Sheikah

An easy import if it arrives any later here.

I enjoyed the original game, which I got dirt cheap and had no hype for when I set down to play it. If this is good I'll definitely check it out, probably once it goes down a little in price. I try to avoid paying full price unless it's a really amazing game.

Maybe they will just stop releasing games next year for PS4, then shortly after kill it off altogether. Think of all the disgruntled owners having such a short generation.

I would rather have the version that runs at a higher resolution and frame rate, which the PS4 version should be so long as there is not some enforced parity bullshit in place. From the sounds of things, they are working on the Wii U version because it is most different, whereas they can just make a PC version and that is fairly straightforward to port (owing to PC similarities to PS4/X1). I am expecting the PS4 version to run well as these guys seem very respectable and are making the game on their own terms (ie. they are not meeting tight publisher deadlines so no need to force out half-finished crap that runs poorly). They are also fairly small, and new, so I can see them working hard to check this version once it is made to ensure the quality is there, since they have a reputation to build up. Plus the extra time they are taking now to polish it makes me very confident indeed that they will deliver. Regarding extra content; I would think if they put in extra content that it will either be on all versions or there'll be equivalent content additions in other versions. They must be acutely aware that nobody wants to feel like their version is getting less content.

PS4 version might run at a better resolution/frame rate though...we can't really say. Depends on how good the port is handled.

FFX has pretty well-realised world development. Sure, you can criticise the story (because it is cheesy) but the world is actually crafted rather than thrown together. You can tell time and attention has been put into making things all gel together pretty well like the prevailing religion, outfits, accents, art style, races, animals and enemies...the result is something that has soul. There was very little of that in XII, at least from my perspective. It felt like it passed me by...maybe because of the complicated development schedule it never matetialised. And genuinely, I don't remember some party characters talking to other party characters at all. It felt pretty bad in that respect. The main deal for me in FF games is the characters, and they just didn't feel fleshed out to me. One thing that I didn't like in XII was the gambit system. It was essentially a method of letting the game near enough run itself. Then there were endgame bosses that could take an hour or more to tackle - I felt like someone just managing inventory use while gambits took care of most of it. There were also many dungeons that dragged on over multiple floors and generally had very little to do other than floor the boss at the end to trigger a cutscene. It felt awkward. Don't get me wrong, there is no doubt fun to be had in this game. Hero, I could see you enjoying this as there is a lot to do (tons of side quests and map to explore, and a level up system a bit similar to FFX's). If this had been an FF spin off it could have even been its own thing. I just don't think it does what I want in an FF game.

Probably my least favourite Final Fantasy game, I certainly won't be picking this up any time soon. A complete let down after FFX in terms of engaging character development, party interaction, world building and compelling story. Honestly did not give a fuck whether most of the characters lived or died. Interestingly it often goes down well with people not typically into the more popular FF games. I completely agree with those judgements made at the time that this was in many ways like a retooled FFXI - MMORPG-like dungeon design and battles, albeit with NPCs. Yeah, it's completely ridiculous. Don't open any chests until a certain point.

Man, when I saw these figures released by Mojang today, I just had to come back to this. 106 million sold - it's clearly selling copies and I don't see how the uptake of pirate versions could be anywhere close to this! It's also dirt cheap so cost was never going to be a factor. If prices are reasonable then generally most people will pay. An interesting point to note is that the pocket version can also be very easily pirated, so even comparisons can be made. It shows that the PC version is far less popular in every single region.

Fair play, thought you might have been bothered by it. No harm done on either side and hopefully nobody took anything the wrong way.

Have to agree with you here. I don't agree that this needed a topic - a simple PM to these people to discuss points of view would suffice. Shaming is not a cool thing to do @Nuntendo @killthenet.

But Sony have reportedly decreed that no game can be developed as Neo only, and that gameplay must be identical. Given the demand for parity I don't see what these concerns are exactly. As I said, a developer would be tarnishing their own name if they chose to dial back their base version support and only test/optimise their games on Neo. That's why I don't see the Neo's existence hurting the base model. If anything I think it will make the PS4 generation last longer as I think a refreshed model will stave off people's desire for PS5 for longer.

Yeah I tried to join your game but I think it was full, so I was just spectating.

Whuuut. The week when I'm in Chicago...

Developers stopped supporting PS3 years after it launched when it was clear that PS3 games were charting nowhere near the top of the list relative to PS4, which had games charting at the top (people had by and large moved on from this long generation). That 80 million install base counts for absolutely nothing past a certain point - case in point, Wii games stopped charting long ago despite having the biggest install base of them all. With the silly levels of PS4 sales still happening and PS4 games charting #1 consistently, it would be mad for developers to shaft the people with this system. What with the forced gameplay parity between Neo/base games, and the short time since the base launch, I can't see enough people moving on to justify developers dropping support. Plus, they kinda have to support it.

Yeah looking forward to playing this next week when I'm about. Saw Zell wrecking some shit with the dwarf and his traps.

It was pretty shit last night, tbh. Chris Evans just does not carry it off. The reason why Top Gear worked was the chemistry between the three presenters, the character each one had built up over the years, and generally the piss taking that occurred between them. I am more looking forward to the Prime show than the next episode of this!

