Regret buying an xbox one.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Anon_lawyer

Member
Sep 8, 2014
57
9
71
Both consoles are still outselling their preceding generation by a fair amount, right? Who cares. They're BOTH successful. They both work. I own both for a reason, tbh.

I have to think that if we traveled back in time to just before launch, and told the Xbox team how well it had sold by 2016, they would be thrilled... unless we also told them about PS4 sales.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Meh, like I said, Xbox has Forza. What does Sony have?

Try to...

Tales of Zestiria and Final Fantasy XIV.

These are just two that I care about more than make believe Lamborghinis and a racing simulator that for all it's focus on delivering realism will never be able to simulate the most realistic thing about driving in the first place. Inertia. The #1 most critical driver feedback mechanism in high performance driving.

Personal opinions though. I mostly prefer actual video games and or fantasy worlds. I've never been big on racing or sports games or what are effectively attempts at virtual versions copies of real life. The only racing games I've ever enjoyed are ones like Rock n Roll Racing or Mario Kart, eg games not simulators.

If I want to drive, I'll drive. If I want to play ball, I'll go to a park.

Slaying dragons or flying the sky in a giant robot with a sword of light however aren't things I can do or expect to see every day in real life. These types of things fit what my expectation of a video game is.

I can see the appeal for these types of realistic "games" for others, I mean I could see myself getting completely absorbed in a rocket or spaceflight simulator (ADR1FT looks interesting), but in general they aren't for me. To me sports and racing games would be like playing a game where you go home from work and go on the internet to participate in forums talking about video games or watching football on TV. Or reading a book about driving a car. They aren't "video games" to me. I guess I don't dream about driving Lamborghinis or playing professional NFL either for virtual versions to have any appeal to me.

I'm more into jumping into magical portals and saving worlds. Games with a prologue, gameplay in the middle, and epilogue. With music and narration and dialog and voice acting and fictional events that happen and which affect fictional people in a fictional world. Choosing a track or a stadium or golf course and just playing till time runs out or there is a winner? And then doing it again? And again? Meh.

That's what Sony and Nintendo have over Microsoft. More fiction, fantasy, and cinematic experiences. Oh you have Halo. Don't kid yourself, it's a dumbed down action shooter first and foremost.

Microsoft's demographic favors realism, realistic life simulation, quick fix zero investment versus arcade matchups and pwning each other online, machismo "mature" manly themes, and shooting and blowing stuff up. Microsoft's first advertisement about Xbox One wasn't even about Xbox One or video games it was an ad about NFL featuring middle age men with side burns and sports jerseys, how's that for defining your target market?

I'm not sure they are capable of making a game that isn't trying to look like real time FMV showing every pec muscle ripple and glistening bead of sweat, and every scar and sideburn hair with half the texture budget dedicated to gun or car models. Sunset Overdrive and Project Spark are probably the only two recent attempts that come to mind. Most everything else they make seems to harbor too much realism and seriousness.

I want my games to have fictional races with cat ears and weird alien or monster physiology or talking animals or little kids or all sorts of not every day make believe characters. I don't want to just hang out with a bunch of realistic looking scruffy grunting virtual bald black guys or steroid injected white guys with douche chin beards and piercings. And when I do want realistic, I'll play with someone like the re-imaged Lara Croft, a weak injured desperate cold realistically depicted human desperate to survive harsh circumstances against all odds. Not some meathead 1 liner dropping grunting pile of untouchable attitude and testosterone.

"Fun realistic" to me is "oh my god I'm probably going to die /counts bullets only 3 left $%^#" aka The Last of Us and Tomb Raider, not pompously waltzing into a room with 100 bad guys with guns with a smug smirk on my face like I'm untouchable.

Nintendo? Nothing needs to be said why I would find their games appealing, they are pretty much opposite of Microsoft's focus. All fun and games, vivid colors, and sillyness, sometimes with puzzles and exploring. They aren't so uptight and serious with their games, quite the opposite. Extra resource budget? Nintendo would add glow effects or or richer fur shaders or something. Microsoft would be trying to make the rifles or car rims more accurate and realistic looking.

Sony may have some of these types of "realistic" games as well but they aren't afraid to diversify. The Order 1886 for example, for all it's focus on realistic graphics and shooting stuff is still a decent fiction and cinematic experience even if short.

As for me? I'm content with the cliche orphan kid with a sword slaying dragons and saving the world over a 100 hour story arc or cartoon characters jumping around on islands floating in the sky on Nintendo and Sony platforms. And I don't have an ADHD fit and turn the game off when there is a 15 minute cinematic where I can't blow something up or customize something or build a gun or a car.
 
Last edited:

Lil Frier

Platinum Member
Oct 3, 2013
2,720
21
81
And that's a big problem all by itself.

Forza Halo and Gears is ALL it has. Microsoft is just a 3 trick pony releasing the same 3 games over and over and over again and the too cool for skool 'nadebros eat it up like it's something to brag about that Sony and Nintendo don't have.

It's like the dumbass who think's he's cool riding around in slammed hellaflush murdered out G37. He actually thinks hes a badass but in reality hes the only one not laughing at what a retard he is.

Also, in before the usual AT suspects respond to defend their favorite 'nadebro box.

Also I have like 4 Xbox One consoles (Day One, white MC, Halo 5, and Elite) and all whopping 22 physical exclusives that have released in the past what 2-3 years?

