Yeah, I know we already got a "remaster" but it was just a port with added bugs. A full graphics update (and some plot fixes) would really make this thing shine.

I called Fahrenheit: Indigo Prophecy a "thing" because it's not a game, it's not a movie, it's not even a mix of the two. The "experience" definition probably fits better than everything else. One moment you're making choices in a dialogue, a few seconds later you're solving a puzzle, or trying to beat one of those damn Quick Time Events.

Yeah, it's got too many of them, but this was David Cage's acid trip after all. The plot took elements from sci-fi, the supernatural, police dramas and everything else lying on Cage's desk when he wrote this.

And you know what? It's really addictive in a "so crazy I can't put it down" kind of way. What keeps it afloat, at least for me, is the main cast. Characters like Carla are vey well put together: no hero or victim but a realistic individual with doubts and fears that impact the way you play. And the freedom to switch between them during gameplay adds a lot of depth to the story.

In fact, Fahrenheit: Indigo Prophecy is probably the only QuanticDream title that really gives you total control, compared to mostly watching and making key choices.

Going back to it after almost 20 years was refreshing for me, graphics aside. With a new engine, it would easily stand out among today's releases.

As much as I love gaming solo, whether in singleplayer or multiplayer, having a good old gaming session with the lads and lasses is something that really nourishes the heart and the soul. Especially when you get a bit older and all the real life, day to day stuff has you all grabbed by the methaporical balls. People move, the schedules get harder to match, compromises have to be made, but in the end it’s all worth it cause it makes for some really good memories. 

Even though our group has some staples, we always like to mix things up a bit and are always on the lookout for new games to try. However, shooters have proven to something we enjoy the most due to their dynamic nature and strong emphasis on teamwork. Aside from that, we usually mix it up with some strategy games or co-op RPGs.

Some of our current favorites would be

1. Vail VR - Even though all of us got VR headsets, it took a bit of convincing for some to start incorporating VR games in our pool of games. Vail honestly made for a great choice since practically all of us played Counter-Strike earlier in the day. The gunplay is very good for a VR title and the gameplay loop is just what you want from an FPS game. It allows for smooth movement and handling, so it wasn’t hard to get into albeit the TTK is a bit low. Since the game is pretty hardcore in nature, we have to work together in order to squeeze out wins, which is definitely something we look for in games to play as a group. 

2. Crusader Kings III - This one’s a bit different, over here it’s every man for himself! Even though I personally prefer CK2, CK3 has its merits as well, although it might need a couple more DLCs to be able to compete with its predecessor. For multiplayer, though, it’s a blast. Even though we usually start on cooperative footing, the whole thing eventually turns into backstab fiesta and things can sometimes get a bit heated lol We run Shattered World for the most part just to make everything extra balanced, but we’ve also given some mods a shot and had quite some fun with the Game of Thrones mod.

3. WH40k Darktide - Despite all the praise Helldivers rightfully got, we still turn to Darktide when we’re in a mood for some horde shooting antics. Honestly, its combat is really fun and build crafting is decent enough as well (I’m really satisfied with my all-round Psyker build). Maps are really good looking which helps a lot since there aren’t that many of them. It’s definitely got the replay value for us, especially when you start getting into Auric-tier missions which are pretty fucking hard if you ask me. My main gripe with this game is that it’s supposedly live service, but the devs are really slow with the updates. But it was the same thing with Vermintide, so I guess it’s just a matter of years…

I’ve been talking to my my (only) gamer friend the other day about games that get your heart pumping and while we came to a consensus on some stuff, we’ve also had quite a few differences in our views on the matter. What I found interesting is that he finds roguelikes the most exilerating, while its kind of the opposite for me - I’m usually very chill and unbothered when playing games such as Hades etc. because I play them after work and rarely invest enough emotion to get my heart pumping.

VR Fitness - Very obvious, but so true in my case. Honestly, I get a great deal of exercise from fitness games on my Quest 3 and I was actually surprised how effective they are. I mostly use Powerbeats VR due to its customizability in terms of level intensity and the music. In addition, it's also the one that has me working my ass off the most while being the least intense in terms of motion sickness. It'd be a crime not to mention Synth Riders and Beat Saber as well, as those two are staples of the genre, but they're a bit too straining for the eyes imo so I mostly exercise with Powerbeats

Horror Games - Duh! I'm pretty sure horror games are the most obvious pick here, but couldn't really go without mentioning them, because they always get me all sweaty and uncomfortable. The first Outlast was maybe THE biggest heart pumper for me for a good while, but honestly I got freaked out the most from those low-poly indie horror games like Nun Massacre and Stay Out of the House. Those are a completely different level of unsettling for me personally and stay with me for much longer… It’s a budding genre and I expect many more gems in the same vein in the years to come.

