• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

What Does PS4 Have Compared to the Xbox One?

Bowsette Plus-Ultra

wah
ZD Legend
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Location
Iowa
Gender
Lizard
They can play on the PS4. If you look on the pages MC has for its Xbox One (Which are far more impressive than the PS4's page) then you can see that they are really trying to sell it as something for the living room of your average american household. PS4 is just described as a more powerful gaming system. So if you just want to play games ge the PS4 but if I can get great games and a great living room entertainment experince then I'm going to get it. Here's a good article explaining some things, there is some language. If you read it the 24 hour checks are so that it can see if you've traded or sold a game so that you can't play it offline indefinitely. The engineer agrees it's bad and hopes they can get rid of it but right now it's really not that bad. Anonymous Xbox engineer explains DRM and Microsoft's Xbox One intentions - Neowin

Then I guess the Playstation 4 isn't looking to be a more expensive replacement for your cable box.

We know what rationale Microsoft used for their daily checkup with the console, and we don't care. No matter the rationale, it's a stupid decision. It's an unnecessary restriction on the console that's going to push customers away more than it draws them in. It's an anti-consumerist system, and unless it does a complete 180 and takes back all the used game, DRM ********, it's going to suffer at the hands of the PS4 and the Wii U.

This is the kind of **** that makes me wish Sega hadn't made the mistake of releasing the Genesis add-ons way back in the 90s. If they hadn't, Microsoft might never have been able to enter the video game market, and we might be arguing about whether the Wii U or the Sega Galaxy was the better system.
 
Last edited:

The Jade Fist

Kung Fu Master
Joined
Jul 17, 2012

Casual games aren't inferior, they are simply aimed at a different niche.

Some casual games can be good. They are defined as casual more or less by the amount of investment from the player, if the game is meant to have a 40 hour campaign + time searching for 100% completion, its not casual. Zelda is not a pick up and set down game, unless you just happen to pause alot.

Then I guess the Playstation 4 isn't looking to be a more expensive replacement for your cable box.

We know what rationale Microsoft used for their daily checkup with the console, and we don't care. No matter the rationale, it's a stupid decision. It's an unnecessary restriction on the console that's going to push customers away more than it draws them in. It's an anti-consumerist system, and unless it does a complete 180 and takes back all the used game, DRM ********, it's going to suffer at the hands of the PS4 and the Wii U.

This is the kind of **** that makes me wish Sega hadn't made the mistake of releasing the Genesis add-ons way back in the 90s. If they hadn't, Microsoft might never have been able to enter the video game market, and we might be arguing about whether the Wii U or the Sega Galaxy was the better system.

Except it can't replace your cable box, you have to already have one, and a good one at that.

edit: well MS would have still been in the games market, but in a different way, they still produced games, as well as they wrote the OS for the dreamcast. So while they likely wouldn't have been a major console, they still would have been producing software.
 
Last edited:

Bowsette Plus-Ultra

wah
ZD Legend
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Location
Iowa
Gender
Lizard
Casual games aren't inferior, they are simply aimed at a different niche.

Some casual games can be good. They are defined as casual more or less by the amount of investment from the player, if the game is meant to have a 40 hour campaign + time searching for 100% completion, its not casual. Zelda is not a pick up and set down game, unless you just happen to pause alot.



Except it can't replace your cable box, you have to already have one, and a good one at that.

No, but all the stuff I hear from Microsoft is about turning the Xbox One into a multimedia center, with YouTube, various television shows, music, and a general lack of focus on games. It's probably part of the reason they're including the asinine restrictions regarding offline usage.
 

The Jade Fist

Kung Fu Master
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
No, but all the stuff I hear from Microsoft is about turning the Xbox One into a multimedia center, with YouTube, various television shows, music, and a general lack of focus on games. It's probably part of the reason they're including the asinine restrictions regarding offline usage.

Thats the irony of it. Use us as a media center device, but you already have to have the rest of the media center.