4 of them are Forza (Forza 5, Forza 5 GOTY, Forza Horizon 2, and Forza 6)
2 of them are Halo, one of which is a collection of old games (MCC and 5)
1 of them is a Gears remaster from almost a decade ago
3 more at least are GOTY remakes of previous day one games (Dead Rising, Ryse, Forza 5. etc)
3 of them are 360 ports of filler games that were only cross released to pad the launch title count (Disney Fantasia, Zoo Tycoon, Shape Up)
1 is another Halo/Gears/CoD 'nadebro shooter (Titanfall)
2 are MS pretending to have non shooter/sports genres but are really just bragging they have Rare by remaking old content(Killer Instinct, Rare Replay)
1 is a Kinect Sports for a dead periphreal that shows what lame shit MS is REALLY having Rare doing these days
1 is State of Decay not a bad game but a XBO port of a 360 game
A couple other oddballs light Fighter Within and ScreamRide.

I'm not counting Rise of the Tomb Raider because it will be on PS4 later this year where it will likely break 1 mil units on launch.

That leaves only 2 legit notable decent interesting fresh non typical MS games in 3 years that aren't Halo, Forza, Gears, or resurrected past content:

Sunset Overdrive and Project Spark.

This is a worse library than the Wii U that everyone loves to hate on.

Think about that for a bit before responding (not that it will matter to someone hellbent on getting butthurt).

The last two releases for XBO were Sept and Oct 2015... and they were... SURPRISE...yet another Halo 5 and Forza 6...

Scalebound, Crackdown, Sea of Thieves, Recore, Gears of War 4, Fable Legends, Phantom Dust, Halo Wars 2, and Quantum Break are on my upcoming list, am I missing anything? Some of these like Phantom Dust might not even happen and the rest don't even have release dates yet that I'm aware of.

So Halo 5 and Forza 6 is all that we've seen on XBO since Sept/Oct 2015.

Meanwhile since that same time Wii U had Xenoblade Chronicles X, Rodea the Sky Soldier, Yoshi's Woolly World, Animal Crossing amiibo Festival, Mario Tennis Ultra Smash, Devil's Third,

and will additionally see before another XBox One exclusive launches,

Twilight Princess HD, Pokken Tournament, and Star Fox Zero, in addition to a Bayonetta 2 re-release (not sure why but I welcome it to fuck over the resellers since the original release is out of print).

Doing the same comparison for PS4 would be more difficult since it's my multiplat console of choice, I'd have to sort through all the shovelware, indy physical releases, multiplat games, etc but I don't recall any huge PS4 exclusive hits releasing the past couple months.

Notable entries that I can remember, cutting off at at Sept 1, '15, are Megadimension Neptunia VII, Sword Art Online, Nitroplus Blasterz, Gravity Rush, Tiny Troopers, Uncharted Collection, Tales of Zestiria, Until Dawn, Metal Gear Solid V (multi plat but is traditionally a Playstation IP), One Piece Pirate Warriors, and ???

Never fear though, there will probably be a Halo 6 and Forza 7 to fill the gap between last September and the next XBO games in the upcoming list to get a release date...no not enough time so we should see a Halo 5 GOTY and Forza 6 GOTY announced any week now... we are due for another "neener neener neener we have Rare even though they are a mere shell of their former self and we don't let them do anything anyway" announcement as well.

Wow, that's a big, dumb dump of logic. "Microsoft has too many sequels. Nintendo has a bunch of sequels, and if you put them against the non-sequels of Microsoft, Nintendo has more games." I mean, seriously, could this be any more of a blatant, anti-Xbox rant of garbage?

I can't honestly wade through all the diarrhea of bad logic, but I'll cover a few things:

--You go at MS with Wii U comparisons. How about addressing the fact that the Wii U is a dozen platformers, a few sequels, and Splatoon? You ripped the life cycle of the XB1 for sequels, then talk up the Wii U's recent releases that are 2 straight sequels (XCX, Tennis), a pseudo-sequel (YWW), a complete joke of a turd (Devil's Third), and a Mario Party rip-off that most people said sucked (AC: AF). Oh, then you bring up 3 upcoming Wii U games--2 remakes and an arcade port. Pick some standards and apply them consistently, or don't bother.
--It's a lot easier for Nintendo to crank out exclusives when it doesn't have to come up with original ideas (most everything is a sequel, remake, or port), complex AI (most is 2-D platformers with basic patrol AI), or online functionality. Quantity and quality are different things, and I'd rather wait for a new IP than play the 15th platformer on the Wii U, even though I love some of them (like YWW).
--You literally ripped the XB1 for exclusives, then count MGSV among the PS4 releases, while also noting sequels and remakes galore. Again, if you're going to jump down Microsoft's throat over their cranking out of sequels, don't get whiny when they take more time to get new IPs like Quantum Break, Scalebound, Sea of Thieves, and ReCore together. It's like you complain they have too much non-new IP, then complain that they're not releasing as much non-new IP as the competition.

This honestly might be the worst pairing of posts I've ever read. It's just so bad on so many levels. It's full of self-contradiction, brand bashing, and general stupidity.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
I know, I said at the start there were no notable real PS4 releases before I listed recent exclusives.

As far as the recurrent general argument against Wii U games not having online, by "key online functionality" I take that to mean "no all important competitive versus deathmatch mode to pwn n00bs and epeen my friends" mode which not having it is one of the most attractive things about Wii U games IMO. Not sure why a game like Zelda or Xenoblade needs a friggin deathmatch mode, that's stupid. Go play Halo or Call of Duty if that's so important.

Competitive versus mode does NOT have to be shoveled down the throat of every game that comes out, especially games like JRPGs that are BY DESIGN SINGLE PLAYER. I hate that even Xenoblade Chronicles X has what feels like last minute force mandatory online play (you are required to select a Squad online every time you start the game) just for the sake of saying "look we have a "modern" Wii U game with online support!

Even achievements and trophies and gamer scores and all that are just another form of online internet testosterone competition machismo to keep tabs on who's ahead of who in what game and even when they are offline single player trophies they are all just dumb stupid human pet tricks like "ride 10,000 steps on a chocobo" or "fall off the highest building" that are annoying for people who like to 100% all games they play.

