J4MES OX4D

Nice to see plenty on the market now and all looking pretty good. It's been a long time since I got invested in one and I feel like having another crack. I did get Injustice 2 earlier in the year but had to trade it in as I didn't have time but am still interested in picking it up again. There's also Tekken 7, Street Fighter V and the new Dragon Ball game. Really not sure which one would be more suitable - I am not as young as I once was so my reflexes might not be up to much so one with a reasonable learning curve would be ideal and something with a good campaign component too would be welcome. Injustice 2 is probably the most suitable but I fear it may overwhelm me too much. Any feedback would be much appreciated!

Dead By Daylight has been around for a year and a half now on PC and was released last year on console and has been very popular. It's also one of the most unique and enjoyable concepts created in gaming. It's a 4v1 survival game where 4 survivors in 3rd person have to escape a map by powering 5 generators and opening the exit doors against a lone killer who plays in first person. Killers can eliminate players by capturing and hooking them on hooks scattered around the map. 3 hooks and the survivor will die but other players can save them before this happens by risking their own saftey to get them off the hook. Gameplay overview here http://www.deadbydaylight.com/manual/gameplay/ and how the scoring works http://www.deadbydaylight.com/manual/score/ which affects the ranking system http://www.deadbydaylight.com/manual/ranks/. Blood Points earned in matches can be spent on the Bloodweb http://www.deadbydaylight.com/manual/bloodweb/ There are 12 survivors available to play; each with their own default perks http://www.deadbydaylight.com/manual/survivors/ - more can be earned along with items through the Bloodweb. There are 11 killers that the lone player can choose from which also have their own preset perks along with their main power (i.e weapon) http://www.deadbydaylight.com/manual/killers/ Each killer is incredibly well crafted, different to another and immense fun to play. The killer role demands skill but they don't need to kill all players to 'win' the match - gathering enough points (see scoring above) can see them rank up. A survivor can even rank up by earning enough points even if they are ultimately killed. Player ranks are reset once a month usually on the 13th but character ranks remain and each one has 3 prestiges comprising of 50 levels. I highly recommend checking it out - you can get it on Steam for £15 and £7.50 in the sale and it's about £10-20 on console. A tought game to master but a very unique one at that and definitely worth a look. There are no supply drops, microtransactions or anything that impacts gameplay either - you are responsible for your own and even your friends performance as you work together to escape on the selection of maps available. Game is also being regularly updated with balancing tweaks and new chapters consisting of new killers, perks and maps.

This isn't gambling though - you are buying an engram just like in COD when you are buying a supply drop. You know exactly what you are getting for your money - a supply drop to open. It's a raffle/lucky dip format. If the users money was being directly injected into the chance without the 'supply drop' element as a barrier; that would constitute to gambling but Activision have covered themselves very well and I'm sure their legal team have combed over leglislation for years. The ESRB also sadly determined that loot boxes aren't classified as gambling back in November along with other European bodies and this will likely be echoed globally in due course. This concept will continue to dominate as the revenue these make eclipse that of base game sales in most cases especially on franchises like COD.

Prop hunt was big in COD 4 and also in Modern Warfare Remastered last year. Very enjoyable mode away from the core playlist but it's baffling that it is a temporary inclusion. They should at least leave it in for private matches at the very least.