The only thing that the X1 could uniquely bring to your media center is a blue ray player. Alot of people still don't own blue ray players.
 

DarkestLink

Darkest of all Dark Links
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Some casual games can be good. They are defined as casual more or less by the amount of investment from the player, if the game is meant to have a 40 hour campaign + time searching for 100% completion, its not casual. Zelda is not a pick up and set down game, unless you just happen to pause alot.

How do you figure? The Zelda games are not only short, but the biggest chunks to play through are the dungeons, which are less than an hour each. Even the Mario Party courses take longer than this. With 20 turns (LITE play), it takes over an hour to finish. Not to mention Nintendo is trying to make it easier and easier for the player to set the game down with Farore's Wind, Song of Soaring/Owl Statues, Ooccoo, and Bird Statues.
 
Joined
May 3, 2013
Location
New England
How do you figure? The Zelda games are not only short, but the biggest chunks to play through are the dungeons, which are less than an hour each. Even the Mario Party courses take longer than this. With 20 turns (LITE play), it takes over an hour to finish. Not to mention Nintendo is trying to make it easier and easier for the player to set the game down with Farore's Wind, Song of Soaring/Owl Statues, Ooccoo, and Bird Statues.

You could say this about a lot of games nowadays. Especially with constant checkpoints and minor hand holding to get you to the end of the game so you can realize you spent 60 dollars on something that takes five hours to get through.
 

The Jade Fist

Kung Fu Master
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
How do you figure? The Zelda games are not only short, but the biggest chunks to play through are the dungeons, which are less than an hour each. Even the Mario Party courses take longer than this. With 20 turns (LITE play), it takes over an hour to finish. Not to mention Nintendo is trying to make it easier and easier for the player to set the game down with Farore's Wind, Song of Soaring/Owl Statues, Ooccoo, and Bird Statues.

That hour is usually if you know what you're doing, and don't get stuck by over looking something obvious.

I'm pretty sure I spent way longer trying to figure my way thru the Forest Temple the first time in OoT. And most of the adult temples for that matter.

Did you really blaze thru the water temple the first time in under an hour?
PS3 covered that already.
Trying to throw them a bone here, I mean if you don't already have a blue ray player, its at least something the X1 can actually add to your media center.
 

DarkestLink

Darkest of all Dark Links
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
That hour is usually if you know what you're doing, and don't get stuck by over looking something obvious.

I'm pretty sure I spent way longer trying to figure my way thru the Forest Temple the first time in OoT. And most of the adult temples for that matter.

Did you really blaze thru the water temple the first time in under an hour?

I don't add much time for first playthroughs because the puzzles really aren't that hard. And after all...I only have my first playthrough once. The other 97 and counting are for life.

The Water Temple is....45 minutes. If under an hour extends to 59 minutes in this case, then I'd say that isn't too much of a stretch of the imagination, but I was 6 at the time, so who can say for sure?

Speaking of the Water Temple...I find it funny that Nintendo apologized over it. I mean between MM's poor save system, tWW's sailing and GBA advertisement, and TP/SS's game breaking glitches...Nintendo decided to apologize over OoT's Water Temple because they challenged us. I recall reading several interviews too where the Zelda team would talk about their experiences where Miyamoto would get them to dumb down AI a bit if it was too hard or weaken the monsters (I'm looking at you TP) so they wouldn't deal as much damage.

If Nintendo--or at least Zelda--was meant to be hardcore, I don't think Nintendo would be going out of their way to make sure we aren't challenged...let alone apologize to us for being challenging.
 
Joined
May 13, 2013
I can honestly say I came in here looking for reason why I should get an PS4 instead of an Xbox One other than restrictions that don't really restrict me. No DarkestLink I did not come in here to be a troll. I think I'll ask another forum now, thank you for your contribution. I apologize if I sounded like jerk some of the times, I had no intention of being one. My "They're welcome." was because I lost my cool, I apologize.
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
Trying to throw them a bone here, I mean if you don't already have a blue ray player, its at least something the X1 can actually add to your media center.
A bone, huh? Wonder why it's called "XBone"...maybe because Microsoft treats its customers like dogs? :rolleyes:
 

The Jade Fist

Kung Fu Master
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
I don't add much time for first playthroughs because the puzzles really aren't that hard. And after all...I only have my first playthrough once. The other 97 and counting are for life.