I could do without all that nonsense honestly, there is way too much completely unnecessary competition and aggression and chest thumping and dick comparing in the world as is. I miss solo offline games that weren't about frags or K/D or pwning n00bs. Nintendo still delivers that experience.

That is a HUGE plus for Nintendo IMO.

And if your key online functionality is social media, well I don't have a twitter or facebook account by choice because I don't have a compulsive need to update the world with my personal life every 3 seconds, so why would I give half a fuck if a video game would allow me, or god forbid, FORCE me to do it? Oh hi guys I'm taking a shit now, stay tuned for the unboxing video?


Wall of text assumes things under the delusion that I am talking about death match. No I was referring to team and party chat, twitch streaming, game DVR capability etc.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
53,440
6,293
126
lol @ thinking online functionality == death match only.

the best thing that has happened to this gen for me is that killer instinct made rollback code mainstream in fighting games. then you had mkx come out with complete shit input delay based netcode. then you had sf5 announcing they are doing rollback code for online and the beta has proven to be pretty damn good, almost as good as killer instinct. then you have mkx now completely rewriting their netcode to use rollback and it's currently in beta now.

thanks to killer instinct fighting games are now making rollback code the new standard. now that is what i consider "key online functionality" in a niche genre and something that has revolutionized online gaming for fighters.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
lol @ thinking online functionality == death match only.

the best thing that has happened to this gen for me is that killer instinct made rollback code mainstream in fighting games. then you had mkx come out with complete shit input delay based netcode. then you had sf5 announcing they are doing rollback code for online and the beta has proven to be pretty damn good, almost as good as killer instinct. then you have mkx now completely rewriting their netcode to use rollback and it's currently in beta now.

thanks to killer instinct fighting games are now making rollback code the new standard. now that is what i consider "key online functionality" in a niche genre and something that has revolutionized online gaming for fighters.

Fighting games are multi player vs by design so yeah this is a good thing.

Your first sentence mocks me for claiming that online functionality == death match only, and your counter example is a 1 on 1 competitive fighting game genre? I'm confused. I know there isn't an online coop story mode because rollback code and accuracy wouldn't be as much a concern here where nobody has their life's reputation on the line when crying foul about a hit that did or didn't go through when they win or lose a .... versus match.

No online play is a common complaint with Nintendo games, specifically with a majority of their games specifically being a single player off line couch experience. I could see an argument with something like Smash not having online play.

Their vs oriented games like Splatoon and Smash have online play. What's missing? Aww is there not a publicly visible ladder ranking or something for the world to see relative levels of badassery?

I'm just wondering... when I'm playing Xenoblade Chronicles or Zelda or Super Mario 3D World or Fire Emblem or Kirby or Bravely Default what online play could I possibly be missing out on that is so vital that it's "omg ruining Nintendo for not being modern"? Trophies and sharing my progress? For what purpose other than serving as a point of comparison to someone else who gives a rats ass?

The two primary uses of online play in games are competition and integrating gaming habits with social media addictions, neither of which interest me or Nintendo's core target audience in any way. I'd love some more examples of co-op play, but co-op isn't very popular with online players, nowhere near versus. Even when you have "co-op", in most games its team vs team with co-op in your team, again competition oriented.

For me it's relaxing to escape this and just enjoy a single player game at my own pace without everything being about competition and how I rank vs someone else. There's enough of that just stepping outside my door on a daily basis.
 
Last edited:

Lil Frier

Platinum Member
Oct 3, 2013
2,720
21
81
Nope, you're missing the point entirely.

Smash has online, but no voice chat, and no rankings. So, you've basically just got a harder A.I. opponent. There's none of the friendly banter, no means of demanding a rematch with a friend, no trash talk, no sense of accomplishment because you have no idea if you're beating someone good or bad without rankings. Kart has rankings, but it's similarly devoid of chat. My sister was playing with a coworker and that coworker's husband in Kart online, and they couldn't talk or have fun with each other. That's incredibly lame, no question.

However, when I complain about Nintendo's lack of networking, it's got every bit as much to do with co-op as competitive play. I want to be able to play Yoshi's Woolly World and New Super Mario Bros. U online with my friends and family. I don't want to be walled off from those I don't live near because Nintendo can't grasp the Internet well. I mean, it's pretty bad that when I think of playing a game like Smash or Kart online with a friend, I feel I need to set up my XB1 as well, so we can use its Party Chat to supplement Nintendo's shortcomings. Then you have Super Mario Maker, which totally lacks multiplayer AT all. Splatoon has no chat, and Mario Party and Tennis have no online (though I didn't like Splatoon and no one likes the latest MP or MT it seems).

Sorry some of us have friends outside of our neighborhoods we want to connect with. Damn, you're an elitist, condescending jerk. Your argument is "Nintendo doesn't need to develop its technology because I don't use it." By your logic, I shouldn't support having consoles push 1080p graphics because I have a 720p TV.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Nope, you're missing the point entirely.

Smash has online, but no voice chat, and no rankings. So, you've basically just got a harder A.I. opponent. There's none of the friendly banter, no means of demanding a rematch with a friend, no trash talk, no sense of accomplishment because you have no idea if you're beating someone good or bad without rankings. Kart has rankings, but it's similarly devoid of chat. My sister was playing with a coworker and that coworker's husband in Kart online, and they couldn't talk or have fun with each other. That's incredibly lame, no question.

However, when I complain about Nintendo's lack of networking, it's got every bit as much to do with co-op as competitive play. I want to be able to play Yoshi's Woolly World and New Super Mario Bros. U online with my friends and family. I don't want to be walled off from those I don't live near because Nintendo can't grasp the Internet well. I mean, it's pretty bad that when I think of playing a game like Smash or Kart online with a friend, I feel I need to set up my XB1 as well, so we can use its Party Chat to supplement Nintendo's shortcomings. Then you have Super Mario Maker, which totally lacks multiplayer AT all. Splatoon has no chat, and Mario Party and Tennis have no online (though I didn't like Splatoon and no one likes the latest MP or MT it seems).

