@sealionact: I am out of my depth on this one, because I haven't played or seen Breath of the Wild. So I can't really say anything specific here other than that, I'm quite sure that yes, you're right- I mean this is how all games work. That's why we call them in a standardized way as 'gameplay loops' - all games essentially use basic gameplay loops which are used to drive the entire game.. So I guess what we're saying here is that its up to the developer to create basic systeems that bring excitement. Sometimes games excite us, sometimes they bore us. :)
@ThatPjYouKnow21: Yeah, I suspected to be teased by that. I was tired and just trying to get my main points across. What I mean for FortNite is that there is constant feedback being delivered from all the gameplay loops, I always "feel like" im progressing or earning something, i mean I assumed you've played it if you're making fun of me for it- consider all of the different layers of the game, and meta game, mini games- the cards, the squads, then of course the actual game itself... you know, i stand by my original comment- compared to Sea of Theves and what I have seen with its simplistic charm, FortNite has a much more involving system.
@siarhei: Ya know, I still haven't played Mafia 3. So you say you're enjoying it eh! Thanks for reminding me about that game, I actually own it Just never played it!! I got nervous after reading reviews. And yes Far Cry 5 at the end of the month MY FAVORITE. I'm so looking forward to it.
@quinnd6: Hey, I apologize- you're right, my post was overly insulting. I shouldn't have assumed you were a troll, I usually don't and take people as they come but its been a particularly rough week which has soured me a bit on my usual happy positive outlook and seeing the good in people. No, I'm not a programmer, but I do consider myself a developer and I work in the industry. I do graphic design, and predominantly specialize in doing concept art for games in the pre-production process. This experience is what I'm using to make informed assumptions on why I don't believe PS/2 game would improve how you are thinking- so look, obviously I will admit to you im not 100 percent sure on how this would come out, and this is also exactly the reason why it's not done. The architecture in a PS/2 is different from the hardware in other platforms above it, and the technology as im sure you understand is drastically inferior from one to the other. HD was not yet a technology in the PS/2 era and 3D graphics were just really coming into their own- meaning programming functions and librarys and the way the graphics are rendered in the ps/2 generation varied from studio to studio, there are still a lot of locked resolution bitmap graphics being used which won't scale. only vector graphics have the ability to scale. so the long of the short is that there really would be no simple universal way to apply the advancements to the ps/2 games- so technically YES you are right, sony COULD turn on the ability for the machine to emulate these old games- but there is no doubt that there is going to be varying degress of compatibility issues- not all games are going to render correctly, there are some games that use graphics features that are no longer supported and have been deprecated. So this will lead to an unpredictable experience for the user, things could crash, maybe even introuce instabilities. The realtity is that Sony wants to be able to control the users experience so they have a GOOD and stable and the best looking experience that can be reached, and since sony cannot easily make sure that it would be a good controled expereience universally for all software, its off the board.
Icidently this is why xbox "backward" compatibility is the way it is. They release a few games at a time, that have been vetted, reformatted and new code written and thorougly tested to work on the xbox 1. And it has to be done manually foir every single game.
@m4a5: I think we're miscommunicating a bit. Yes, there is more content to the game, of course- but what I and others are saying is that as far as how the game WORKS and is PLAYED (these are called gameplay loops) we have seen the mechanics work in a vertical slice of the game. I work in game development, I've been involved with development since I graduated out of University (2005) - go ahead and make the old person jokes now. Beta's are *very* close to the end product of a game- AT LEAST in terms of how the mechanics work. The whole PURPOSE of a beta is to TEST out the mechanics in a live player audience to see how everything works and where there are friction. We would never purposely hold back game mechanics from a beta testing, or think of adding new mechanics during the last 4 weeks (coincidently this IS atually what No Man's Sky did and it's a significant part of the reason why that game has such a strange "feeling").
The stage you are referring to is called an Alpha-an Alpha is the roughest period of the game that is in a state that can operate. An alpha can usually not be finished or played all the way through. Do you really think that I am confused about what a beta is and that i have a flawed understanding of what means to be one- or is it possibly more likely that you might be confused?
@xcael: Did you actually try it smarty pants? I tried the "single player" ship and its not single player, just trying to SAIL it you have to run around like a f'kn crazy person. There is nothing fun about it. These ships are NOT DESIGNED to be operated single player. If you were to get into a battle on the solo sloop, you would just fail- you can't steer, operate the sails, bail water, patch, and fire cannons as just one person to makeit playable for solo. it doesnt really work.
@xcael: No dude, that isn't true, A beta is very close to the exact final content. A beta will just have more bugs then the released... so im afraid you're quite wrong in you definition :/
p1p3dream's comments