Completely agree. I'm not very good at stealth at all, but the story was worth it. What I did is I got Twin Snakes for GC (it plays like 2 did), then 2 and 3 for PS2. I just ended up playing them all on easy to experience the story. MGS4 and even more so in MGS5 have vastly improved in the gameplay department that I have now bumped up to normal lol

@commander: Here's the thing. No one really likes your online only indie games.

I have been happily playing my ps4 with witcher 3, still have batman to beat

My point was it doesn't matter what console you own, there are way better games than the ones you mentioned that anyone can play

@commander: This is the only Game anyone needed for all summer.

Well, it's not even close to my Samsung 64" PNF8500 Plasma being 6-8 ft from me. So no comparison there. I would rather game on my SNES through S-video on my Sammy Plasma than tablet game on HMDI. Yeah, I don't need to hook up to a HDTV to enjoy gaming, thats why I have a 3DS XL and a PS vita for mobile gaming. Again. producing better games than mobile garbage.

Agreed. You speak my mind SolidTy

You are insane dude. The ps3 and Xbox 360 carry better graphics and games than tablets right now. this will not happen as how many years has it been to have tablets finally maybe be almost to 360/PS3 quality of games? Let alone the control scheme will never be there without 100 dollar mobile controllers that are still inferior to Sony's, Microsoft's and Nintendo.. PS4, X1, PC have proven to still hold a GIGANTIC portion of the market share vs mobile games. Despite the grannies with candy crush on their kindle's. Mobile gaming will not become the norm as long as Consoles stay and PC stay. As far as the games go, they cost less because they cost less to develop and are overly simplistic or rely purely on micro transactions. No matter how much you want it, games like Fallout 4, Mass Effect Andromeda, Uncharted 4 and beyond and so many others will never happen on a tablet. (Theoretically if they do exist on a tablet, you still will pay the same price as the cost to develop these types of games will not change). Also, NO ONE WANTS TO BUY A FREAKING TABLET EVERY YEAR TO CONTINUE WITH NEW GAMES!!. Console and PC gamers don't upgrade every single year. With PC you buy a good GPU to last you several years. People buy consoles last years before the next successorr. NO ONE wants to buy a new tablet every single year to keep up on games.

Personally if Gaming switches to tablets and consoles and PC become extinct, then that's when I give the middle finger and give up modern gaming. I will happily collect PS4.X1,PC,Wii-U,XB360,PS3,Wii,PS2,Dreamcast,Xbox,GC,N64,Saturn,PS1,SNES,Gensis,NES,GBA,GBC games and whatever for the remainder of my life. There are plenty of older games to play.

Tablet gaming is a curse on proper gaming. I will not support it, I don't want to buy a new tablet every year to support newer games, I don't want pure DD, I don't want to hook a tablet up to my TV/ Monitor. I will always follow the path of Consoles and PC, even if they die.

EDIT* I have thought of even more reasons.

1st. Games right now are taking 20-50 GB of storage not counting DLC and Updates, storage on tablets is nowhere near an actual Hard Drive. SSD's have not come far enough to support large storage for a moderate amount of cash.

2nd. The amount of heat right now that the consoles produce and even more with the more current PC GPU's, a tablet will never handle that. Tablet GPU's will always be weaker than a Console or PC.

3rd. All of the tablets of today are Wifi only, they don't normally support Ethernet. If you a MP gamer, then this is a huge issue not supporting Ethernet.

Overall, I'm strongly against mobile gaming and will NEVER support it. If there is no PS5, Nintendo Something, X2 or Nvidia or AMD drop out of PC gaming, then that's when I become a pure Retro Gamer.

Everyone here seems to have this idea that everyone in a studio works on everything. If the gameplay stucks and the graphics are good, it's not that the studio "focused purely on graphics". Its that the Art team did their job better than the programmers and game designers (or the designers simply wanted it a certain way). Artists don't program (there might be a few people who can do both, but how well as someone dedicated to one field would have to be asked. The most an Artist would have input on the game design would be suggesting an idea they have and talking with the programmers and game designers to see if it's possible to code that in.