Sorry some of us have friends outside of our neighborhoods we want to connect with. Damn, you're an elitist, condescending jerk. Your argument is "Nintendo doesn't need to develop its technology because I don't use it." By your logic, I shouldn't support having consoles push 1080p graphics because I have a 720p TV.

I'll give you the co-op play and voice chat. Those are major and ridiculous shortcomings and could be something unique that only Nintendo could provide in online play; eg Triforce Heroes or the Mario games like you say. It's really a missed opportunity here to be able to kick back and play something like Hyrule Warriors with a friend over the internet while chit chatting.

But friendly banter? Is that what they call children and manchildren calling each other n00bs and f4gg0ts and hackers in game lobbies and proclaiming themselves the best in the world and how nobody could possibly beat them?

Demanding a rematch? That sounds like competition not coop.

No sense of accomplishment not knowing how you compare with others or if you are beating them? You seriously can't play Mario Kart or Super Mario without knowing if you are beating people at something? What, who got the most coins?

You guys aren't making a very good case against my assertion that online play is almost exclusively associated with competition and pen0r swinging...

I'm not knocking these sorts of games in and of themselves that make no claim that they arent explicitly multiplayer competition oriented games. Well I do but that's another story and unrelated to the current topic. Those games can exist for people who want to play them. I've played some of them myself when I FEEL like playing them.

But people unrealistically expecting EVERY game to have some minimal set of forced mandatory online involvement shoehorned in just because it was made after some particular year is ridiculous. Perfect example is Xenoblade Chronicle X forcing you to select a online squad when you join and having a time attack ladder. This is a single player JRPG for @#$% sake. This was shoveled into this game to appease people like you who don't even give a @#$% about the game or genre.

We don't need to be forced into signing on to match making or being put in a ladder rankings every time we load up Ocarina of Time for @#$% sake.

Oh no an anonymous stranger on the internet has more coins or rupees than me, whatever will I do, this game isn't fun anymore! Let me forget about progress in the game and stay up all night to try to collect more rupees and steal this person's ladder position so I can feel a sense of accomplishment. Seriously wtf?

Otherwise I can agree Nintendo needs to step up their game with a party system and universal voice chat where you can hang out with friends and play games together online.
 
Last edited:

Lil Frier

Platinum Member
Oct 3, 2013
2,720
21
81
How is a desire to beat canned AI better than wanting to try to test your ability to beat actual people?

Keep taking things to the extreme and making stupid, unrelated stuff up, though. I want to play Mario Kart against friends and family, so I'm calling for Ocarina of Time rankings? What the hell are you even trying to say? It's absurd if you're drunk, worse if you're sober.

I find it absolutely, gut-hurting laughable that you're spewing some anti-online trash about how someone's pathetic for playing a game against an anonymous person on the Internet (even before we address the fact that you're making things up about my statements when my specific statements involved friends and family, not strangers), yet you're talking up the intellectual superiority of beating a non-entity with less challenge and more anonymity behind its existence. Oh, beating my friends in Mario Kart is childish and stupid, but beating the hardware in the box is some triumphant accomplishment when it's 10 times easier?

I really can't stress enough how hypocritical and baffling your statements are. I mean, you're trying to talk down to people online with childish name calling like "dick swinging?" Please, enlighten, King of Games, as to how your playing a game offline against a piece of silicon is intellectually superior and more mature, versus challenging myself to beat tougher challenges. I need your guidance and approval like I need a tumor and hemorrhoids.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
How is a desire to beat canned AI better than wanting to try to test your ability to beat actual people?

Keep taking things to the extreme and making stupid, unrelated stuff up, though. I want to play Mario Kart against friends and family, so I'm calling for Ocarina of Time rankings? What the hell are you even trying to say? It's absurd if you're drunk, worse if you're sober.

I find it absolutely, gut-hurting laughable that you're spewing some anti-online trash about how someone's pathetic for playing a game against an anonymous person on the Internet (even before we address the fact that you're making things up about my statements when my specific statements involved friends and family, not strangers), yet you're talking up the intellectual superiority of beating a non-entity with less challenge and more anonymity behind its existence. Oh, beating my friends in Mario Kart is childish and stupid, but beating the hardware in the box is some triumphant accomplishment when it's 10 times easier?

I really can't stress enough how hypocritical and baffling your statements are. I mean, you're trying to talk down to people online with childish name calling like "dick swinging?" Please, enlighten, King of Games, as to how your playing a game offline against a piece of silicon is intellectually superior and more mature, versus challenging myself to beat tougher challenges. I need your guidance and approval like I need a tumor and hemorrhoids.

Well for starters, given my well known genre preference, I play games for the total experience, the story, the puzzle solving, exploring, ambiance, and the growth of building my character up from nothing.

I personally don't seek to derive enjoyment strictly out of beating up entities, be they real people or AI, solely for the sake of beating entities. They are just necessary mechanic to facilitate interactive gameplay, a means to an end. I don't see it as "playing against" a person or a CPU.

When it comes down to it beating up monsters and looting items is really the only thing that differentiates the games I like to play with movies or novels and is the only thing that makes them even classify as an interactive video game.

The way you describe it, it's obvious your priority playing a game is the besting of things and you don't think AI is difficult enough or brag worthy.

My priority is completing the level, a form of puzzle. The monsters I may have to beat are only part of the puzzle. You and I would have two completely different goals and purposes in a game like Super Mario Bros.

