Sheikah

That's not for definite though, for all we know they might have optimised most the games from before this date come launch, but now they're stipulating it as a requirement for new games being developed. Time will tell whether the "overwhelming majority" being supported will be available at launch or down the line. As I said before though, backwards compatibility beyond a certain point is generally a nice to have but not essential thing. It's a great thing to have for PS4 games that people play a lot right now so that they can transition easily.

That's fair enough actually, I hadn't appreciated that the word "launch" was missing from the clarification. If that's the case, Microsoft's BC offering will no doubt be superior. That said, I just don't see most people caring too much. If Sony can get a large cohort of current and popular games running at launch (including the 100 most played) that will satisfy most people, truth be told. Despite all Microsoft's efforts with BC this gen, we never saw that actually amount to a tipping of the scales. I would say that Sony's attitude to BC is probably different to Microsoft. Microsoft are clearly establishing themselves as the company delivering exhaustive BC to give them a unique selling point. For Sony, I feel it's probably purely something they're doing to ease the transition of people going from PS4 to PS5.

If you look back, I only ever pointed out that the PS5 will play "all" PS4 games as a reason to justify a launch PS5 purchase, as Dcubed was suggesting it would be a "brick" at launch, which clearly it wouldn't. He knows that, but he won't admit it. Whether it plays 4,000 games or 3,790 at launch doesn't really take away from the point I was making. It's going to play the top 100 most played PS4 games at the very least, so I can imagine if there are some difficult to emulate titles that won't run at launch that it's probably not going to affect that many people.

What spin? The guy in charge at Sony has confirmed the overwhelming majority of 4,000 titles will be playable at launch?

Those sources don't seem to acknowledge the clarification below. Although I do take your point that it shouldn't be up to the consumer to research it, it should be made clear. (source) That said, PS5 hasn't even been revealed yet, so there is no rush. Their expected conference in June should make all this clear, which is fine.

Yes it is true. Sony did mess that up in the way they phrased the initial announcement (IMO) but they later clarified it. It will play all PS4 games, and boost the top 100 most played at launch. I wouldn't really say Xbox destroyed them - backwards compatibility with games from systems before Xbox One really isn't really necessary here. What both companies need is a bridge between the current generation and the next generation to entice people to get on board right away. Being able to play really old games is a nice to have feature but ultimately won't even register on most people's radars.

Well that's just not true, is it? If you're going to buy one anyway at some point during the generation then it makes sense to pick one up sooner rather than later. It will play all PS4 games from the outset and will boost the top 100 most played. And you'll be able to play new titles and any cross gen titles with better performance than the last gen. The use of SSDs in the next gen consoles by all accounts sounds remarkable. If you think it's a waste of money to buy at launch then bear in mind it took a whole 2 years from release of the PS4 to receive a paltry 50 pound price cut. I think it makes sense to either buy early and get the console benefits the longest, or buy late in the generation when the console and games are much cheaper. Buying a couple of years in doesn't really make sense on paper this time, especially with backwards compatibility being a thing now. And regardless, even if it took a couple of years for the games to come on PS5, that's not a reason I would consider to pick the Series X. Better to wait 2 years for good exclusive games to come than infinite years.

So just the main reason for picking one console over the other, then. That's like saying "there's absolutely no reason to pick PS5 over Series X, unless you want to play video games!" [emoji14]

This sounds like obsessiveness. Do you really need an off-green rice cooker?

Actually I often do try to buy everything I don't always have, but somehow still have all that space left.

That's fair enough. I must admit the hoarding of materials started because at least initially, I noticed there were a lot of recipes requiring many materials. Like there was this one rock recipe that needed something like 90 stone. Either way, the storage capacity is ridiculously high in the game, and I'm at the point where the stuff in the shop is mostly stuff I already have, or stuff I don't want. And I still have something like 500 storage slots left, even with all the dupes I have.

Smeagol asked me why I didn't sell all my crafting materials. So it was pretty clear I was talking about myself. Either way, like you agreed, it's easy to make millions in this game. So in the grand scheme of things, making a few thousand from continuously selling crafting materials is not really worth it, if you're actually trying to make money.

Well you've done it one more time than me. Regardless, this ability to get rich so quickly is down to the way Nintendo have designed the game - they made it so you can make millions ridiculously easy and it only takes minutes to do, so it's not like you have to be a "power gamer" to get rich this way. The only reason you don't have as much money is because you decided you didn't want it. Which is your choice, but it's not like people who did choose to sell a lot of turnips have somehow "rushed". You say it ruins the economics of the game but this is the way Nintendo have designed it. If they wanted, they could have put a limit on how many turnips you can buy in a week, but they didn't. For what it's worth, I don't see turnips and making millions easily as an issue here at all. Because money shouldn't, in my opinion, be a focus in a game like this that has only loosely-defined objectives. In fact, having millions in the bank makes the game far more laid back for me - you never have to worry about affording things and can just focus on the things you want to do more, like collecting art or terraforming.

