Sheikah

You guys sure love monotony, eh?

As someone who played the heck out of this I can vouch that it's a great game. Also they're right about the grinding - as I recall, your party levels up only after defeating bosses.

It's another instance of going to the past. You have to do some steps to get a specific bell and unlock this other past, and it's that unlocking of it that is missable if you don't do it by a certain point. Once you've unlocked it and go there once, you can leave and come back later whenever you want (i.e. it's no longer missable). And I'd definitely recommend coming back later, since you'll want your sword to be as powerful as possible to take the boss on.

Absolutely, this is the hardest "Souls" game, for sure. That optional boss that is 'in the past'...it's definitely the hardest boss in any of their games. Also @drahkon it's somewhat complicated to even stumble upon, and it's missable if you don't do the prerequisite steps to unlock it ahead of time by a certain point, so just warning you in case you're trophy hunting. And there's no way to cheese it. It's good fun though, so enjoy it! Last thing - there's a kind of ridiculous trophy that was the last one to unlock for me - you have to reach a certain level/unlock everything which required a fair bit of grinding at a specific spot, for several hours, since you just don't end up that level naturally (at least not in my case). So that one trophy was a little disappointing. Still, overall very fun to plat.

It's worth noting as well that you can get a fiver off for each year (so 45 quid each) if you buy store credit first from somewhere like ShopTo. This is something I'd be jumping on if I had less than a year of Plus left. I'm stacked up for quite a few years though, seeing as they were selling 12 month cards for 30 quid not too far back. It would be nice if Sony offer some kind of fixed fee to upgrade your remaining regular Plus time to the top tier, regardless of how many years left you have left on your sub. This being Sony I can't see them matching the generosity of Microsoft though. Sony are the company charging 70 quid for new first party releases...

Just got the plat. Incredible game from start to finish. For me this has set the standard for open world games and I can't wait for the inevitable Elden Ring 2. It's hard to imagine the last time a game got me this excited...possibly Breath of the Wild.

Yeah, the Vita version came with FFX on cartridge, which didn't have the original OST on it. I'm sure they could have managed it if they wanted to. Either way, PS3 wasn't the only version that didn't have it. So I wouldn't say it's the standard for S-E to include it on the first release.

Not true, the Vita version didn't have it either.

They never included the original OST for Final Fantasy X/X-2 remaster either, so not exactly a given that they would be including it.

Sorry to hear about that Cube, it does sound as though they have a solution and that they're confident about it. Just think about how wonderful it will be after that and all the great things to come.

I think they will keep it going for a while because they've learned a lot of bad PR awaits them if they try close it again soon. On a separate note @bob, what is your opinion on "shuttered"? When shut will obviously suffice.

Well they said on the official website: "A catalog of beloved classic games available in both streaming and download options from the original PlayStation, PS2 and PSP generations". Let's bear in mind that they almost got all PS4 games working on PS5 at launch, and that they could have been working on this for a good while. You'd think they'd have a pretty good emulator for PS1 games at least.

PlayStation Plus always has the remarkable ability to teach me about games I never knew existed. Apart from Slay the Spire, of course, which is excellent.

Yeah, Chrono Cross's soundtrack was already amazing and one of my all time favourites. The odds were always stacked against them when it comes to coming up with new versions of songs.

Wow...that's an eye watering amount! I hope the cellophane wrap was worth it. [emoji14]

How much in the end?

You're presenting these opinions as though they're facts; there's nothing I can see that supports what you're saying. On the anniversary site you are referring to it's hardly going to have had a section saying "main MK titles, not spinoffs". In fact a quick YouTube search shows examples of people browsing the timelines on the anniversary website you're referring to and there's absolutely no mention of "mainline" anywhere on them. Also bear in mind that Nintendo will have been very keen to publicise and show off Tour given its massive uncapped revenue potential. Not surprising at all for them to feature it on the site. And that Reddit post...yeah. Not sure what point you're trying to make there, other than to undermine your own argument? Someone saying "here's the proof", while offering no proof whatsoever. [emoji14] You're using all manner of imaginative methods to argue your point, as I see it. Just one method works for me - common sense. The majority who see or play Tour who are familiar with other MK games would no doubt come to the same conclusion. They would see it as a budget, monetised, mobile MK spin off. Because that's what it is. I see you also doubled down on saying they "absolutely" skipped making a new MK game for Switch due to them making Tour instead. Where is your proof of that? Seriously, where? Because to me it looks like they did exactly what they did with numerous other Wii U games - ported it to Switch, seeing as how the Wii U didn't sell too well. Unless you have evidence to the contrary I see no reason to think MK8 DX was any different. They didn't make a new game because they thought they didn't need to. And they were right.