The Water Temple is....45 minutes. If under an hour extends to 59 minutes in this case, then I'd say that isn't too much of a stretch of the imagination, but I was 6 at the time, so who can say for sure?

Speaking of the Water Temple...I find it funny that Nintendo apologized over it. I mean between MM's poor save system, tWW's sailing and GBA advertisement, and TP/SS's game breaking glitches...Nintendo decided to apologize over OoT's Water Temple because they challenged us. I recall reading several interviews too where the Zelda team would talk about their experiences where Miyamoto would get them to dumb down AI a bit if it was too hard or weaken the monsters (I'm looking at you TP) so they wouldn't deal as much damage.

If Nintendo--or at least Zelda--was meant to be hardcore, I don't think Nintendo would be going out of their way to make sure we aren't challenged...let alone apologize to us for being challenging.

Miyamoto is also the guy who thinks no one wants starfox u because starfox games in recent years haven't sold well, when he's too stupid to sit back and look at why. Well obviously its because there hasn't been a proper StarFox game since the n64. Assault for the gamecube kinda counts but there was over half the game running on foot where it felt like you were still trying to fly so it was just all ackward, that few parts where you were actually flying were good. Its not the IP, is the quality of games released under that IP, and the fact their playstyles were completely different.

It'd be like them stopping all normal Mario games, and only selling Mario Tennis, and when sales no longer match what they used to be for Mario, and assuming the IP is bad now instead of looking at the games released being so different from what made the games good to begin with.

But that guy has lost his edge he once had. Don't get me wrong i'm not dis respecting him, but his edge is gone.

TP sucks, and not just because it was easy (certaintly didn't help its case) but you couldn't just go explore, you were so forced to do everything they wanted when they wanted, and even how they wanted.

Zelda is about exploration, TP wasn't.

TWW despite being easy, had the fact you could explore, it had that charm to it, it rewarded you for being curious. It didn't decide ok you gota find light bugs now before you can enter that area. TP felt like it punished you for exploring, or straight up didn't allow you to explore at the given time.

Perfect example of what zelda should aim to be more like: Skyrim. Yes skyrim. Every one loved skyrim, it sold an ungodly amount of copies. It was the emobidiment of what Zelda was first envisioned to be. Exploration, freedom, cool fights with dragons, and save the world story line.

Skyrim is so akin to the first Zelda, after you get out of the cave from Helgen, you're free to go any where you want, sure you could go just down the road to the first town which is the obvious place to go, or not.

Zelda 1, bam middle of field, go where you want.

See difficulty is apparently a hard thing for some game designers to understand. The game needs to be accessible to any one, and so they simple resort to holding the players hand. But so many games also do difficulty right, yes the game is accessible and easy to understand, but that doesn't mean it has to be stupid easy either, take the Donkey Kong Country games for example; even your mom can pick it up understand it, and enjoy playing it, but a little bit into the game it starts throwing crazy stuff at you with barrel blasting that you have to perfectly time, mine carts levels, and all sorts of fun things. It eases the players into the difficulty.


What zelda has over the elderscrolls games, is the hand crafted feel to it for so many of the locales. It had handcrafted unique dungeons with puzzles and stuff. skyrim had some very very basic puzzles in dungeons, and all the dungeons were mostly copy pasted cave parts, or dwemer ruins parts. (It still worked with in the theme of the game, after all you were Nordic ruins, they should look similar)

But in my honest opinion if they want to make the greatest bestest zelda game ever, they need to examine games like Skyrim. And bring in that type of open world exploration, but keep the hand crafted feel to it. Both allow us and give us a reason to want to go look around. Make a Hyrule as big as that, fill it with several dozen extra optional dungeons, I'd love to crawl through caves for an hour fighting zombies to find a piece of heart at the end, several cities even if they are just a few buildings and you're calling them a town.

