't enjoy the Gilgamesh quest initially, and thought Queen's blood was fine but didn't want to commit to it. The side quests didn't really grab me either.
Then for some reason everything in Junon region changed my mind and I did pretty much everything. I liked most of the side quests, I actually liked playing fort condor (didn't care for it in the intergrade dlc). And my interest for completing these quests stayed pretty much through to Cosmo Canyon.
Then they added that horrible Lifestream memory/battle mini game and I started getting so burnt out of it all. I just wanted to do the story. I didn't do any side quests in neibleheim and beyond except for the summon. I abandoned Gilgamesh.
So what I'm saying is I would like the third part to go back to the focused progression from remake. Keep the mini games to the gold saucer. Start the game snowboarding if you want, but from there keep the story rolling.
That's funny you say that because I did everything in the Grasslands but once in Junon I started to slow down a little until Corel where by the end I was burnt out. I'm still currently going but I'm just doing what I can while things keep getting thrown at me.
I would have preferred half of these mini game side fillers / collectibles for some really beefy side quests that really adds onto the world of FFVII.
Sounds like they hadn't really figured out what they wanted to do with Remake and this one is more of what they thought of doing which is probably why they're dragging it out to make a trilogy. Disappointed to hear it has towers cause man do i hate towers lol. It's been a while since I've played the first and it'll be a while longer to play the sequel, but it sounds like I'll enjoy it. 7 really impressed me especially after being disappointed with 15, felt like Square finally realized that FF was THEIR big franchise again.
How many hours are you into it at this point?
My friend got like 20-30 in and pretty much quit because of its mini game era. He loved and basically binged through Gran Blue compared to Rebirth
As long as it comes out on PS5 to have the entire series on one platform, do whatever you want
The combat is my favorite thing about Rebirth. Would be really cool if they can improve it even more.
I hope after FF7 Square will either give a new FF game the remake treatment. Or give some of their older titles a remake treatment like Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, even Xenogears.
Wccf tech writes: "Kingdom Come Deliverance 2's scope was impacted by the Xbox Series S hardware limitations, as developers could only make a game that was 25% bigger than its predecessor."
This is the issue with things like this
Xbox Series X is apparently to MS the worlds most powerful console
However the Series S is obviously a limitation because it’s underpowered and developers have to go for parity.
So what’s the point of the world’s most powerful console if you are holding third party developers back? They aren’t going to push themselves if they have to think about the weakest console.
The issue wouldn’t be as bad if it was just Xbox but you are also affecting the PS version aswell
I think developers need to start just taking advantage of a console and if one of them can’t do X Y and Z then f*** them…why should the others suffer. What’s MS going to do? The bigger the franchise the least chance MS are going to tell them to f*** off. Baulders Gate 3 seemed to have stood their ground and suddenly their “strict” parity rule didn’t really matter. We suddenly got super optimisation efforts for the Series S that got things sorted.
I agree, and the sad part is use normal folk saw it the second they announced their plans.
Agree 100% this is why I didn’t want the M$ Monopoly, now PS5 version will be held back too.
If PS5 Pro comes out and Series S is still a thing it’ll be interesting what differences and what devs choose to do. Really hoping Rockstar pushes the PS5 pro with GTA6 and we get the best version possible.
Good ole S indeed. Everyone knew this all along. S was holding games back...Now where the hell is Orchard i want a word with him.
More info from the author of the article, I think: https://www.reddit.com/r/ki...
Quote:
"1) I was told this info from the producer of the game Martin Klíma.
2) He specifically said the game will have only one mode.
3) And this mode is 4K 30 on PS5/XSX and 1440p 30 on XSS.
4) He said that the game is already running north of the 30 FPS cap so the performance should be stable on launch, much better than KCD1.
5) The limitation was XSS because of the 10GB memory. He said that's why they wanted to make the game 25% larger.
6) Speculation on my part: the output resolution is probably upscaled and the reason why there won't be a 60 FPS mode is because it'll most likely be very CPU heavy, like Dragon's Dogma 2 for example."
Doesn't seem like they're adding a 40fps mode on PS5/Series X for launch even if they can handle it.
I'd much rather have 1440p/60fps or even 45fps. Having just one, even with the Series S in mind, is disappointing.
Remember when xbots were adamant that the series s won’t hold back the gen?