Liverpool 4-3 Man City Swansea 1-0 Liverpool

Treyarch are the only developers left in the franchise that I trust although I didn't like Black Ops 3 that much particularly the campaign and overly-complex zombies. The mechanics were solid but things like the specialists and the colour pallet diminished it for me. I think Black Ops 1 is the best multiplayer game of all time and Black Ops 2 being the last amazing COD; I really hope Treyarch can replicate that success away from these futuristic games. It's heavily rumoured that the next game is going to be modern and I wouldn't mind them having a controversial crack at Modern Warfare 4. A new long term series wouldn't go a miss either. Hard to believe that Treyarch were slated back in the day especially after World at War and were accused of 'playing it safe' compared to the ambitious of Infinity Ward. The new Infinity Ward are a huge studio comprised of staff thrown together from all directions in-house - I believe they are the largest and most expensive one on the books of Activision after being formed as a 'Super Studio' a few years back. Quality of staff matters more than quantity though and when you have a load of personnel unfamiliar with the franchise or the technology; things aren't going to go smoothly. Ghosts was a dreadful follow up to Black Ops 2 and Infinite Warfare albeit having one of the best campaigns for years; the MP aspect was unfinished and atrocious. The franchise never recovered after the departures of West, Zampella and the closely-knit team. I do recommend people picking up Infinite Warfare for £5 on eBay or in other bargain bins just for the campaign as it's worth it for that. Not a fan of Sledgehammer - find them too ignorant and arrogant and they have by far the worst relationship with the community. People were signing their praises for going back to boots on the ground but it then came out that Activision told them to do WW2 after they were making Advanced Warfare 2! Another studio that's out of their depth in this franchise. They are just cycle fillers really and I don't think they have the best interests of the community at heart - only themselves. I think we're stuck with what we've got as Activision wont want to pay off or dismantle any studios as it'll cost too much, cause a lot of disruption and may not be beneficial in the long run. Looks like were stuck with one proven studio, one that's made up of Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero devs and other that's full of moros. After how shit MW:R was; I wouldn't have much hope of Raven jumping in either. I bet they're busy on making MW2:R to bail out Infinity Ward once again on their next game in the 10 year anniversary.

An in-game shop isn't really connected to gambling though. Microtransactions have been around for many years now and even if regulation did come in which nipped loot boxes in the bud for good; companies like Activision will always find a loophole - this coming from a company that patents matchmaking manipulation through supply drops algorthmic rigging. There's more chance of Bungie going than a revenue stream like the Eververse.

This wont happen sadly - if anything it'll only get more prominent. They recently filled a position for a Senior Progression Designer and the Eververse aspect was something that this role is to push for the long term. From what I remember of the job advertisment; monetisation was a main factor plus the Eververse even has its own dedicated in-house team. This is also Activision we're talking about.

I'd sack Luke Smith and bring in a game director who isn't out of their depth with online gaming. The more time they have to spend fixing Destiny 2, the worse off Destiny 3 will be. The amount of time they dedicated on improving and giving the original some meat clearly made this game suffer with only the art team shining for their efforts. Everything else is rushed, threadbare and cluelessly implemented.

Nice to see people sacrificing their pampered hotel and event invites with some ruthless honesty. Bungie seemed to get really offended at the smallest criticisms in the past so this isn't going to go down well from a PR standpoint but they deserve all the flak they get. It's one fuck up to another on what is already a fucked up game.

I've followed this loosely and it looks decent and a very ambitious title but it's been a bit of a mixed bag from the critics. I'll wait for the reviews but I'm not expecting anything close to Bloodborne or HZD.

Dead By Daylight, Payday 2, Killing Floor 2 and DoS are all on PS4 which is why I handpicked them out specifically.

If you're looking for a decent co-op experience; there's Dead By Daylight, Payday 2, Killing Floor 2, Divinity Original Sin etc. I'm shocked such popular games like this get so easily overlooked on this forum as the AAA games seems to dominate. Dead By Daylight is easily one of the best concepts ever created in gaming. Payday 2 is a great heist-based game with a staggering amount of content. Killing Floor 2 is a zombie shooter similar to COD zombies and Divinity Original Sin is one of the best RPG's ever. All the developers are highly regarded too and provide stunning continued support. All these games can be got dirt cheap too. Definitely worth exploring outside of the box if you and others are looking for co-op experiences that are the utmost fun and made by proper developers with passion and in the interest of players.