Performance is shared by both. Programmers code the engine and all the gameplay and try to optimize the engine, they give poly count limits, texture resolution limits, particle effects limits to the artists. If it's too much then the programmers go back to the artists and tell them to lower the poly counts and such as it's too demanding on the engine how it is and my have readjust the limits again.

The only way a studio would purposely shoot for graphics over gameplay is if they only hired Artists and no programmers and forced them to try code the game (the game probably would never be playable as they are completely different jobs). Or if they simply spent more of the budget hiring better Artists and spent less and hired sub par programmers. Those are reasons that would make that statement true.

But most studios already have staff, sometimes they will open up new positions based on what area is lacking, or hiring to replace.

This is just something I have noticed that kinda irritated me when anything about game play and graphics come up

@the_funyarinpa: I don't know, Their are weird types who don't like the Witcher 3 due to too much content. Personally I don't find this a problem. Just means the game will have a much longer gameplay time than most others, which is a plus in my book.

@GhostHawk196: I loved the game. I can't exactly say why you didn't. I will say it's the weakest of the 3 in combat, 1 and 2 were much better in combat. But Inquisition got the exploration part right, it's story was good and characters were cool, but honestly weren't as good as 1 or 2. Personally while I don't want to harp on mainstream opinion, I would have preferred more romance choices other than Cassandra and Josephine. They make up part of the story, in DA:O even though my only choices were Morrigan or Liliana, I found both interesting characters. In DA2 I found Merill a fun character. AND I HATED SARAH!!!

Overall I liked the game, to the point where I spend over 100 hours on it, but I found it the weakest of the 3 games. 2 had a small area but I found it's combat and characters better than 3. 3 had great exploration and I liked the mission conquest map too. Overall all though some might consider myself to be a Bioware fanboy. I love everything that they do and if I say I don't like a particular decision doesn't mean I don't like the game. I like every game they make, but I do realize the faults.

@Cloud_imperium: While those give you an idea, they don't give you the whole picture. My rig is a i7 3930k, 32gb of ram, 2 x GTX 980's. 1 x 1440p monitor, 1 x 1080p monitor and 1 x 1920 x 1200p monitor. Do i use steam, yes. Do I use it 100% over consoles, no. I tend to flip flop. Some times I'm all about the PC and get games on the PC, some times I'm all about Sony and get my games on the PS3/PS4 and sometimes I'm all Xbox 360/X1.

I do graphic work on my PC so it always gets used, sometimes I go for months being on a PC only binge, then I go for a PlayStation only binge which I am currently on, but two months ago I was on a PC binge. But how do these statistics show a PC gamer. I have 3 different resolution monitors because I use them for work and only have 3 monitors due to upgrading to new ones. I have 2 GTX 980's but they are mostly used for 3DS Max and lightly for gaming unless I'm in the mood for PC games. Mainly mine is a workstation rig and gaming rig second (but affording a Quadro is way too much and then limits gaming potential. For game design based 3-D, Geforce are still the best all around cards).

But that's the thing, it's mostly a work machine and not a full gaming machine. It's more a work machine that fully capable of gaming when I want it to be. now count in all the lightest users who only play old ancient games on old hardware, count the people who are using a laptop, count the people who are still running freaking XP on their ancient hardware. This is a very generalized poll that doesn't tell you a whole lot. Tons of PC only people probably have hardware that can't even compare to mine, but their goal is just gaming, not work. Some extremists will have stuff that beats my hardware and only use it for gaming and thats it.

Master Race would count my Rig in, but I do more work on it than gaming and tend to prefer consoles for gaming other than certain times when I'm in the mood for playing on PC. Overall I think this has gone on long enough that I forgot the actual intent of my post.

PC Master Race... is a PC fanboy. A PC master race member could have a i3 and a gtx 250. Doesn't mean they are getting a superior experience on PC vs. a console, just that they prefer the PC platform.