I would ask please don't get sidetracked with what was a very small part of the conversation (I've noticed both you and DCubed have focused on very small parts of the post that avoid addressing the thrust of the point I was making - that avoiding mobile right now is leaving money on the table). Like you I agree there is some interpretation here when it comes to what is a "main" title, but I'd be lying if I thought you were being genuine in your comparison of Arceus to a mobile title riddled with monetisation.

Clearly I stand corrected on who made it (although most places you look list DeNa first and foremost). But at the very least DeNa and Bandai's involvement shows this wasn't a purely Nintendo effort, so my general point about this being less of a strain on Nintendo is true. I would also disagree on this being a "main" title at least on grounds of budget and quality (and with the mobile style monetisation in place - it feels far more "spin off" to me). The tracks are generally far less detailed (as we are now seeing with them being more or less ported over in the MK8 DX expansion pack) and the game has a distinctly budget feel. To me that is like trying to say the mobile Animal Crossing game is a main title in the series because it has a lot of furniture in it. It wouldn't surprise me if Tour took Nintendo far less time and money to make than a normal MK game. You also ignored my point that the $200 million statistic is a year out of date (it will have made even more now), and also my point about Tour being something people continuously pay for so makes money year after year. The total revenue when they finally close down MK Tour could be much higher. Your point about MK Tour taking up Nintendo's time/resources resulting in no new Switch Mario Kart being made sounds like pure fantasy/conjecture to be honest. So many questions. First, how do you know this? Second, are you saying that they would have released a second Mario Kart game for Switch (which they would never do)? Or, perhaps more probable, are you saying they would have developed and released MK 9 instead of re-releasing MK8 as a deluxe version? If the latter, I don't see any reason to believe MK Tour is why we never got MK9 on Switch. We have seen time and time again Nintendo releasing Wii U games on Switch, that's more to do with them wanting to see return on investment which was never realised on Wii U with its small audience. Nothing to do with the respective studios being too busy to develop a full sequel on Switch. And the biggest point I made, that you didn't address - it's money left on the table for them not to pursue mobile; that's why I originally challenged your point about them moving away from it. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if it makes less money than say MK Switch, that'd kind of be an absurd comparison to make anyway in my opinion because you'd be comparing Tour to the best selling game on a best selling system (and yeah, I'm aware it's comparing a MK game to a MK game, but still). That's not a credible measure of success - requiring it to outsell one of the best ever selling games in order to see it as a success doesn't really make sense. It could generate far less revenue yet still make a heck of a lot of profit. I mean, it has ultimately still made quite a lot of money so far so it doesn't make sense to me for them to ignore mobile. It's not like they're cannabalising mainline title sales by having a mobile game on the side, are they? You can ignore the rest of my post if you want but just answer that for me - what point is there for them to leave hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue on the table?

Christ, that's such a tacky superimposed image on the side of the console, looks like those airbrushed pictures you see at carnivals. Or a 5-minute photoshop job! Honestly though, those controllers, can you imagine how hot your hands will be after a long session? Or how smelly and dirt ridden they'll be before long? Bad from a functional point of view, but I guess they stick in your mind and kind of work as a novelty concept. Pikachu N64, anyone?

That's lifetime revenue up until April 2021; lifetime revenue up to now will be even higher. It's also essentially money for old rope, outsourced to a non-Nintendo company to make (so not using up their time and resources), and continuously generates money from existing customers (unlike main MK titles, which bar the rare release of DLC, customers generally pay once). I guess my point is that it continues to generate revenue whereas past Mario Kart titles (like MK7) don't, so you can't really compare the statistics cleanly. Even if MK Tour doesn't make what it used to make it still seems to have done pretty well over its lifetime. There's also the question of why would they leave such a considerable sum of money on the table in future? Likely the main audience for Mario Kart Switch does not overlap too neatly with players of the mobile game, so it's not like people will only buy/play one or the other. Also I think when you say it's "peanuts", I'd argue it's still considerable given how little effort relatively speaking goes into it compared to a mainline title.

What gives you that idea? Mario Kart world tour generated $200M revenue as of last April. No way they're going to leave this kind of money on the table by dropping mobile altogether.

So it's been suggested that they are making a sequel to this game. That's good news, I've enjoyed what I've played of the original game so far. Elden Ring has somewhere interrupted my playthrough but I'll be back on this game after that.

I think UC4 was actually quite weak. Looked very pretty but stale gameplay that left me really quite bored. Felt more like a PS4 showcase that resulted in very nice screenshots but an altogether forgettable game.