MOBAs - I fing love League and DotA….Kind of ridiculous for a grown woman but there. Still love to play them when the old “group” can’t decide what else. The highs are so high and the lows are so low. I always got a real kick from MOBAs in their ranked matchmaking, especially League which I’ve spent much more time with than Dota. Such a weird appeal these games have… Maybe it's the fear of being the one weighing your team down or maybe it's the egomaniacal desire to hardcarry and feeling like the baddest dude in town for those 30 to 50 minutes, but it's hard to explain why these games put me in such a crackheaded state of mind. Flaming teammates, BMing opponents, swear words in any conceivable language, calls for reports, and blameshifting across the board really don’t sound like a pleasant way to spend time, but for my masochistic self they provide for an exhilarating gaming experience.

My soon to be 16 yr old son is asking for a gaming pc for his birthday recommendations on prebuilds or who to go through to get one.

MtG had such a strong culture of written content that the best players in the world made way more money from writing than they did in winnings.

Likewise for league, I feel like you could write about a singular champion forever. You could write about matchups, synergies, combos, builds, powerspikes, strategy, and just a million possible scenarios. Yet league articles from pros don't exist. Why the difference?

I’ve come to realize that the kick I can get out of any game in this stage of my life primarily depends on how both the plot exposition and gameplay progress is paced throughout my playthrough. I know this sounds like pretty much a given, but hear me out for a sec. It doesn’t have to do with how good a game is as a whole but how, not any specific element, but how well the game “builds up” its main theme as you play, either gameplay wise or plot-wise, or a combination of both.

I feel as if it’s almost become a lost art when I look at games like Gothic 1 and 2, where you start off as prison meat, explore the prison colony, get robbed, so rob in return, learn, adapt, overcome… and become the “chosen one” only later. I mean, the plot itself is not anything noteworthy, the gameplay kind of clunky even for its time — but the pacing of it all is just so on point. And I won’t even get into ranting about horror classics like Silent Hill 2 (probably the best paced, slow burning horror I ever played) That specific thing that you can’t just programme but that emerges naturally in great games.

Ironically enough, I think that roguelikes like Caves of Qud and Underrail and roguelites like Astral Ascent and Dead Cells (from those I played the most) do pacing the best. Purely because of their plots being minimal or plot emerging from a good gameplay tempo (for those who care about the plot of a roguelite that is). And replayability though procedural generation. For example, there are beautiful 2D zone panoramas in Astral Ascent, but it’s never for sightseeing, those moments are short, more like a break. On the other end, Underrail — dark, dangerous and deadly zones, but it’s never just open-ended exploration. There’s a natural sense of meaningfullness to everything you do, and every nook you choose to scavenge. Same kind of vibe that I got from Stalker (even though the pacing towards the end of the game is kinda questionable in that one).

I mean, there’s a lot of good modern games with great pacing (the whole Dark Souls series, for example, but ER less so I feel), and many others — BG3 being the best example mainly due to how chock-ful of content it is from beginning to end.. But I feel indie games are unintentionally more successful at it in my experience just because of the smaller scope. Fear and Hunger for example. It’s hard, it’s unintuitive, it’s downright occult, but once you get going deeper and deeper, you’re just astounded by how deep it goes. Or like Duelists of Eden (basically a $5 figher-slash-card-builder roguelike), you’re on raft you have to repair and face progressively more difficult enemies and have to adapt on the fly. Nothing special at first glance, but that feel of good pacing stood out nonetheless, even if it’s a simple premise. Of course, that’s much more difficult to pull off if you also want an intricate plot (like one of my favourites Witcher 3), and games that do pull it off are masterpieces in gamecraft.

Hell, I think that even older MMOs like Everquest and OG WoW had a better grip on pacing that’s been lost in modern ones, despite the “slowness” in them that just doesn’t seem to have any place any more in mainstream gaming. Partially because leveling feels completely like a sidethought in the Big 5. It’s more like a sprint to the endgame and not a ride that you enjoy just for the ride. Some old schoolish ones like Lord of the Rings Online try to keep that to a minimum and still embrace the old school spirit (which is why I liked it so friggin much), Embers Adrift because of the group focus and levelling tempo, and old school Runescape (where you can set the tempo by choosing which skills to focus on). And honestly, it’s likely this pacing — along with the generally less hectic feel to gaming back then — that people remember as making old MMOs they played so great. It might just be boomer talk, but maybe sometimes I just want to kill boars in the beginning and slowly climb the food ladder to killing demons and OP-looking monsters? Or being owned by them in the beginning to come back stronger and end them (like in Dark Souls).

I might just be talking out of my ass a little bit here, but I feel as if pacing in games is something that doesn’t get talked about much nowadays. Especially with how much consumer tastest and dev tendencies have evolved over the years.