INB4 Bugine Statement in a few days:- ''After reading the feedback given from our wonderful and passionate fans; we realise based on this information we've received; we at Bungie feel the game isn't performing how we intended and will work hard on fixing this so people can continue to enjoy and experience Destiny. This isolated and unforseen problem which has occured similarly at least 5 times since launch where we've deliberately pissed off and screwed over players must not happen again this month and we promise to work hard so it doesn't happen at least for another few weeks'' Lots of Love and Calories Luke Smith

I'm a big fan of Metal Gear Solid but this game looks woeful and just shows how out of touch Konami are in the industry. This should be spin-off DLC for MGSV and not a £35 standalone title ripping off the MGS name post-Kojima. Survival games is a saturated and dated genre and to add insult to injury; it's always online and full of microtransaction boosts. This'll be in the bargain bins after a month I bet just like what happened to Umbrella Corps. It's a really lazy and poor use of the iconic brand along with the impressive Fox Engine and it's assets. Glad this game is getting widespread criticism as Konami really deserve it for the way they've treated the studio, Kojima and the fans. Wish they'd piss off to mobile gaming for good like they said they would. They'll probably do a Metal Gear Solid Battle Royale game in 2025 knowing them! /edit just seen the video stats - 1k likes and 5k dislikes

I see Eric Horseshit is leaving Activision in March. Good riddance! COD started going to shit when he joined and WTF did he do to Bungie for them to go so downhill...

I really wish PS4 had backwards compatbility instead of PS Now. Probably the only thing that Microsoft did right over Sony. If I ever get an Xbox One; I'm going to revist a host of 360 classics probably more than any of their current catalogue of games! It's a superb feature to have.

Saw the fifth film the other day for the first time and really enjoyed it. I actually think this series spanning over 20 years has been really good. The first was quite in-tune with the TV series but the others have all been far-fetched blockbusters with some spectacular set-pieces and characters. Even the light-hearted humour from Simon Pegg seems to fit really well. The most impressive element of the films is the badass stunts which were performed by Tom Cruise himself. He may be 4ft 2 and approaching 60-odd but he's got some serious balls to do what he does. Even broke his ankle on a stunt in the sixth film current being made. Certainly cannot wait for that one!

I see the original Black Ops surpassed 100,000 players last night. Not sure where the surge stemmed from but it's great so see such a classic game still being enjoyed today by so many.

Phil will like this

I'm not suffering from COD fatigue - I've barely played the franchise since BO2 despite owning all the games. I was looking forward to WW2 and enjoyed parts of it but the amount of bugs and design flaws I experienced just ruined it. Not what I'd expect from this brand or a game on a 3 year cycle. I guess I'm not as forgiving and have much stricter standards especially when I compare this to other games and overall expectations. It felt like a step backwards from a technical standpoint compared to Infinite Warfare and that is saying something. You wanted to know why WW2 was getting 'hate' and I've listed some common problems people have experienced. I reiterate; just because you haven't seen much of it yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist and shouldn't be dismissed when your query is answered.

My first point is to do with the back-end connection - not in-game connection and lag. There's 43,000 YouTube videos on this. It's the most common glitch in the game which has been acknowledged by the devs but wont be fixed. It's a proven resource hog. COD survived over 15 years without an HQ and it's not needed now. It's nothing more than something to push in-game purchases dressed up as a 'cool' feature. Matchmaking errors shouldn't be happening these days. Too much algorithmic strain resulting in wayward lobbies. Only happens on SHG's SBMM-heavy games mind... Netcode is nothing to do with performance. War maps are no different to core maps and just because they may have a few more pixels doesn't mean everyone should be shafted of a quantity especially when it's already proven that Activision withdrew 3 maps from core to be sold in the first DLC. 12 maps and 3 war would have been ideal at the very least. If you already hold the flags whereby the only points you can really obtain is through kills; your dominant performance can't be further rewarded. Still also doesn't explain why the developers agreed with the community and upped the points rate during the beta and then openly lied to justify why they wouldn't change it after they got people's money. Even if the points is acceptable; devs bullshitting customers isn't. Black Ops was set in the 60's yet that had an array of entertaining killstreakes. Time doesn't not equate to providing elements that are fun. COD is on PC and was born on PC and that doesn't mean people should be shafted the same way you were on Black Ops 1 with an inferior version. Developers lying again is the point here. Also Destiny 2 on PC was an astonishingly good port, just a crap game. COD games aren't console ports either. It's a silly inclusion especially when you can't even see it in-game.

I'm pretty sure I covered most of the issues in couple of threads and last time I was accused of beating a dead horse for repeating myself so at the risk of being accused of that once more, I'll mention a few fundamental and technical problems I have with the game off the top of my head whether that being from my personal experience or something that is community wide among a number of players:- Firstly, the back-end design of the game is shambolic and makes way for unreliable and unstable central server connections. SHG are the only company in the franchise that users server-sided fetch data rather than having partial profile data stored locally. This means potentially long loading times simply connecting to the main server. You could get to the IWNet MP menu in 15 seconds on MW2 and in BO1 you could boot into it from starting the console. Xbox users in particular have seen excess loads in over 10 minutes. It's been reported and acknowledged but wont be fixed or improved. Next up is embarrassing animation glitches where player models are doing 360's and walking off the map - this means that what you are seeing and what is actually happening is not aligned and can leave you at a massive disadvantage. This problem has never been seen before and despite being brought to SHG's attention; they have chosen to ignore it despite being a glaring issue. HQ is not needed whatsoever. The game ironically ran much better when it was removed. It's only being retained in a bid to push supply drops. Until they add some purpose, it's not really required and not worth the excess strain on what already is a server savage title. Other calamitous issues is team balance - I've been in matches where it's 4v8, 5v7 and one match I even spawned on the enemy team side. This simply should not be happening. The netcode is simply woeful. The engine may be extremely old but the inconsistent way the data has been coded onto it demonstates sloppiness that you wouldn't expect from even amateur developers let alone a COD one. Bad netcode ruins the experience even if the connection is amazing. If the netcode and the connection is solid like you see on Overwatch; you get a perfect and fair experience. Other issues I pretty much echo what is said above - 9 core maps is ludicrous. MW2 had 15 at launch. 3 of which were REMOVED from the game between the beta and the gold branch which means Activision are charging people on withheld content. Just because War is a new mode doesn't mean players should receive any less from the central aspect of the game. The first DLC contains 2 new maps (lol) 1 remake (that was released last year as a remake) 1 war mode (not everyone plays War) and 1 zombies map (not everyone plays zombies) I got bored of the beta maps before release and that was 33% of the entire rotation. I hated 3 maps which was another 33% meaning I only had 33% maps that I enjoyed playing. The points system is a mess too - 34 kills in DOM to earn the top killstreak and 10 for a bloody UAV? SHG changed this for the beta but then had to lie about a privately conducted poll to justify why they wouldn't chanage it in the main game. No anti-cheat on PC despite SHG promising both VAC and manual review support. Developers lied again. Restrictive loadout system. League play is laughable. Killstreaks are shite. Pistol grips. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. SHG didn't even want to make this game - they were making Advanced Warfare 2 before Activision told them to switch. Although I enjoyed the camapign and other parts of the game; it is clear it is rushed, incomplete and riddled with funamental flaws that I wouldn't expect from the brand these days. This is why it's being patched relentlessly rather than being improved and moving forward. I just hope it doesn't affect future developement as the more time they have to waste on this; the worse prepared they'll be on the next game which is exactly what happened with Bungie on Destiny 2 and why that game released with sod all content and depth.

I'm not comparing those games - I'm comparing YOUR opinion on how WW2 works fine for you so it must be fine for everybody else. BO1 was fine for me back in the day on the 360 but I at least I can respect and are aware that it didn't work well for everyone on PS3 at the time. That's like me telling you now that I cannot believe you had problems on BO1 as it ran perfectly for me. You may not experience the wealth of problems the WW2 has even though they are widely known but that doesn't mean other users haven't and that they aren't a problem for them. Most of WW2's issues aren't even connection-related. Not sure why you keep referring to connection in all honesty. A persons experience on a game isn't just down to connection - it's down to a variety of things and it's a variety of issues that WW2 has for many users which is the problem.

You should try Killing Floor 2 Rich!