And dont' give me BS but Zelda isn't a W-RPG, though in reality its not very far off if you examine the core of the game. Western RPGS are about exploration and expression of self, and empowerment, Zelda is about exploration and empowerment. Its not a huge leap to make and would simply bring in a huge audience to want to buy that game even people who aren't currently into Zelda, if they see that kind of awesome attached to such a well known name, they might very well give it a 2nd look.
 

DarkestLink

Darkest of all Dark Links
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Miyamoto is also the guy who thinks no one wants starfox u because starfox games in recent years haven't sold well, when he's too stupid to sit back and look at why. Well obviously its because there hasn't been a proper StarFox game since the n64. Assault for the gamecube kinda counts but there was over half the game running on foot where it felt like you were still trying to fly so it was just all ackward, that few parts where you were actually flying were good. Its not the IP, is the quality of games released under that IP, and the fact their playstyles were completely different.

Weird...not a Star Fox expert, but even after all the bad sales and drastically changed games, Zelda's somehow managed to survive.

TP sucks, and not just because it was easy (certaintly didn't help its case) but you couldn't just go explore, you were so forced to do everything they wanted when they wanted, and even how they wanted.

Sure you could explore...you had all the time in the world to explore. Nintendo just didn't waste your time by giving you access to areas you could do nothing in anyway. Thing is though, I didn't want to explore. Exploring is boring in Zelda.

Zelda is about exploration

I disagree. Exploration is one of the weakest aspects of the series to me.

had the fact you could explore,

Unless you used a guide, you were FORCED to explore. And that's what ticked me off. Over time, I've come to peace with tWW, but there was a time when I hated that game with all my soul. Exploration was the main reason. I played through the game once...and I didn't wanna do it again. This is coming from the freaky guy who religiously replays his Zelda games. The exploration bored me so much...it was so frustrating and rage inducing...I kept asking myself "When do I get to play the game for real?"

Zelda's had its "find the needle in the haystack" moments, and usually those aren't too bad. Sometimes they can be fun if done right. Wind Waker was "find the needle in the hayfield". This was pretty rage inducing once...but over 5 times? Terrible. It took me years to replay the game...and that's around the time I made peace with it because after first playthrough, you know where everything is and you're not forced to explore anymore. So yes, I don't hate Wind Waker anymore...it's actually one of the better games...but that first playthrough has left such an awful taste in my mouth. >.<

TP felt like it punished you for exploring, or straight up didn't allow you to explore at the given time.

Aside from some small missions (light bugs, etc.) what are you talking about?

See difficulty is apparently a hard thing for some game designers to understand. The game needs to be accessible to any one, and so they simple resort to holding the players hand. But so many games also do difficulty right, yes the game is accessible and easy to understand, but that doesn't mean it has to be stupid easy either, take the Donkey Kong Country games for example; even your mom can pick it up understand it, and enjoy playing it, but a little bit into the game it starts throwing crazy stuff at you with barrel blasting that you have to perfectly time, mine carts levels, and all sorts of fun things. It eases the players into the difficulty.

Eh not a fan of DKC. Haven't played it in years unless you count DKCR.

Zelda is about exploration and empowerment.

Dunno what you mean by empowerment, but I feel Zelda should stay as far away from exploration as possible. Leave that to a game like Mario or something that can actually pull it off.
 

Salem

SICK
Joined
May 18, 2013
^Exploration is not necessarily frustrating. If done right and its very obvious where your next objection, it would simply be a deviation from the "correct" path.

And btw Zelda has ALWAYS been about exploration, that's one the reasons the original Zelda was designed. That's the point. Now I wouldn't mind if the series deviates from exploration sometimes, but know I'm sick of the lack of it, I want it to return.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom