Sheikah

Maybe it's that I'm older now but that trailer looked a bit generic JRPG fantasy. Like, typical Tales fare, the kind of story you'll probably forget soon after it's finished. That voice acting was also very am dram (particularly the narrator). To be honest, only Tales of Symphonia ever hit home for me, and that's possibly because of the timing of when it came out (when I was a teenager, and there weren't many games filling this niche on the Gamecube when it landed in UK). I've even played a lot of them - some absolute stinkers (like Tales of Legendia) and some that are generally well regarded that I thought were not really that good (Abyss and Vesperia - although Vesperia was very recent and really showed its age in terms of QoL issues). I'll wait to see more but I have a feeling that they'll never properly step up their game with the Tales series in terms of plot, characters, and voice acting; it feels destined to keep its very "B movie" RPG feel.

I linked to your original post because it's been 5 years and I don't expect anyone here to remember that well, and it provides an interesting look back. Point 3 doesn't actually make sense though - because PS4Pro/X1X never left any of the base console owners out in the cold (all games continued to run on the base consoles - well, perhaps with the exception of Cyberpunk, but that's down to CDPR). I remember at the time you were adamant that this wouldn't be the case and that Sony was really screwing over the existing player base - something that never happened. It's also worth noting that Sony had a huge player base at the time, too, but you still believed the worst. Lastly, if the Switch Pro comes out this year that'll be about 4.5 years after the Switch released. Xbox One X released 4 years after and you still criticised that (about the paradigm shift). You can't tell me 0.5 years makes all the difference?

Can you explain based on what is rumoured so far how it seems nothing like the PS4Pro or X1X? Understandably these are rumours so far, but I'm interested to know how you would fall if indeed it provides 4K output, similar to how the other mid-gen refreshes did. The timing is also very similar - Switch is bang on 4 years old right now (with the Pro rumoured this year). The Xbox One X released 4 years after the base console, while the PS4 Pro came 3 years after the base console. Doesn't seem a huge difference to be honest - roughly the halfway point of the console's life. Obviously there's much to be confirmed, but if a Switch Pro gets released this year (as rumoured), would you see this is a bit of a kick in the teeth? Personally I think more choice is great, and have never seen mid-gen refreshes as a bad thing (rather they extend the generation). But I was honestly interested in your opinion as I remember how outspoken you were first time round.

On the face of it the heavily rumoured Switch Pro sounds pretty much like what we saw with the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X (4K graphics but not replacing the base unit). I remember a few years back you were very vocal about a mid-gen refresh console, thinking it was a kick in the teeth to existing owners. Would it be fair to say your view on them has changed over the years?

I'm also waiting for a TLOU2 patch. Haven't played a game at 30 FPS aside from Outer Wilds for a good while now, don't see why a first party wouldn't be providing this upgrade tbh.

Repentance is still releasing on PS4 though right? So can play on PS5 via backwards compatibility. Given the level of graphics in this game I'm unsure if the PS5 version would even be an 'upgrade' over the PS4 version.

For me 3 is the wekeast, and 4 the strongest. To be honest I struggle to remember 3 that well - possibly because the main character felt really generic, and it was superseded in my mind by the excellent P4. I also played the Portable version of P3 which didn't actually involve any walking around outside of dungeons, so maybe that affected my judgement.

Happy Birthday! And try out Astro's Playroom first, it's great. Any PS4 games you're keen to play in upgraded form?

At a superficial level this argument makes a kind of sense - there's a lot of open world games right now, so I could see why you might say that moving to an open world format is "bandwagon jumping". The trouble is that the argument doesn't actually make sense when you consider the reality in which we have a stale series. Taking an example you quoted, Breath of the Wild, before that title the main Zelda games had followed a fairly established template as set out by Ocarina of Time in 1998. The way you progressed through dungeons in particular, down to Link's equipment loadout - there were variations but a definite template that had been well trodden over several games. Now per your comment, the adoption of "open world" is to conform to what is currently popular, and to be boring by virtue of being open world. Breath of the Wild however was the biggest departure from the established template that main Zelda games had followed for decades. It was lauded for being a refreshing and engrossing game; even if you didn't like the actual gameplay, it wasn't boring in the sense that it shook things up and put the existing template to one side. It was the absolute opposite in that sense from the game that came before - Skyward Sword. Most importantly though, open world games vary, so I don't agree with writing them off as a whole. When they made Breath of the Wild they did a heck of a lot of things that weren't being done in open world games, which were influential enough that you are now seeing other games copy them. To write off open world is the same as writing off all RPGs, in my opinion. "Open world" is a loose term that can be adapted to any level that you want - if you look at Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Breath of the Wild, for instance, they are very different in terms of what you do, how the story unfolds, and how you traverse the world. With Pokémon I think we would see massive differences again to other open world games, by virtue of what you're doing; catching Pokémon is very different to going around murdering people, which is quite often what you're doing in many open worlds.

