Console Wars Thread! PS4 vs. Xbox One vs. Wii U Fight!

I like this. +1 to MS.

Forza and Titanfall may not be big draws for me personally, but at least MS is making some real efforts now to make sure consumers are getting a game they really want, for free, to go with their $500 console, effectively reducing the price a little bit.

 

+1

I prefer GT, but I generally consider Forza and GT to both be very good games. I treat them as cancelling each other out. It's all down to personal preference.

And I like Burnout better than both of them. Arcade racing FTW. :grin:

 

outrun!

 

Has any 360 fanboy here successfully made the switch to ps4. I was set on the xbox until I played the FIFA demo on the ps4 today. Fwiw today was the first day I played with either system. I wasn't too pleased with the rb and lb triggers on the Xbox controller.

 

I only played on Xbox until I switched over to PS4 (again, my first playstation). I prefer the PS4 controller over the 360 controller. I haven't played enough with the Xbox One controller to judge, but it feels a bit too small (I have large hands). I didn't like any of the prior Playstation controllers in the slightest bit. Beyond that I really like the free games with PSN+, though I felt people on Xbox were more social over all. Looking forward to Infamous later this month, about to watch a IGN's replay of their live stream today.

Edit: They don't show much they haven't already shown in the stream, but that's not such a bad thing I do want to be surprised. There is good commentary with one of the developers though, and it is informative.

<iframe src="http://widgets.ign.com/video/embed/content.html?url=http://www.ign.com/videos/2014/03/06/ign-live-presents-infamous-second-son" width="468" height="263" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Not every game has to have multiplayer...are you being serious right now? The game has multiple endings, possibly even multiple for "good" and "bad".

 

Road Rash! :grin:

Multiplayer is a big factor in replayability for a lot of people, but for some it's not.

To me FF7, FFX, Valkyria Chronicles, the original X-Com, Chrono Cross, the Souls games... are all endlessly replayable, with no multiplayer. Different strokes.

 

Why did we ever replay games before online gaming?

Oh yeah, because great games are worth replaying.

 

I agree and disagree... I don't think a great game needs to be online. Some recent examples being Fallout, BioShock, Batman Arkham, Mass Effect, Skyrim, etc. As much as I love those games, I didn't replay them. I may 2-3 years down the road, but at that point I could get it on Steam sale or used for a few bucks.

However, multi-player DOES make that initial investment easier to swallow. I think RPGs make that investment easier to swallow as well due to hours played per dollar... BioShock on the other hand, is 8-15 hours of gameplay? After that it just sits there until you are bored again. Great game, lousy "value" when compared to others.

 

You consider Skyrim a great game? Lol, I bet you think Infinite has a good story too.

That depends on what you'd consider a fanboy.

I owned (and still do) the original Xbox with the fat controllers and I bought a 360 first. About a week later I returned it. Then bought a fat PS3 with BC as soon as the first price drop happened. Best gaming decision I ever made.

 

The explosion of multiplayer games has had a snowball effect of single player modes getting more and more craptastic. More time is spent on the multiplayer side of the game, possibly for nefarious (micro-transactions) reasons.

I hope there is some backlash or revolution soon. I liked the PC Battlefield games at first but now find most multiplayers less interesting.

 

Pretty sure plenty of people consider Skyrim a great game.

 

Reminds me of what is possibly the stupidest review of a game I've seen, in which Borderlands 2 is roundly criticized for, well, not being Call of Duty. The basic argument is that since Borderlands 2 is an FPS, then it should include a robust competitive multiplayer element, as any FPS without competitive multiplayer clearly has no replay value.

Of course, this argument is completely invalid. It ignores that Borderlands 2 is a fundamentally different kind of game than Call of Duty and all the other generic military shooters. It was never conceived as a competitive multiplayer game, and shouldn't be judged negatively for not being the type of game a particular player wants it to be. I mean, I have a preference for turn-based strategy games over RTSes, but I would never write a review of Starcraft in which I marked it down for not being GalCiv 2. To do so would be to miss the point.

So yeah, saying that all next-gen games need online components is kind of a silly thing to say. Whether a game needs online multiplayer depends on what kind of experience the game developer is envisioning. It shouldn't be shoehorned in "just because."

 

The things I would do for a next gen Burnout...that game was fantastic and Im usually not into arcade racers. That one, however, was ****ing awesome.

 

And?

I don't think I need to comment on your fanboyism or lack of objectivity, both here and in that certain other section of the forum.

Skyrim was a dumbed down Oblivion, streamlined for the masses and at best a B- for anyone who actually has played video games. I'm sure kids whose first consoles were 360/PS3 consider it a masterpiece though.

 

That goes also to the sequels of Dragon Age and Mass Effect games; Streamlined and dumb-downed for the masses.

 

Dumbed-down how though? Maybe I'm just not remembering Oblivion that well, but I did play it for a couple hundred hours. And from the maybe 20 hours I've played of Skyrim, I haven't really noticed any drastic dumbing-down.

Admittedly I've played a lot less Skyrim than I have Morrowind and Oblivion, but I consider that a result of becoming burnt out on the style of game, not that Skyrim is dumbed down. If anything, I'm more inclined to say Morrowind was easily the superior overall game experience to Oblivion and Skyrim, but it had that fatal flaw that was its combat system, or lack thereof. Blocking was an auto-chance as if the game was trying to be isometic, and offense was handled exactly the same dumb way.

Still, it was just so much more interesting of a world. Morrowind > Oblivion = Skyrim from what I've experienced (admittedly not having beaten Skyrim yet). I think they're all great, though. Just different strengths is all.

Mass Effect sequels I definitely agree are dumbed-down. Missed the more RPG-ish tendencies of ME1 in particular, also having a bunch of biotic abilities tied to hotkeys on the PC version and just Darth Vader'n fools all over the place.

 

I didn't like Skyrim, either. But the fact is that a lot of people do, and not just fanboys, but legit critics. The 360 version got a 96 on metacritic, for cryin' out loud.

Of course, whether Skyrim in particular is great or not really isn't the point. The point is that there are lots of great single-player games. In fact, most of my favorite games ever are either single-player games or have a single-player focus: From Software's King's Field series, Capcom's Resident Evil 4, From Software's Souls series (which does have multiplayer, but I tend to play offline anyway). The exception among my favorite games is Capcom's Monster Hunter series, which has cooperative (but not competitive) multiplayer, and again can be played all by your lonesome if desired (since I have MH3U on the 3DS, I actually don't have a choice, as only the WiiU version can go online).