You'd complain the silicon isn't hard enough and want to duke it out with real players. You need satisfaction beating things and feeling superior. Your sense of accomplishment is derived from completing a challenge difficult enough such that it's brag worthy. If it's not difficult enough, or unpredictable, or something that anybody can do given enough time, it's not brag worthy and therefore not an accomplishment. Such games are perceived and labeled boring to your type.

I only want to complete all the levels and collect everything and complete the game with 100% completion. This is a different form of satisfaction and accomplishment that doesn't originate from a need to beat anything or feel superior. Superiority and beating something isn't what I'm after. Just experiencing what a fictional world has to offer, getting all the easter eggs, and finishing it and turning 0% to 100%. If I'm grinding and beating up enemies, it's actually to over level my characters to 99 so that I can effortlessly finish the game with less difficulty. I don't care if someone else was able to beat a particular boss 3 levels lower than me. I killed it, got the loot, and moved on, that's my sense of accomplishment and my character is the max possible.

That's the fundamental difference between you and I and it's actually a great example to help me understand the divide among two distinct gamer types more clearly.

Take a cardboard puzzle for example.

I would seek difficulty in the size and number of pieces and satisfaction at it's mere completion, but take my time to enjoy the journey. If I rush it at all it's only because I want to enjoy the journey all at once and put the huge time sink behind me and start the next puzzle. For me if I rush it's not a competition but because I cannot wait to experience it and move to the next one for the maximum number of unique puzzles. Each individual puzzle is an addicting drug in and of itself.

You on the other hand would seek difficulty and challenge in finishing in a certain time, namely faster than someone else you know working on the same puzzle. Or you'd want to be in the list of the first 10 people in the world to finish it. And you'd take it apart and redo it over and over again to try to beat your's or someone else's best time. You might even call this "replay value". Even if it's not against a person, you have to beat the clock. You play to beat or best something. You don't play just to play.


This actually contrasts shooter and sports game type gamers with RPG and platformer gamers very very well actually if I do say so myself, so thank you for helping me articulate this. This perfectly illustrates someone who plays Kingdom Hearts and moves on vs someone who can be content for DAYS running the same circular path down the same alley shooting each other and over again, match after match after match.

Neither way is right or wrong, but forced online shoved into all video games would be like putting a mandatory timer on the puzzle, posting completion times in a public ranking to satisfy you, not me. And at the most extreme, causing the puzzle to be dismantled automatically if you don't complete it in a certain amount of time and regulating completion of the puzzle to a select elite few who are at the top of the rankings and can complete it fast enough. And you call me elitist? People like you are why there exist games I won't touch that have achievements necessary for 100% completion that are things like "be in the top 1% rankings of online matches against other players". No thanks.

You want to race and compete and beat people or various metrics. I just want to enjoy the journey and one off experience.

You talk about how you like shooters for example because you just want to hop in and out 5 minutes at a time and how you don't have time or patience to put 100 hours into an RPG? Well I don't have the time and patience to put in the necessary tens of thousands of vs matches to even pretend to start to be good enough to get these kinds of achievements in every possible type of game and so these are just simply roadblocks that prevent me from "completing' the game.

On the other hand there is something to be said for the possibility of completing the puzzle TOGETHER with a friend or family member, I can acknowledge that being a desirable online co-op experience that is sorely lacking in many titles. But you specifically and repeatedly slip and use phrasing like "playing against" not "with" while insisting that it's not always about competition.
 
Last edited:

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
MMOs are the same.

Some people are happy to just have a max level character and be happy the grind is over so they can focus on end game content. More likely to be PvE players in raid groups playing for the content and experience and getting loot. The goal is best in slot gear. aka 100% completion. They don't care if they are first or last as long as it happens before the next expansion comes out so they can rest easy and enjoy the lull in between and not go into the next expansion missing one piece and only being 98% complete. This is me.

But some people have to be the first on the server or first in the world to get the same thing, often sacrificing personal health or crafting elaborate schemes to trade shifts with a helper to gain an advantage. The goal isn't to be max level and enjoy the game, it's to be first, even though you don't win or get anything for it. More likely to be an aggressive #$% talking PvP player that needs to have a badge on their chest proclaiming how bad ass they are.

Pretty significant distinction between two opposing mentalities prevalent in all forms of gaming.
 
Last edited:

Sulaco

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2003
3,825
46
91
*sigh*

I actually almost completely agree with exdeath, but as usual, he's so over-the-top bombastic with his preferences, it's hard to admit it.

First off, in regards to sports games, I always have to laugh at the preposterous false dichotomy of "Well I could just go play in the park!"
That argument held a tidbit of weight in the early '90s with Tecmo Bowl kinds of games that couldn't do more to approximate a sport than having the correct number of guys on the field/court and the right kind of ball. Beyond that, the reality ended.
Today's sports games offer an order of magnitude more depth, just in the on-the-field reality and simulation aspect. And that's not even counting the vast, meticulous management side, which is really a game within a game, that is not only fun in its own right, but makes the on-the-field success oh so much more enjoyable.

Can I go to the park and simulate making a trade for my struggling third baseman?
Can I go to the park and agonize over whether to take the stud WR with my first pick, or address my real need and pick up an offensive lineman?
Can I go to the park and pretend that I need to make a decision in the offseason about whether I should resign my coach, or look for better options who could coach to my team's strengths better?
The answer is an obvious "Of course not". I, and many, many others, don't play sports games just to sit on the couch and throw a ball around(although I always laugh at the idea of thinking you can go to the park and have 22 guys perfectly simulate a game of football with each position being correctly played. Lol. Right)
You play because you build up a team, manage them, make decisions, *gasp*...almost like an RPG!

Sure, there are "dudebros" who just go on and talk smack and abuse gimmicks and gamey tricks, but to think because there are those who do that there is nothing more to sports games, or gamers, is laughably ignorant.

As for the rest, I also don't care for online games, beyond coop. And that's 99% of the time with people I know. In fact, 99% of my STEAM friend's list are strangers I met while playing Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 who WEREN'T DICKS and were actually *gasp* cooperative! So then in the future I would know "Oh, this guy's on my friend's list. He's not a douche and will actually play decently well!" whenever I was starting a game.
I simply don't have the time or inclination to bother with competitive multiplayer. I only have a limited amount of free time, an even smaller amount to play games, and I don't like taking the risk of gambling with the few hours I have about whether I'll actually have fun tonight or whether my game, and hence, my free time, will be ruined by some griefer, nerd general, or 12 year old potty mouth.
On the other hand, though, I totally understand why so many people enjoy them, so have at it, I say. But I'll take an immersive, quality single player experience ANY DAY of the week, no contest.

What gets me though about exdeath, is that for all his raging and bombast, he seems incapable of realizing that....wait for it...you can actually enjoy multiple types of games!
D:

Shocking, I know! But you can actually enjoy more than one type of game, maybe even just as much as another, and that doesn't make you a "dudebro Xbox mountain dew frat boy" or whatever keeps exdeath up at night in cold sweats. I've been playing RPGs since Final Fantasy II. I own basically every version of the game, as well as every FF before 13, dozens of other RPGs, western and Japanese, including every one he names. I also enjoy ultra-niche intensely realistic strategy games, like Combat Mission or Scourge of War, games you couldn't pay a "dudebro" to play.
Oh, and NBA2k. And The Show. And even...MADDEN!

...and I enjoy them all, for what they are, and what they offer, and recognize that liking one, or any combination, does not preclude me from enjoying any other. If anything, it makes me a more experienced, well-rounded gamer who enjoys the hobby that much more.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
What can I say, I pick one of many narrow lines and I walk it hard and stay on topic.

That doesn't mean that's the only thing I see or the only way I see things.

You got me on the sports game being "like an RPG". I have nothing to respond with. That is pretty cool. I can totally see the macromanagement aspect being an attractive point that is enticing to me even though I have knowledge of players or teams or interest in popular ball sports.

I wonder though how many people @ Gamestop in Raiders jackets and AXE picking up the latest Madden are capable of that level of play though *snicker*.

But can I play offline? Get 100% completion without playing competitively? Maybe that's not a realistic expectation for sports games. Never said it was.

Just leave that out of my single player offline JRPGs, adventure games, and platformers, k? Zelda doesn't need a match making mode!



Xenoblade Chronicles X, The Last of Us, and Resident Evil for example had no business having any kind of online multiplayer forced into them just so the majority gamer population who isn't interested in those types of games can be satisfied that they are "modern" and still not buy them.
 
Last edited:

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
I'm picking up The Division and wiping my slate clean for that. Primarily interested in offline co-op squad play. Exploring a post apocalyptic world and all that with friends in a Borderlands style co-op game but set in a more realistic and suspenseful Tom Clancy world than a goofy comic game that was driven over the top and into the ground in the sequels.

But I recently heard a rumor that the best gear is locked behind multiplayer... does that mean I have to play x number of matches to get it or can I only get it if I'm one of the top 3 players in the world?

This has the potential of ruining the game for me. Diablo II had private games didn't gate loot behind mandatory PvP and this is the way I prefer playing.

Back to the whole the satisfaction of "beating" dumb silicon vs "beating" other players? I do not care. I want a reliable way to get what I want eventually without another asshole human being able to control the outcome and potentially interfere with me getting what I want. I'd rather kill a AI monster 100 times until it drops rather than deal with the randomness of letting other human beings potentially control the outcome of my game experience or have the ability to grief me and prevent me from attaining my in game goals. I avoid online gaming outside of PvE raiding and coop games explicitly for this purpose.

Humans as a species are naturally ugly aggressive one upping griefing assholes who derive pleasure cock blocking and trolling their own kind in real life as it is (people who drive like douches and run stop signs to dart in front of someone else for example). There is enough of that outside my front door every day.

I don't want that in my entertainment media too while sitting on my couch in my home if I can help it.
 
Last edited:

XavierMace

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2013
4,307
450
126
Back to the whole the satisfaction of "beating" dumb silicon vs "beating" other players? I do not care. I want a reliable way to get what I want eventually without another asshole human being able to control the outcome and potentially interfere with me getting what I want. I'd rather kill a AI monster 100 times until it drops rather than deal with the randomness of letting other human beings potentially control the outcome of my game experience or have the ability to grief me and prevent me from attaining my in game goals. I avoid online gaming outside of PvE raiding and coop games explicitly for this purpose.

Because your main focus is on "completing" the game. That's all good and well, but in many games, multiplayer adds a substantial replay ability factor. As you know, I primarily play strategy games. Many strategy games reach a point where you can win 100% of the time on the highest difficulty by following a set gameplay. Playing against humans adds variety. They will try tactics the computer never would. It's not necessarily about being the best, it's about finding a challenge. I don't mind losing at a strategy game as it means I had a challenge. It just doesn't happen much. LOL.

That said, I completely agree about shoehorning online features into games that have no use for them. I literally laughed out loud the first time I started watching Netflix on the XBOne and achievements started popping up. That's seriously just silly.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Because your main focus is on "completing" the game. That's all good and well, but in many games, multiplayer adds a substantial replay ability factor. As you know, I primarily play strategy games. Many strategy games reach a point where you can win 100% of the time on the highest difficulty by following a set gameplay. Playing against humans adds variety. They will try tactics the computer never would. It's not necessarily about being the best, it's about finding a challenge. I don't mind losing at a strategy game as it means I had a challenge. It just doesn't happen much. LOL.

That said, I completely agree about shoehorning online features into games that have no use for them. I literally laughed out loud the first time I started watching Netflix on the XBOne and achievements started popping up. That's seriously just silly.

Just trying to pad your gamer score thats all There is a whole class of overly competitive gamers who will go so far as to not 100% a single game but buy every cheap throw away used Hello Kitty and Spongebob game just for the easy achievements.

RTS is the opposite. They are multi player games from conception that have single player forced into them in the form of bots standing in for the other player. :sneaky: I don't play RTS games. There is a reason for that.

Titanfall as a good example. As much as everyone hated on it, including me only for the fact that I'm fatigued of arena shooters dominating the market, at least it knows it it was trying to be: a multiplayer arena shooter. It didn't even bother with single player bots.

Also yes we all know the reason nobody wants to play RTS games with you lol. I certainly don't want to be required to win an RTS minigame match against someone like you to finish my Mario or Final Fantasy game in order to get all the items. That would just be absolute bull@#%! Unless of course I can pick who I do it with and scum it by trading wins with someone I know.

I'm just not interested in that aspect of gaming anymore, at all. And rather than complain about it at first, I simply went back to consoles where I could enjoy single player games in peace. And now the multiplayer competitive aspect seems to be an expected requirement in all games now. With it starting to be forced into single player games it's no longer my own fault if I can't get away from it and I have a right to complain about it. I'll never forget 100%ing Resident Evil 5 only to power on my 360 one day and see that I was only 80% and see that they added a versus mode and 20 new achievements related to basically killing other people online... freakin RESIDENT EVIL? I think ended up just deleting that game progress from my profile. I wasn't going to be forced to compete online to finish it, again, nor was I going to have 80% complete staring me in the face every time I started up my console.

The irony here is the game that I probably had more hours into than any other game to this day, Quake III Arena, is the father of the modern multiplayer only arena shooter, now a genre that I've grown to absolutely HATE for it's dominance and marginalizing of every other genre today.

I'm going to start getting super pissed though when loot and characters and quest objectives and zones and trophies in single player or co-op RPGs are gated behind having to participate in ranked multiplayer. I do NOT get along well with the idea of other humans having the power to dictate my personal outcomes. I'd rather grind the @#tiest RNG the world has ever known offline in private until my fingers bleed than risk even the slightest possibility of getting matched up with someone I can't possibly win against, possibly repeatedly.

One of my most stringent requirements when I game is that when I make progress, it's mine forever to hold on to. This progress is where I derive my enjoyment in gaming now. This alone means that 100% is an eventuality because even if you make .1% progress, that's .1% progress you'll never have to do again. I don't like setbacks. I don't like losing days of experience or levels when I die, I don't like when gear can break or be stolen from me forever, I don't like corrupt save files, and I don't like investing 3 hours building an awesome city only to lose it all in the blink of an eye because of one tiny mistake or learning experience. Or losing a rank and thus access to gear because I either didn't log on for a day or happen to run into a better player that day. And I especially don't care for these kinds of setbacks caused some smug laughing human on the other end who derives enjoyment at my misfortune and wasted time with no personal progress gained for my time spent. At least when a computer AI kicks my ass there is no smugness or trolling or @$% talking or maliciousness about it.

I admit this is a very personal problem that is far deeper than mere gaming; I do not and will not ever allow others to get their rocks off by causing me grief or loss. I take loss too personally, there is no such thing as fair or friendly competition to me. This causes mushroom clouds and all kinds of ugly @#^%. I'm a very anti competitive person so I've learned to simply deal with it by not inviting those situations on myself and recognizing them before it gets that far.

So I avoid those kinds of games. They aren't for me. Problem solved right?

What do I do when those things I try to avoid seeks me out by invading the kinds of games I prefer because the majority of the gaming populace thinks ALL games need to have some kind of multiplayer mode? I just want to play my single player games in peace without external factors interfering and controlling my rate of progress.

And to keep this someone on topic, if that's even possible by this point, this favoritism to competitive online gaming is more associated with the Xbox brand than Sony or Nintendo. Not counting multi platform games, it's traditionally accepted that XBox is the place to be for competitive online multiplayer and Western shoot em up or simulator type games and Sony is the place to be for single player cinematic adventures and traditional Japanese games. And despite all the cries for parity and homogenizing all 3 consoles, each console needs to STAY unique in what they offer. Shooter bros don't want to be forced to spend 100 hours to understand a story or be forced to watch 15 minute unskippable cut scenes, and I don't particularly want to be forced to have to compete online in order to achieve the best progress in my single player cinematic offline game. How bout we just stay out of each other's games, deal?
 
Last edited:

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
As to what prompted me to write pages and pages about this? A few things lately, a disturbing trend that has been hitting home too much lately that's frankly pissing me off.

Fallout 4, single player game, people online whining about a certain perk being "OP" and now it's being patched automatically, because online support. There is no such thing as "OP" in a single player game that affects no one else, so **REMOVED** off.

Xenoblade Chronicles X, single player game, people complaining online that it's too easy to farm reward tickets solo, that it should be nerfed so you have to participate in multi player to get the best rewards. Again **REMOVED** off.

The Division, co-op game, the first non fantasy game with realistic graphics and guns that I love to hate, that I've been looking forward to since the first reveal, is now said to gate the best gear behind PVP play... again **REMOVED** off.

Metal Gear Solid V, a traditionally single player game with a rich cinematic experience, with online play forced in (you can't opt out of an FOB, its forced) by which other players can raid you while you are sleeping or working and steal staff and resources that you've accumulated from your SINGLE PLAYER game save. Seriously. **REMOVED**. OFF. AND. DIE. I haven't played in months since 100%ing it, bet there's nothing left in my mother base save the limited number of S++ rank staff I was "allowed" to lock.

Resident Evil, I've already covered this one...

Constant calls for "parity" and homogenization of the 3 console flavors and their game libraries, already covered this in the previous post...

There's been a couple other things that I can't quite recall at this hour, but you get the general idea... these types of examples are the things that are hot on my mind when people call for "more online support" in games that don't need it, and these types of "online enhancements" are not welcome.

And finally, I've started to go back to some older games I never played, currently Breath of Fire IV on PS1, and I'm reminded in stark immediate contrast after the above games just how much less stressful and simpler and flat out more enjoyable games were before they were mucked up with pointless achievements and "online support" and mandatory social features.



No cursing outside of the social forums.

Anandtech Administrator
KeithTalent
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RampantAndroid

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2004
6,591
3
81
Fallout 4, single player game, people online whining about a certain perk being "OP" and now it's being patched automatically, because online support. There is no such thing as "OP" in a single player game that affects no one else, so **** off.

Or the developer wanted the game to be played as designed...or players wanted it to play as designed. But hey, the game should NEVER be updated. Left in a balancing issue, NEVER fix it!

Or no. How about the developers fix the results of incomplete testing.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Or the developer wanted the game to be played as designed...or players wanted it to play as designed. But hey, the game should NEVER be updated. Left in a balancing issue, NEVER fix it!

Or no. How about the developers fix the results of incomplete testing.

Yeah, but first they can fix their #$^%ty Bethesda RNG math that causes me to miss 4 times in a row with a 90% chance when I'm 3 inches away from their face and run out of AP and sit with my thumb up my #$% completely useless for the next 60 seconds.

This is the whole reason the bugged Killshot perk was so rewarding and vindicating in the first place. Took one bug to cancel out another one.

If you don't want it to be OP don't abuse it and shoot people in the head from 300 miles away with a hand gun, get up in their face first like you normally would, problem solved.

Regardless, there is just something slimey and shady about people on the internet crying for nerfs in single player games. Especially when they cry harder for a nerf after learning one half of the community actually enjoys the side effects of said bug... then it's not about the bug anymore its just about getting their way with a nerf and smiling back at at all the people who didn't want to see it patched, yet another type of "ha ha!" online tug of war...

Again this isn't the kind of online community I want to be around outside of a game let alone INSIDE.
 
Last edited:

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
53,440
6,293
126
Fighting games are multi player vs by design so yeah this is a good thing.

Your first sentence mocks me for claiming that online functionality == death match only, and your counter example is a 1 on 1 competitive fighting game genre? I'm confused. I know there isn't an online coop story mode because rollback code and accuracy wouldn't be as much a concern here where nobody has their life's reputation on the line when crying foul about a hit that did or didn't go through when they win or lose a .... versus match.

No online play is a common complaint with Nintendo games, specifically with a majority of their games specifically being a single player off line couch experience. I could see an argument with something like Smash not having online play.

Their vs oriented games like Splatoon and Smash have online play. What's missing? Aww is there not a publicly visible ladder ranking or something for the world to see relative levels of badassery?

I'm just wondering... when I'm playing Xenoblade Chronicles or Zelda or Super Mario 3D World or Fire Emblem or Kirby or Bravely Default what online play could I possibly be missing out on that is so vital that it's "omg ruining Nintendo for not being modern"? Trophies and sharing my progress? For what purpose other than serving as a point of comparison to someone else who gives a rats ass?

The two primary uses of online play in games are competition and integrating gaming habits with social media addictions, neither of which interest me or Nintendo's core target audience in any way. I'd love some more examples of co-op play, but co-op isn't very popular with online players, nowhere near versus. Even when you have "co-op", in most games its team vs team with co-op in your team, again competition oriented.

For me it's relaxing to escape this and just enjoy a single player game at my own pace without everything being about competition and how I rank vs someone else. There's enough of that shit just stepping outside my door on a daily basis.

online deathmatch = fps

fighting != fps

i know this may come as a surprise to you, but there really are more than just cod and halo games on the x1 and ps4, and people play them online.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Fighting games are multi player vs by design so yeah this is a good thing.

Your first sentence mocks me for claiming that online functionality == death match only, and your counter example is a 1 on 1 competitive fighting game genre? I'm confused. I know there isn't an online coop story mode because rollback code and accuracy wouldn't be as much a concern here where nobody has their life's reputation on the line when crying foul about a hit that did or didn't go through when they win or lose a .... versus match.

No online play is a common complaint with Nintendo games, specifically with a majority of their games specifically being a single player off line couch experience. I could see an argument with something like Smash not having online play.

Their vs oriented games like Splatoon and Smash have online play. What's missing? Aww is there not a publicly visible ladder ranking or something for the world to see relative levels of badassery?

I'm just wondering... when I'm playing Xenoblade Chronicles or Zelda or Super Mario 3D World or Fire Emblem or Kirby or Bravely Default what online play could I possibly be missing out on that is so vital that it's "omg ruining Nintendo for not being modern"? Trophies and sharing my progress? For what purpose other than serving as a point of comparison to someone else who gives a rats ass?

The two primary uses of online play in games are competition and integrating gaming habits with social media addictions, neither of which interest me or Nintendo's core target audience in any way. I'd love some more examples of co-op play, but co-op isn't very popular with online players, nowhere near versus. Even when you have "co-op", in most games its team vs team with co-op in your team, again competition oriented.

For me it's relaxing to escape this and just enjoy a single player game at my own pace without everything being about competition and how I rank vs someone else. There's enough of that just stepping outside my door on a daily basis.


Ignorance...nobody is calling for online play in every game. Just to not half ass it and support all the current features.
 

XavierMace

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2013
4,307
450
126
Ehhhh. It's definitely becoming a thing that even a historically single player series is expected to have online features.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
And then there are those of us that still buy the CoD, MoH, and BF titles to do the single player campaigns.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |