Like Skyrim before it, I treat these type of games almost like a live service game. I’ve seen complaints the game is too big in scope. I’ve watched the Starfield direct a few times now and I can’t recall being so hyped for a game. You’d think it’d be the other way round but it seems like PlayStation has forgotten how it became so popular in the first place. The only one that seemed to be out of step with that idea is Sony, with all their live service games. If there was one common trend at the various showcases I’d say that it showed that single-player games are back and as important as ever, with Microsoft clearly recognising that fact.
The idea that it’s purposefully meant to be single-player but with AI co-op seems like a good idea to me and I’m glad they’ve leaned into it. I never got on with the original Dragon’s Dogma, and am kind of surprised it’s coming back, but I find myself strangely interested in the idea of the sequel. The problem with that trailer is that while it confirms they’re keeping the tone and humour you can’t tell anything about how it’ll actually play.
Best games on ps now series#
The bad approach is to feel the need to keep putting in references, including in terms of combat, and being held back by a series that was never any good to start with. The best approach for Fable would be to ditch everything except the humour and make a brand new game that doesn’t necessarily keep anything from the original. They have a lot of franchise envy at Xbox, I’ve noticed, where they seem aware they haven’t got super nostalgic, long-running series like Zelda or God Of War and they try to pretend Gears Of War, or whatever is, rather than just trying to make something new. I think I saw another reader suggest something similar before but for me my concern with Fable is how much Microsoft has convinced itself the original is a classic, because it’s not. We saw them again later at Ubisoft Forward – where Phil Spencer and Geoff Keighley were also in the audience. GC: Actually, there was a delegation of mid-level Nintendo execs standing right behind us in the queue to get into the Xbox Games Showcase. I have no idea if that might be true but what I do know is that gaming is really exciting again: a bunch of big name games have come out and they’re great and now we’ve got the console manufacturers warring for our attention. Unless Sony is playing 4D chess and this is all part of their big masterplan. Plus, we got some good old fashion controversy too, with Microsoft stirring the pointing and making Sony look silly. Still, we got some big new game announcements and I’d say most of them looked pretty great. Considering how much happened I have no idea why they didn’t just carry on and do E3, instead of creating this weird patchwork version with bits missing, but I’m guessing most publishers probably don’t get on that well, especially the big three. I mean it’s kind of obvious that throwing that kind of money around, to buy the biggest publisher is not going to be healthy for anyone and now the whole circus is going to roll on for even longer.įor a not-E3 where most publishers didn’t even have their own event I think the last few days have actually been pretty exciting.
The two biggest Western video game markets both think that the Activision Blizzard deal is bad for the industry and its consumers and I think that’s significant. Just days after the Xbox Games Showcase the Federal Trade Commission chooses that exact moment to file an injunction against Microsoft buying Activision Blizzard? Apart from making it clear that it’s not just the CMA that’s against the deal (is the US also not open for business, Microsoft?) it actually seems to make the idea that the terrible PlayStation Showcase was a ‘trap’ seem kind of plausible.ĭon’t get me wrong, I don’t believe it, it sounds like conspiracy garbage, but… it’s much harder to disprove than I would’ve thought. I’m somehow also reminded of Beyond: Good & Evil Ubisoft Massive have done the seemingly impossible with Outlaws in creating the perfect substitute for a real sequel in all but name.
0 kommentar(er)