Microsoft just needs to let go of the mandatory parity. Who cares if your grandma doesn’t understand that a game cannot be played on the S. It’s not like it she can buy you a physical game for it anyway. Before buying the game put up a notice that it only works on series X. If you’re buying for a friend-allow for a refund.
Bam. Everyone is happy. Most series s owners are for casuals that want Game Pass anyway and most likely don’t purchase most games.
If the developers want it to run on S, let them figure it out.
If it were Series X only then they'd only be selling to 25% of the Xbox Series userbase, and that's certainly not worth the time and effort into doing a port. Could just do PS5 & PC instead. No compromises needed.
“During the event, the Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 producer also revealed that on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X, the game will run at 4K resolution and 30 frames per second“
Another “creative decision” right? 🤦♂️
Since you're not an amateur and clearly know more than them, can you over there and help get the game running on the S without having to sacrifice their true vision. Us gamers would really appreciate you using your wisdom for good 🙏
Thousands of games run just fine on S.
But Kingdom Come is the game that can’t. Must be one hell of a game!
Thousands of games run on PS4 and on Switch. If developers want them to run on those systems. Fine. Those two platforms still get new games. Sony isn’t making studios also make a ps4 pro version, or Nintendo a wiiu version. Microsoft technically is.
If games like Alan Wake 2, GTA6, COD, hellblade all run on S, no excuse for this 100x smaller and 100x worse looking game to be held back.
"Thousands of games run just fine on S.
But Kingdom Come is the game that can’t. Must be one hell of a game!"
Kingdom come 2 runs just fine alright. Its the SCOPE that they want. They had to cut it because of the stupid S series. Hellblade2 ran just fine too..but im pretty confident if it was just the X in mind, the scope of the game would have been much bigger.
I dunno, if you get on a server were everyone has a 4 bar connection, lag is less of an issue than in MW2 from my own experience, and at least you can set the matchmaking to local.
The framerate can be sluggish, but, again from my experience, only when someone has a napalm strike called in or maybe from chopper gunners/gunships. I haven't had frame drop issues from dogs surprisingly, i though that would be the worst.
I find it kind of funny how you complain about these two issues in Black Ops and then sing the praises of Bad Company 2. Now I love Battlefield and have ever since BF2, and though I loved its latest addition, almost everygame I played was plauged but intense periods of lag, framerate issues when lots of sh*t is getting blown up, the latency on which (the destruction) must have been up around 100ms.
Some sites undoubtedly do get paid off by publishers, but the majority of them probably just have had different experiences to you.
"Black Ops is a con. We were sold an unfinished inferior product. We bought it on the back of our experience with Modern Warfare 2- which we realised how much we had missed- and surmised Black Ops gives Call of Duty a bad name. Treyarch couldn't reach the hurdle Infinity Ward set, and they missed it by a longshot."
Many bought BlackOps because they felt MW2 gave CoD a bad name and hoped that Trey would do things differently.
Trey wasn't supposed to reach IW's hurdle, but rather, was supposed to run in the opposite direction.
Seems they ran too far and butchered the engine in the process. =/
A few patches have been released and I believe a new one is on way for PS3. Trey does seem to be providing support, so thats a good thing... perhaps.
Although I do agree, the scores were generally higher than they should've been. Just gotta decide which outlets you trust.
I trust PCGamer and they gave it around 6.5/10. I'm happy with that.
It can also be that some reviewers play the game on one system (360 for example) and do a quick play session on another system (ps3) and take a few impressions and publish the score for both systems.
... though it seems some exclusively PS3 reviewers gave the game a perfect score. =/
Online experiences do tend to vary from person to person.
I love the MP. Had little issues with lag and framerate. Had many issues with freezing though.
I love the game, a lot like you I find it to be a good fun social game.
The PS3 version did get screwed but I'm riding it out until they bring in the patches that are meant to fix freezing. Frameate was bad at first for me but has improved since.
As for reviews: they NEVER detail multiplayer. Ever. They likely played with bots and will generally praise the wealth of content or the new killstreaks, etc. Matters like balance, lag, etc. are rarely addressed, and I think if reviewers had such a prominent issue with such things they would report it.
I would give BO a solid 8.5 When you tie in the overall package I can understand how it scored 9.0s
For PS3, the game sucks period. For 360, it still sucks online (though not half as hard). I personally play CoD games for the thrilling single-player, a department which was very well done for my 360 version of Black Ops.
And, I'm sorry, but MW 2 still sucks hard balls. Equal balls as the PS3 version of Black Ops, just in different ways.
100% correct