The Neo is not even out or announced so to say 'that's what appears to be happening' is not really true, is it? What you're saying doesn't suggest that things will get worse for base model owners. You have mentioned 'FPS not being hit on the base model already' as a means to justify your point. Well here's the thing - that was already happening, as the system isn't powerful enough to output pure 1080p60fps on every game. That's not going to change any time soon, unless the graphical complexity of games is stripped back to accommodate it. Really though, I want proof, or at least a very strong suggestion, that developers would be mad enough to shaft 50+ million owners by making games run even worse than they are doing already on the base system. I want proof that developers are going to commit suicide by doing this and ruining their name. Games running sub 1080p60 will not prove that as games are already doing that and have been since launch. Until then...I don't buy your theories. I believe that the people with base PS4s will carry on getting the same experience, which means that if you choose to stick with the base model, you're probably not going to be worse off than you were when you bought it. The whole getting annoyed at the Neo thing just seems so counter-progressive and bitter. What is the alternative; stick with old tech for 8 years just so you feel better about your purchase? As long as nobody is getting a better deal than you then that's all good? Consoles receive hardware revisions all the time and quite often they are meaningless but still full price. A smaller form factor PS2; a console you hardly look at anyway since it lives under your TV. Yet here, Sony seem to be giving you something really cool for your money in a revised piece of hardware and people complain. It's pretty damn laughable really. Of course, they could have made the PS4 more powerful to begin to have a better performing machine but then that £350 would likely be £425...just like the PS3. And we all know how well that went down!

So your argument is that games would be created to run perfectly on Neo and thus may not even function acceptably on the base model, which they were not optimised for. That the base model would suffer as a result of the new model. The scenario you describe has to be the most foolhardy way to develop a game. For one, the original PS4 has sold through 40 million systems; by the time the Neo launches that could well be 50-60 million. So to not develop games with those people in mind; to leave the base version of games in a worse state than what those gamers are used to seems silly. Second, to develop a game on the powerful system and then worrying about the lesser system performance after is only going to lead to trouble. It makes more sense to develop your game to function well on the lesser system since if you do it the other way around, maybe the lesser system can't even handle the game you made (e.g. number of NPCs on screen) meaning you have just wasted your time. If you look at the Neo reports they clearly indicate there can be no gameplay differences. Thus, it really will be a resolution/FPS upping on the Neo. Let's wait and see before complaining that this will make things worse for us original owners because nothing so far convinces me of your argument. Can you explain why people are annoyed by this? This is no different to upgrading your PC graphics card to achieve the same thing (to achieve a higher level of performance). Yes, you can achieve 60 FPS on PC by lowering other sliders, but that means lowering other sliders. This way you can have both the resolution/graphics and FPS bump. When people bought their PS4 they knew the level of performance they were buying into. This gives people that want to upgrade the option. If you don't want to upgrade then you can carry on playing games at the graphical level you are used to.

So it's just about resolution to you? Why is that the only factor to consider? Better 3D effect in all games, reduced loading times + OS snappiness, more powerful system so that it can run exclusive games (which even the Neo isn't supposed to have). And that includes all the SNES games - N3DS only. And regarding your question about will people upgrade. Well I bought the N3DS XL while having the 3DS XL already. I then sold my 3DS XL for £100 or so. It was a very good upgrade given the 3D effect alone. I liked having the choice; why do you want people to have less choice?

Did anyone see a problem paying £200+ for a N3DS after maybe already buying the XL not long ago? I'm guessing not, because it was optional. If they bought it, it's because they saw it as a good investment. Do people also see a problem that major phone companies release one new flagship every year? It seems to me that you are unhappy that other people might have something better than you. Rather than appreciate what is in front of you, you base your happiness on whether there is a new model that other people might be enjoying. If you think about it, if the original PS4 keeps going then there is essentially no difference, other than your perception of the better deal out there. And really, that attitude is what stumps me. The PC has always, always been the better deal graphically - consoles are outdated automatically in the face of PC. If you're the kind of person who hates there being a better deal out there in terms of performance then home consoles are not for you.

I am being absolutely fair. A new standard is not decided just by looking at old history. Looking at the cycles as far back as NES/SNES couldn't be less relevant to today. The current market and customer attitudes (along with the PS3/360 era) are a far better judge. If you disagree about the 'at least 7 year' thing - do you expect the PS5 by the end of the year in 2018 then (ie. a 'normal' generation length)? Answer this while bearing in mind the console refreshes appear to be penned for 2017. As long as they continue to release games that run fully on the original system then the generation continues. They will look prettier on one system over the other but it's doesn't mean the generation has ended. Did you consider the 3DS generation to have ended upon launch of the N3DS?

As Blade touched on, the Wii U lifespan has for all intents and purposes, even if not officially, been very short. The Wii U effectively died quite a while ago in terms of support and is merely on life support until NX. Them announcing the NX next year does not suddenly make the Wii U situation any better. Also: Actually, given the way console gaming has matured, 7 years does not feel like an anomaly but the new standard. Let's see if I'm right by seeing how long it takes until the actual PS5.

Nope, if anything they have extended the generation - I can easily see a refresh keeping this generation going for longer as it keeps the current system family relevant. While we might have seen a new generation of consoles in 3 years, now that there is a refresh planned I am led to doubt that very much. I think the fundamental problem with your argument is that you don't understand what a generation is. It's not a new generation of consoles, because they're still running the same games as each other. It's not backwards compatibility at all, because the refreshed hardware isn't additionally running new games. The comparison you are looking for is PC, where games can run at different graphical levels, depending upon your rig. This is nothing new; and importantly, nobody in their right mind would say this feature on PC is somehow detrimental to the consumer or gaming. So what gives? Choice is a good thing, no? I bet people would have given their right arm for a Wii+ that played the same games but in HD, with the option of sticking to the old model if you wanted. And back to my previous point - optional upgrade after a short period is by far preferable to a forced upgrade after a short lifespan (forced as in, if you want to continue to play Nintendo software). That's why I don't get your singling out of console refreshes while totally ignoring something far worse.

Still don't get this argument. How is ending a generation early a la Wii U better than this? With Neo at least, games will still run on the original consoles so what is the issue exactly?

Pretty damn mad. 10 million sales within the past 6 months. Just to put that in perspective...12.8 million Wii Us sold in 3.5 years.