Sheikah

PS4 has infamous and FFXIV (for consoles, it's exclusive to PS3/4), which a lot of people including myself enjoy. Really though, I've noticed a lot of the hardcore Nintendo fans make these comments about 'exclusives' being scarce on PS4, but that's a very narrow way of looking at it to make a point. That's because you can can consider games like Destiny to be exclusives purely because they're not on the Wii U - the vast majority of gamers aren't going to buy both the X1 and the PS4 as well as the 30 pounds per year subscription for each. So suddenly, an awful lot of games appear, for all intents and purposes, exclusive in the sense that you get them for the one console you've opted for. And in PS4's case, they often run better than on the One, so that's added incentive. If you think about it - what does it matter if a game I want is also coming to X1? It matters not at all, because at least for a good while I have no interest in picking up an X1. To me, Destiny is as exclusive for my PS4 as Pikmin 3 is for Wii U. As soon as you look at things more realistically, you realise that whichever next gen console you opt for has an awful lot coming to it.

That's weird, Abe's Odyssey has one and that's sold directly on the store for £18.

Why most people are picking PS4? At a guess, it is (was) cheaper than the only alternative, the X1, yet is quite some way the higher spec, so it's a no brainer if you're mostly in it for multiplats. As well as that though, if you look at the last gen, PS3 had more exclusive by the end, whereas the 360 kinda petered out, and I think people remember that. And you've also got Plus (so you get something more for your money), Sony having backed things like Destiny better, and Sony not having pissed fans off by trying to get gamers go down a path they didn't want. So there's quite a lot of reasons really why I think it's doing well. Regarding the OS...Wii U OS is super sluggish compared to the PS4's. If you play with the pro controller then you don't do the quick boot which means it's pretty slow, and going through any basic menu options often brings up text on the screen, followed by a load, followed by the thing coming up. It just ain't fluid (nor is loading up the eshop). Regarding the quietness, my PS4 is as quiet as my Wii U (don't notice either), which is pretty good considering the power difference. As for the display list of games on PS4, I tend to play maybe 2-3 games at the same time so the fact some older ones get purged to the right doesn't really affect me. Everything else though is pretty great, especially the friend list/notifications.

I run the world's largest...Digimon...website?

You might need to unlock other stuff first, but it's listed under Earth in the middle of the map where you select where you want to go. You can set it to be level 6 or 8, so it might only unlock later. It's called Devil's Lair.

Seems daft that you could login at a specific time to get a 'token' to let you carry over your progress, otherwise you lose it all.

Well, they haven't said this anywhere. Depends on what the level cap is, I think, on whether they want L8 characters carrying over to the main game. They might also want people to start fresh again so everyone starts at the same place.

From the original alone, I can say yes. Had a look at the trophy list, it's damn imaginative! Would take a few runs to get all that I reckon.

I was under the impression that this is what Nintendo do for theft cases? The software is tied to your account, but they will only let you download it onto a new machine if you didn't transfer from the last one if you show the police report.

Might be on later for a bit. Guess they're not adding any new stuff for the beta?

I think next time I get a Nintendo console will be when there are at least 10 solid titles, ie. 3 years in or more. Hopefully after the price is pretty good too. I wouldn't mind that sort of experience late PS3 adopters got, but with the next Ninty console.

To be honest, you're probably right. I could have gone about expressing myself better, so sorry about that. In the past I definitely tried to give more constructive advice, and I think my desire to see him turn things around left me gradually more frustrated over time. I wasn't trying to say that the conditions are the same, just that there's a place or person to advise people to go to in each case. I've not intended to be aggressive, so apologies to Serebii if it came across that way. I admit in my recent posts I've been less than helpful to Serebii, so I apologise for that too. I do hope he takes on board some of the advice and I won't try to be so defeatist about it in the future.