I finally got round to starting this a few days ago. It's really quite something, especially if you were a huge fan of the original. The character models, voice acting and mannerisms are perfect, god knows how long they spent perfecting these. The combat system which I didn't like in the demo also works really well I think. The sphere grid-like weapon upgrade system and return of materia really add a lot. The only thing I'm not too fond of is some of the dungeons themselves, which I feel overstay their welcome sometimes. I've enjoyed a lot of the quests though! I'm looking forward to seeing how the story matches up with the original as time goes on.

I wouldn't say I went crazy, in fact I suspect I've purchased turnips on fewer occasions than you. I've just been efficient about it. Buying turnips is generally an inconvenience to me - you have to keep an eye on the prices other people get over the course of a week, visit them at the right time (and get interrupted by other people joining), and you have to clutter up your house during the week because they don't go in house storage. So by shifting a lot of turnips in the few times I did it, I was able to avoid having to do it very much. Which for me worked very nicely. We're also a good few months in now. so I suspect a lot of people are reasonably wealthy by now, even if their turnip spending has been modest.

Because money has no relevance in this game anymore, it's quicker to just dump things into storage (since I'm in my house anyway dropping off duplicate recipes, gold nuggets and the like). And my thoughts are that someone may be in need of them one day, or at the very least it's more efficient to load up my inventory with the materials I want to sell from my storage than constantly keep visiting the shop. Are you not also sitting on millions from turnips? I only had to do turnips maybe 3 times to have 15 million in the bank, I don't bother even buying them anymore.

These things are already crazily not useful despite being used to craft tools. You also only need 1 stone to craft an axe and 1 iron nugget to upgrade a tool, so it's hardly even using much, it's just annoying to have to run to a crafting table when you're in the middle of something (and possibly your house to pick up the crafting materials). As I say, the game does not feel balanced around having breaking tools at all. It wouldn't impact the game at all to make the gold tools unbreakable, since for a lot of them you've already done that activity to death to unlock the gold tool (e.g. fishing). There are already lots of items requiring gold to make anyway, to the point that I don't even bother making a gold slingshot because a regular one does just fine, and doesn't consume a gold nugget. FYI - gold slingshot only lets you shoot down 60 balloons, which isn't actually all that much.

I think breaking tools works as a beginner mechanic, and can also serve as a motivation to get the gold tools. However, the gold tools also break, so that doesn't really work. I think the trouble here is that the game doesn't really feel built or balanced around having breaking tools. It feels like the old Animal Crossing games in terms of how you use the shovel and so on, yet with the added frustrating mechanic of tools breaking regularly, often while you were doing something. In that way it is definitively inferior to the games that went before, since tools didn't break in them. Contrast this to Zelda BoTW where the weapons breaking (love it or hate it) actually feels like a proper design choice that the game was balanced around. Also factor in that gold tools breaking is very stingy. For instance, to get the gold rod you need to catch every fish, so by that point you'll have been playing for a whole real life year. You'll also have no real reason to catch fish at that point other than fun. Feels to me like they could have very easily made the gold fishing rod unbreakable without any impact on game balance by that point.

I also think gold tools you craft yourself shouldn't break. It's no longer a challenge in any way to craft tools, just annoying really.

I don't know about that, all they needed last time was this XD

I'm not sure, you might need a prescription for that.

That's not a hot take by the way, that's a fact. If you pay Nintendo for amiibo cards you can invite a specific villager and kick people out any time you want. I feel like if randomness of villagers joining was truly fundamental to the experience, Nintendo wouldn't have put a paid option to subvert it. I guess my point is that is prefer for the randomness to be optional, but it doesn't ruin my experience either way. This wasn't a big point, just me saying that not everyone likes it, so no need to tell people they're wrong.

Just because that's how it's always been done, doesn't defeat the criticism Ronnie. I personally would prefer the option to either vet the villagers randomly settling (what with being the island representative), or at the very least have the option of making people leave whenever I want. Just to touch on that last point - if you shell out for amiibo cards you can force anyone to leave whenever you want. So it seems you can get the convenience, but only if you pay Nintendo for it.

Not the whole point, since you can also invite villagers from mystery islands, the campsite, and using the paid-for amiibo cards. It's just one part of getting new villagers, arguably the worst way.

The keep appearing every so often on the edge of cliff tops, so long as you keep your island 5 stars.