Excellent, yeah it's a really neat game. I wasn't a huge fan of their previous games (e.g. Bastion) but this game is remarkable. They absolutely nailed the feel of the combat and the pacing of unlockables with each death. Glad you are enjoying it! If you like this then there's loads of other roguelikes you might like to try. I'd recommend Binding of Isaac and Nuclear Throne.

Gradual changes to mechanics aren't big changes though. The things I listed are very core parts of the series that hardly change much between each game. As I say, there's not another series I can think of that stays so fundamentally similar between entries, right down to the main character's motivation. Would it kill them to ditch having to pick a starter Pokémon at the beginning, and those same 3 types? For it not to be about fighting people in gyms and beating the league? For there not to be some rival to pick the starter strong against yours, and for the battling to not be turn based, 4-move fighting? For it not to be a case where you weaken Pokémon then throw a pokeball at them (in the main series)? There's just so much they could shake up but they hardly ever do! I know you love Pokémon and went into granular details about how mechanics differ, but the trouble is really that the fundamental mechanics and story/motivation doesn't really change, at least not substantially.

It's very hard for me to see why people are upset, to be honest. Pokémon has been stale for a long time. I've never known a series to copy the same things between games to the same extent Pokémon does. Picking from the same types of 3 Pokémon as a starter, fighting gyms for badges, fighting the Elite Four, getting the tucked away legendary and fighting some Team Rocket knock off along the way. You're saying "we haven't had X since 2010" but even by that point you had many sequels that had all done more or less the same thing. And I'd argue there's still a lot of fundamental things similar between the new games, too. I think some people are just stubborn when it comes to change to be honest.

"Old mechanics - exciting!" The irony of such a statement when it comes to main Pokémon games. [emoji14]

Never again, c'maaan. Open world might not be popular forever. Let's not talk in such absolutes. I could easily see a spin off franchise to Zelda like what we saw with Spirit Tracks, coexisting alongside the main Zelda titles.

I don't know, the 20 games that came before that all play almost exactly the same?

Sadly because turn based isn't "in" right now it feels like aside from DQ, the games with turn based gameplay tend to be of smaller scope (like Bravely Default). When you look at the PS1 Final Fantasy games or even Chrono Trigger/Cross, we are not seeing Square Enix do turn basrd games like that anymore in terms of having strong stories, characters, environments and charm.

Aren't games generally RRP on the digital storefront anyway unless on a sale? Like if they make you buy a PS5 version of the game, it'll probably be 59.99 like the original PS4 version is. I don't think it's a case that they'll put the PS4 version on sale on the digital store but then not allow you to buy it since you've downloaded the PS4 Plus version, meanwhile charging full price still for the PS5 version. God, this is complicated to even type out...

Presumably there will be an option to overcome this issue, since it feels like the reason S-E aren't giving away the PS5 upgrade is to encourage people to buy the game.

Man, the entitlement of some people about the PS5 upgrade for FFVIIR. I mean, obviously it'd be great if everyone got the PS5 version but it's still very nice that people who didn't buy it are still getting it on Plus?

I've noticed the reviews coming in for this. I can only imagine this series has been kept alive by filling the space of turn based RPGs, given there aren't that many being released these days. Admittedly the combat in Bravely Default is pretty great, but my god the original Bravely Default was bad. Soulless towns, weak characters and an awful repeating plot. I honestly don't know how they got another 2 games out of this!

Ha. Honestly though, it's weird that some other people are picking up on that. It's a free game for April because that's when it will release, nothing do with skipping March.

Why would adding a hard drive make it loud as a PS4? The whole cooling setup does not get loud and wouldn't be impacted by the addition of a hard drive.

That's a huge overreaction, there's still a lot of Japanese developers releasing games on these systems, even if they're not first party.

I thought this looked a bit bland. Certainly, the £70 asking price for a randomising roguelike seems a bit ludicrous.

Bit of a meh showing, not really much there that was new. The best thing announced was that the Oddworld game will be included on Plus.