So guys at work trying to get me to play ff Xiv and I did gave it a good 3 hrs then deleted it yesterday bc controls and functions were a head ache I tell them why can't it be accessible like eso they tell me it's a fake mmo I don't really know what that is then I always thought eso and dragon age2 were in that category. Also I play on xbox

I sadly encounter people with this viewpoint somewhat often and it is painfully inaccurate, they are seemingly ignorant due to not educating themselves through simple research. The majority of modern disc based games (8th/PS4 and 9th/PS5 Gen) are no less practical than an NES cart when it comes to maintaining physical ownership; they can be played without an internet connection. If these discs were merely glorified keys that needed to ping a server then there truly would be no logical reason for their existence.

I need a second opinion here because, if I’m honest, I just don’t know how people find enough time to play all the games they want while also holding down a job, having some sorta social life, and other hobbies besides. It’s not that I’m incapable of that, but more often than not, I feel like I have to sacrifice some or all of the above to get the bang that I want out of my games.

For example, I had to dedicate a good chunk of my summer holiday to get fully on board with Witcher 3 and dive deep into the world and characters, a kind of full-on immersion that just wasn’t there when I tried chipping away at the game. It’s less of a problem for some genres, like say hack & slash & loot RPGs like Grim Dawn and Last Epoch. I can just get in and turn my mind off, I’ll get the same dopamine boost whether I’m “in the zone” for it or not. Or even better, roguelites, which kind of function of the same principle: I get into the game, do a 15-30 min run, get my kick out of it, and then decide to move on or not. It sure is addictive as hell when I’m playing for example Astral Ascent, but eventually the difficulty keeps ramping up , I get burned out a bit, and put it down till the next time. The only danger is not paying attention to the time, I guess. It’s also the only genre I can comfortably chip away when I have some downtime at work.

So I guess it depends a lot on the kind of game I wanna get into. If it’s a big one, then I have to think in advance, and if it’s a “small” one, I can play it any time. That’s at least how I started dividing them ever since the burdens of being an adult gamer have started being heavier and heavier. How do you handle this, if it’s an issue at all?... And damn, I wish it wasn’t an issue for me since I both love and kind of hate throwing most of my free time at video games. And no, I don't work from home.

Whenever I come across obscenely large video game collections I'm always left wondering several things...

Does the owner intend to play all of those games or is the hunting and aquiring how they enjoy video games as a hobby?

Do they keep the games that they play and don't like or is quantity how they value their collection?

Please forgive my inquisitive nature, I don't mean to be critical of anyone's preferences. I collect as well but deeply curate my library as to only keep what I beat/enjoy and know that I'll want to revisit in the future (same goes for my movies). Then there's the physical backlog of games that I'm interested in trying and may add to the collection upon liking them (those all come from a larger list with many more titles of intrigue). We all have our methods of madness.

Personal Milestone: As of today, I have finished 700 games + DLC since March 2009 when I started counting. 74% were "patient" purchases.

In this post I shall detail some purchasing and playing habits, and with hope this will help others make informed decisions when it comes to buying games.

According to my How Long to Beat stats, I just finished my 700th game + DLC (or 612th game, if you aren't counting DLC & complations) in the 179 months since I got my Xbox 360 in March 2009 for Resident Evil 5 and Street Fighter IV.

Of course, some games are only a few hours long, so it's not like I'm no-lifin' it 24/7 with endless RPGs and the like. I'm a fan of endings, what can I say? I also only spend about 1/10th of gaming time in online/progress-less games like Street Fighter).

Some important takeaways:

𝕺𝖓𝖊: I'm apparently about 50% complete my amassed collection... which means that if I stopped buying games entirely right now, it would take another 15 years at the same pace to finish everything.

Now granted, a huge number of those games are amassed from Games with Gold (RIP) and Playstation Plus, and so I never intend on playing the lion's share of those (but it's comforting to have them just in case)... but still there are several years' worth of games to play even if I'm only counting a quarter of them.

𝓣𝔀𝓸: About 26% were games were new-ish releases, and I diligently played them right away... (because otherwise, what's the point?)

Though my actual upon-release purchases have become minimal. Day-1 releases on Gamepass/PS+, plus borrowing games from friends is the way to do it in this era of pricey games.

Ⓣⓗⓡⓔⓔ: I probably bought too many 360 and PS3 games that I haven't played. There's no point in amassing games that are not convenient or enjoyable to return to.

I dare say that the 360 gen was a golden age in terms of inexpensive/readily available games... or maybe it just seemed like that by comparison to prior generations. I may have "panic bought" a large number of games, and thus I need to have my PS3 plugged in ad infinitum if I ever want to return to 'em. This is much less of a concern in this new age of forward-compatability, of course.

tl;dr it will take two and a half decades to finish 600-700 games for a "gaming is my main hobby" gamer. This should reinforce the "don't buy full price," ethos for anyone, I reckon... but also caution anyone obsessively scooping up inexpensive games "for a rainy day..." as that day may not be till 2039.