I want to know why it's laughable to say that someone who has confessed to having mental health issues should get therapy or see a therapist? Is it also laughable to say someone who has hard their arm blown off should go to a hospital? And if you're wondering about the tone, it's because he has posted his issues many times, people have spent their time posting his advice, and he never tries any of it. It's bound to annoy people.

Why is it laughable, telling him what he needs? Is it ridiculous to suggest a man in a desert needs water? Even he has admitted to having issues (unsuccessful on dating sites, mental issues). People on here can relate to when they had those same or similar issues and either solved or managed them (e.g. via therapy) so are challenging his statement that therapy won't work for him. Most of all I agree, though, that we shouldn't telling him what he needs. Not because it isn't useful advice, but because he just disregards everything.

Very much so. I think he enjoys the attention and has no intention of taking advice from people who have more success with the things he's struggling with. He always has a reason stored up as to why he won't follow people's advice.

Soz 'ard. I'm often down in Manchester anyhow since I'm originally from nearby, and I'm really wanting to get back into playing squash again. You play? :p

Don't you ever get that primal itch to, with reckless abandon, mercilessly flay somebody to death? I had the Wii on Day 1 and it was, without doubt, the most sensible decision in the world. Why? Because they instantly went for 3 times their value on Amazon marketplace! Not that I did sell it...but regardless, Wii came with its killer app on day 1.

Didn't know you were at UoM, great uni. Spent my undergraduate and Master's years there.

He always thinks he has the answer, so you can't really help or give advice to people like that.

My PS4 isn't loud (I can't even hear it). Maybe something up with it?

It's actually quite easy to argue, purely from a technical point of view. The Wii U's repertoire of re-releases, aside from Wind Waker, were games hardly/not at all improved upon (e.g. Mass Effect 3 and Batman), versus the remasters this gen which demonstrate much bigger improvements. The difference is so clear when you play a game like Tomb Raider on the PS3, versus the remaster on the newer consoles. Anyway, whether it's worth getting them again - probably not, no. In either case they're going to appeal more to people who never got them first time. Which, given they came at the end of the last cycle of consoles, is probably more people than you think. You've also got Nintendo only gamers that could be enticed, particularly in these times when Nintendo is floundering.

Maybe he could adopt your approach, and pass off ignorant judgements of other games which he has never actually played?

You've gone full-blown Sereballs now . Like Bard pointed out, you're perfectly happy with a low level of graphical fidelity on the Wii U, yet you're knocking the superior fidelity on other consoles in favour of an even more superior format. You can't criticise a console's graphics if they're still much better than the format you're essentially worshipping. It's the pot calling the kettle black. Even putting aside the fact you call specific PS4/X1 games 'shameless' while overlooking the even more 'shameless' re-releases on Wii U, your argument is duff. The PC is a customisable format that will naturally always have the potential to best console games in the graphics department. But like we've said, graphics is one aspect, and many people choose consoles for the social aspects, ease of use and the cost, as well as the fact they remain supported for a long time. No, we didn't. But you know Serebii- he can't let a negative comment directed towards Nintendo slide without making arbitrary comparisons to the PS4/X1.

Regarding 'shameless remakes' - what's worse than a remake where at least a measurable degree of effort has been put into making the game look and run much better? A> games which have had graphically very little done to them, that are almost straight ported quite some time after the game has been released, yet are being priced at full. For instance: Assassin's Creed 3 Darksiders II Call of Duty: Black Ops II Mass Effect 3 Batman Arkham City Ninja Gaiden III FIFA 13 How you can call remakes with more effort put in shameless, while ignoring the above titles on the Wii U is beyond me. Your comment is absolutely stupid and the more you make it, the more everyone knows it. You're knocking a console's library because there are graphically superior titles available on PC, while letting another console's library go (despite their output being far graphically inferior) simply because they refuse to let their games go on another format. Just an absurd argument really.

That's when they say 'Pikachu', and you laud them on their knowledge of alternative versions (and not, you know, not having a fucking clue about any other Pokemon).