Bayonetta (The Game)

I was upset at the Wii U exclusivity, and it's not because I'm an elitist anti-casual Nintendo hater. It's because it means I'll likely never get to play it.

You could just save up and get the Wii U you know.

I don't blame him, wii-u is mega unhype for me so far.

For one game? Nah. If it gets an awesome lineup I might, but it's kinda unlikely. A big part of Nintendo's appeal is the established franchises, and I grew up with Playstation.

I dunno. They seem to be making a pretty big effort to win back 3rd parties.

Why don't they just make a standardized operating system for all video game consoles and do away with all this stupid exclusivity and (in)compatibility issues? That's at least one benefit to the otherwise contemptible monopoly that Microsoft has on the operating system market's consumer section.

edited 16th Sep '12 7:43:16 AM by MarqFJA

The competing companies would never allow that.

Yeah. One could argue that, for example, letting cross-platform play between the 360 and PS 3 happen would actually benefit everyone involved but there's no way Sony and Microsoft would listen.

Exclusivity is more of a contract/business issue than any given system's OS/hardware, in many cases.

edited 16th Sep '12 2:48:33 PM by burnpsy

How would it benefit Microsoft and Sony, though?

Part of a game's appeal can be its' playerbase. It's not fun to play an MMO if you're the only one there, and a deathmatch-heavy game's kinda useless if there's nobody to frag. If the 360 and PS 3 where linked, there'd be a larger playerbase for each side to interact with and thus the games become more attractive to purchase leading to Sony and Microsoft getting money from the sales generated by that.

There's also games that are forced into exclusivity when it could be more beneficial to both to split a few pies.

That's all conjecture but you never know.

Even if the two were identical internally, the console devs would make it so games are forced to check if it's in the right system and reject it as necessary. Otherwise, it would be hard to make money through licensing, which is the only thing keeping the Sony's game division somewhat afloat - they get money from each blu-ray disc produced as well as each copy of the game produced for their system.

edited 19th Sep '12 9:58:11 AM by burnpsy

Yes. They aren't doing it becuase they can't or don't know how. But because they don't want too.

edited 19th Sep '12 9:35:32 AM by Jamdat369

I know that it's a matter of "don't want to". My argument stands on the principle that consumer rights more or less trump what the corps want in this case.

I merely answered your question as accurately as possible. To be perfectly honest, it's wishful thinking to say that the systems should be standardized. There are just far too many reasons against it.

Last I checked, the systems are all sold with different value propositions behind them. Nintendo has their game focus and control schemes, as well as a guarantee to see their iconic franchises. Sony has blu-ray and high-end graphical capability. Microsoft has better online support with Xbox Live. They're too different in execution.

One could argue that forcing all of the consoles to be identical to each other would completely and utterly kill competition in the console space, or could result in price-fixing or a race to the bottom in prices. It's also imposing a single, flat option onto all consumers. None of these are good things, and the first two are illegal. They wouldn't be able to agree on a standard regardless, though - do note that none of the internals of the current generation systems look at all similar to each other.

How is it a consumer right to be able to run every game on one machine, instead of dealing with several?

edited 27th Sep '12 7:49:15 AM by burnpsy

Not "be able to run every game on one machine". Rather, "be able to run a game on every machine". It's ridiculous when a guy owns a PS 3, cannot afford a new console (whether it be lack of spare money, no available space to accomodate the new console, or whatever other legitimate reason), and wants to play the newest installment in his favorite series, only to be dismayed that said installment has either been made completely exclusive to the Wii, or all copies of the PS 3 version have been sold out (with no forseeable new shipments; a common problem in Third World countries, as my personal experience can testify) and only the Wii and/or Xbox 360 version(s) are available.

The only major problem PC games would have, on the other hand, is whether the hardware is running Windows (the most predominantly used OS), a Mac OS, or a Unix-family OS, which is rather much easier to fix than having to buy an entirely new device.

edited 27th Sep '12 2:21:13 PM by MarqFJA

Think for a moment and doing one is the same as doing the other. All of the systems would have to be very much the same to be able to have cross-compatibility of that sort. The Wii would need to be more powerful and have a more standard controller to run PS 3 or 360 games, for instance. Running Wii games on the PS 3 or 360 would require a Wiimote equivalent, too, and while the PS 3 has the Move, the 360 doesn't have an equivalent. Not to mention, of course, that games for PS 3 have to be on blu-ray discs, which cannot be read on other systems. You eventually get to the point where there is literally no difference between the systems if you truly want to do what you seem to be demanding, leading to the issues I pointed up.

That's actually not ridiculous at all. First off, if you want a game that badly and you have reason to believe it will sell out, you pre-order the game, or you go to the store first thing in the morning on release day, or shut up. All I have to offer to people who can't be bothered to do that is a song from the World's Smallest Violin.

As for moving an instalment to another system entirely, with the exception of series that jump around on a regular basis or cash-in spin-offs that you should be happy you aren't wasting your money on, that means that either something like what's happening with Bayonetta 2 is going on, or the developers have decided that their target audience is better-served on another system. In both cases, that can be boiled down to it not selling well enough on the original system, in which case you are in no position to complain.

Clearly you have a high-end PC. Or simply haven't played games that need them. Or, more likely, you just don't know what you're talking about. Hardware requirements are a thing too, y'know, it isn't just whether or not you decided to run Windows. Some games simply cannot run on games that are not powerful enough, others require a huge nerf on the settings screen on older systems to run slowly (instead of not running at all). One of the main costs in PC gaming is keeping your computer up to date.

edited 27th Sep '12 5:00:34 PM by burnpsy

I'll concede the other points, but I'll respond to the last one by saying that:

1. I was focusing on problems that make the mere idea of operating the game entirely impossible (e.g. PS 3 games being exclusively on blu-ray when the other consoles' games are on different tech — and even then, a Wii game's Nintendo optical disc would not work at all on Xbox 360). PC games have the distinct advantage of their platform's inherent modularity: You can just install a blu-ray drive into your computer (provided you have the money, of course) instead of having to buy a whole new, different machine.

2. Keeping a PC up to date is relatively easier than having to buy a new console every couple of years. (My video game interests are very diverse, hence my ire at the cross-console incompatibility issue.)

edited 27th Sep '12 3:56:45 PM by MarqFJA

Fair enough.

Okay, back on topic: Any news on what Bayonetta 2 will have?

It will have a new Lumen Sage. That's all we know.

DO THEY EXPECT YOU TO BE SUPERHUMAN TO PLAY THIS GAME!?

Gracious and Glorious out of nowhere! Giant flaming Affinities! Only halfway through hard mode!

I'm not sure who's more sadistic, Bayonetta herself or Platinum Games.

I can't count how many times I had a crazy combo going and then just suddenly dodged in the wrong direction and then got sliced apart. And there's a difficulty AFTER this.

The best part though? I really am getting better at this. Now that I'm replaying this in preparation for more sequel news I can't believe I ever had trouble with the earlier levels on normal. This game has honed my reflexes to a razor's edge. Funnily enough though, the difficulty spike is still too steep for me... Despite the fact that the game's decent length means it's overall pretty gradual. It's just. That. Hard.

Those Affinities are awful on Infinite Climax. Had to cheese my way though them with the beads (which coincidentally, worked on the rest of the difficulty as well).

edited 6th Oct '12 7:30:28 PM by Moth13

Oh god why would I ever play Infinite Climax...?

-Sees hundred point achievement-

@$%&.