@spartanx169x: I think you're generalising too much there.
"People buy games to have fun with a good story." Not everybody cares about story. Do you really think people play countless hours of CS:GO for story?
"Nobody buys games to ponder life, existence and morality." Um, I do sometimes. Try playing Life is Strange or Nier: Automata & not pondering life & existence for a bit. That's only a couple of examples, but there are tonnes of games that actively invite the player to think harder. A quick YouTube search will find you plenty of people analysing the philosophy of all sorts of games. There's a 7 hour review of Death Stranding that has nearly 400,000 views.
You can enjoy games in the way of your own choosing, but don't assume everybody else enjoys them in the same way.
@OrionMD: I think the fact that the player sees the brutal violence & is affected by it is examination enough.
Many people watch A Clockwork Orange & say they don't like it because they were disturbed by the violence. They don't realise that's the point. The whole film is about how Alex is desensitised to violence & the viewer goes on this journey with him.
Obviously, I haven't played TLOU2 yet, but it seems to me that it's quite intentional that players should be shocked at how violent Ellie has become. Perhaps the devs trust their audience enough to make their own conclusions & not point out the obvious.
Anyone who knew anything about tech knew they were overpromising.
Other game streaming platforms were more honest about their product. Terms like "negative latency" were obvious marketing guff & most people saw straight through it.
The biggest failure was the value they offer. Buying games at full price that you can only play on a service which may not even exist in a few years time is a hard ask. Stadia deserves to fail, but hopefully other services will push this technology forward with more consumer-friendly practices. I'm a PC guy & I like owning my own hardware, but I'm open to a future of streaming games if & when the technology is advanced enough.
To anyone thinking of going back & checking out Witcher 3 again:
1. Play on Death March difficulty. It forces you to really think about combat, especially when you're outnumbered. Get used to side-stepping & avoid rolling unless it's a large enemy. You'll also need to actually use your signs & potions. This is a big part of the tactical game that unfortunately, can be mostly ignored on easier difficulties. Read those bestiary entries & match the right signs & oils to the right enemies.
2. Mods. Especially if it's a second playthrough. There are plenty of tweaks you can make to improve your experience without making it a completely different game. If you're sick of fast travelling to the grinding wheel all the time, you can make your sword sharpness last longer. If you wish Geralt had a different haircut, you can find one you like. Personally, I hate games that make me 'forget' old skills every time I learn something new. I like being able to equip more passive skills that augment signs or drink more potions as well has having some good combat abilities. Decide for yourself what's cheating & what's just improving your experience.
3. Consider mouse & keyboard. Many people enjoy this game with a controller & it's fine if you do, but give mouse & keyboard a try. Quick access to your number keys will really help with sign switching, make use of those extra mouse buttons if you have them.
@gaeandilth: *skips 90% of the game content* "Why's there no post game content?!"
It's a story-driven game, so if that's not your jam, I get it. People tell me Overwatch is good, but I'm not into first person competitive multiplayer shooters, so I wouldn't enjoy that either.
It seems like you're judging the game on something it's not trying to be though. Modern MMORPGs are all about getting to max level ASAP & then playing end-game content. The Witcher 3 is not an MMO. The journey to the end is the game, not something to speed through to get to the real game.
@gagula94@JusticeSword@Devil_wings00: OP is right. The difference between an SSD you bought several years ago & a high end one you buy today is not going to make much difference in gaming.
Going from HDD to SSD is a much bigger difference though. It's not just load times, it's also how fast the system call call on textures & load them into RAM. They really should have done it last gen. It's a long time overdue.
Having the fastest SSD on the block doesn't really mean much though, it's not where the bottleneck is anymore. It's possible that loading highly detailed 8K textures could utilise an incredibly fast SSD, but the PS5's GPU isn't powerful enough to handle them anyway. Imagine a game like Shadow of the Tomb Raider running in native 8K - not upscaled, but with all 8K textures. Sure, a fast SSD would help get all those textures into RAM quicker, but the CPU & GPU requirements are far more than even a high end PC can handle.
Having a super fast SSD is fine, but if it costs significantly more, then it's a poor investment. Spending more on the GPU would be the best bang for your buck.
bbq_R0ADK1LL's comments