Ghost of Tsushima Launches June 26 - News

Sekiro comes close, but aint' it.

The Way of the Samurai games might be sort of close but they are very much smaller scale and budget.

Oh and Yakuza Kezan and Yakuza Ishin but those never came to the west.

Dynasty Warriors?

I guess I meant genuine like historically accurate, and not historically accurate with “giant enemy crabs”

I guess I meant genuine like historically accurate, and not historically accurate with “giant enemy crabs”

@DialgaMarine "No offense bud, but no one really wants your false concern." - so what - I can't express my concern? Personal opinion is not allowed. I forgot to check with everyone before expressing that. Sorry, I guess.

"Sucker punch has given a reason to assume their game will be screwed up." - Freudian slip, I presume?

I didn't follow Gears 5 since I was never interested in the game.

"Not every game needs to show itself off in spades to have potential to be great." - potential is just a possibility. Seeing is believing as the saying goes.

"Either buy it or don't, no one cares which you pick." - all products work like that, so I fail to see your point here. I guess you are irritated that I criticised the way this game is marketed. OK, then.

Definite slip. meant no instead of a, but alas I can’t edit on VGC, so I’m not even going to bother if people can easily figure out what I mean.

And no, I’m not irritated at all. I’m buying the game day 1, and have the utmost confidence in it as a long time fan of the studio. I read your comments, and simply see false concern for something that you likely wouldn’t have interest in, regardless of how it was marketed. Your comment history provides zero reasoning to think you actually have interests in these games and want better. You just want to be a downer. Like, we get it, it’s not for you.

"I read your comments, and simply see false concern for something that you likely wouldn't have interest in" - you are quite wrong. I have played every single one of SP's games and I am quite interested in this one, but not showing proper gameplay for 3 years is not something I like.

"Your comment history provides zero reasoning to think you actually have interests in these games and want better." - oh, really? What's my comment history about this game? Could you please provide an example?

"You just want to be a downer. Like, we get it, it's not for you." - no, you demonstrably don't get it. I made a criticism over the marketing of the game. This doesn't mean I'm not interested in it. Doom Eternal had a terrible TV Spot commercial. Does me not liking that mean that I'm not interested in the game? You just want to represent me as a downer, because it's easier than honestly addressing what I said.

Your comment history in general. You have a tendency to downplay anything PlayStation-related. The game will do fine, as have most Sony first party titles this gen. No need to hear your false concern about marketing when they’ve shown more than enough to justify why people should buy it.

"Your comment history in general" - so no concrete examples? Shocker!

"You have a tendency to downplay anything PlayStation-related." - not true. I have a problem with PlayStation as of late because of some practices they've implemented, but this doesn't mean I have a problem with the individual games. In fact I've been a PS gamer for most of my life and I own every console and handheld Sony have made.

Since you didn't provide any examples, let me show you how to do it properly:
https://www.vgchartz.com/article/442469/yakuza-remastered-collection-and-dreams-debut-on-the-uk-charts/
https://www.vgchartz.com/article/442399/dreams-gets-launch-trailer/
https://www.vgchartz.com/article/442657/days-gone-shoots-up-to-4th-on-the-italian-charts/

If you look carefully in the comment sections of the above articles I'm praising or expressing interest to buy first party PlayStation games. Care to alter your stance?

"No need to hear your false concern about marketing when they've shown more than enough to justify why people should buy it." - ah, so you are one of those people that don't buy games based on the gameplay. Got it.

"Your comment history in general" - so no concrete examples? Shocker!

"You have a tendency to downplay anything PlayStation-related." - not true. I have a problem with PlayStation as of late because of some practices they've implemented, but this doesn't mean I have a problem with the individual games. In fact I've been a PS gamer for most of my life and I own every console and handheld Sony have made.

Since you didn't provide any examples, let me show you how to do it properly. Look at the following links of articles on this very website since I can't post full links
article/442469/yakuza-remastered-collection-and-dreams-debut-on-the-uk-charts/
article/442399/dreams-gets-launch-trailer/
article/442657/days-gone-shoots-up-to-4th-on-the-italian-charts/

If you look carefully in the comment sections of the above articles I'm praising or expressing interest to buy first party PlayStation games. Care to alter your stance?

"No need to hear your false concern about marketing when they've shown more than enough to justify why people should buy it." - ah, so you are one of those people that don't buy games based on the gameplay. Got it.

Zenos you won't stop right?
When you say it have potential in the way you are saying is that it is the more likely outcome. Because frankly any game even with 3h gameplay show have "potential to be bad" if you use potential to any percentage of possibility.
So if you just think there is a very small chance of it being bad due to lack of information use the right verbiage. Even funnier is that you complained about my poor english while not even knowing how to use a very simple word.

"Zenos you won't stop right?" - stop what?

"When you say it have potential in the way you are saying is that it is the more likely outcome." - potential as you said further down in your own post is a possibility that can go in either direction. Also I didn't use the word - DialgaMarine did, so I guess your criticism is directed to him. You're welcome.

Stop Trying to defend a position that is very weak while trying to put as reasonable to do it.

You are the one considering your concern as something that have a good and plausible probability of happening with 0 evidence, since lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything. As I said if you use potential loosely, or probability, almost everything have a possibility higher than 0,00000000000000000000000000% of happening still you won't say it is probable, have potential, etc. But you are doing exactly that, assuming there is a good chance of it being bad and thus you are concerned, because if you considered the probability to be small or negligible you wouldn't be concerned.

@DonFerrari "Stop Trying to defend a position that is very weak while trying to put as reasonable to do it." - I'm defending my position. You don't get to define which position is and isn't reasonable. I presented the facts backing it and you can either address those and have a proper discussion or be intellectually dishonest and attack me instead.

Since they haven't shown any proper gameplay in 3 years I'm free to speculate about the reasoning. The alternative position doesn't have much evidence either, mind you. If you are going to say - this game with have tons of interactivity and won't be like the Order 1886 (the reverse of what I presented in my comment about it) - what can you possibly show to prove me wrong?

Again - DialgaMarine is the one who used the "have potential" phrase, not me, so please get your facts straight for once. Of course if I made the statement that I think GoT could be like the Order 1886 with limited interactivity (never said the word "bad" either, so please don't put words in my mouth), then I think there's a decent chance of that being the case. I'm basing it on 3 YEARS without a proper gameplay demonstration and they used the release date trailer to show another story trailer. One might get the message that this game is primarily about story and not gameplay, wouldn't you say?

You haven't given a single fact. All you gave is speculation based on the lack of information.
We gave you something much more solid that is the historic of the dev.
When weighting both it is much much much more probable that the game ends up on how the other games of the dev were than it being a The Order similar. But keep your doom and gloom for all we care, no one is really buying your narrative.

"You haven't given a single fact." - oh, really? So you don't acknowledge the fact that there hasn't been a proper gameplay demo in 3 YEARS?

"We gave you something much more solid that is the historic of the dev." - not really. A dev can make a game with little interaction despite their previous entries.

"But keep your doom and gloom for all we care, no one is really buying your narrative." - oh, no! How will I ever live with myself when a bunch of hostile people don't like my analysis! Lulz.

Again for you to let it sink, your so called evidence is the lack of evidence. Many games have no demo, and many also doesn't show gameplay and that haven't made almost none a "The Order".
Sure a dev could change and do something totally different, and you have any evidence they will do that? No. You only go for "since they haven't show gameplay demo that must mean they will do a "The Order". And is funny you keep beating on that since from what I remember The Order had a lot of demo going on since it was to be a launch title.
If you call that an analysis I better never come near an analysis you charge for.

Did you perhaps miss the 3 YEARS part? I guessed that capitalising it would help, but apparently not.

SP had plenty of chances to show gameplay and they didn't. Why? Games are sold on gameplay. Instead we got plenty of story trailers. This is why I treat what you call lack of evidence as evidence. 3 YEARS (capitalised again for your convenience) without any show of gameplay is not evidence that the game's focus will be on the gameplay. If I market the story of a game for 3 YEARS and don't show any gameplay, wouldn't you say that the focus was on the story?

Nope I didn't miss it. What difference would that make if they didn't reveal concept early and announced it today to release in a couple months and still no demo or gameplay show? The time elapse since the reveal is of almost zero relevance.
SP certainly had plenty of chances and they decided not to do, everything else is your speculation.
They barely show story as well. You may say the showed mostly cutscenes, but the story of the game so far is basically that your army got smashed by Mongols and now you are exterminating the Mongols. The last trailer gave a little more info, but very few.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFYRB8VP0bo this is a gameplay demo that was show already.
And the fact that it doesn't have anything on HUD doesn't mean anything special, GoW you have the option to hide all.

We can always count on Zenos to be negative first when it comes to Sony centric stuff.

More like HZD maybe. Now more of that game was showed off beforehand, but it's not like GoT is launching tomorrow, and how many still thought HZD was going to end up as good as it did? Not to say GoT couldn't simply be in pretty wrapping, but just because you don't know exactly what's in the box doesn't mean it must suck. The best surprises tend to be positive one's you weren't expecting because you didn't know for sure. Plus SP has had way more than enough time to make a great all around game. If they haven't by launch, then they have serious problem at that studio.

We can always count on Hynad to cry about my posts.

@EricHiggin It's possible that Sucker Punch could finalise this project, but the release date is quite close and we're yet to see a solid gameplay demo, just minor segments here and there. I'm worried that it'll have more focus on the story rather than the gameplay.

Ha ha. You always approach Sont stuff with negativity. Everyone sees that.

But to address your comment, what game has SP made that didn’t focus on gameplay?

I can’t name one.

@Hynad And you are always there to cry about it when I express any negative opinion. Sony is not above criticism, despite your protestations.

SP did say they are trying something different with GoT and so far we haven't seen much gameplay, but feel free to make up more excuses to dismiss what I said. Going back to my initial comparison Ready at Dawn also made tons of gameplay focused remasters until they did The Order 1886.

Yes they never made a game that isn't focused on gameplay or short, mostly open world feel, The Order bombed. So the logical assumption is to think it will be short and bad on gameplay because they didn't show everything on the game.

@DonFerrari It's been 3 years since the game was announced and we've hardly seen any gameplay. I guess no doubts are allowed despite that.

Yes certainly that is the tone of your comments "I don't know much about the game so I'm concerned". Did you read what you post? There isn't a single indication of what you supposed is going to happen. We didn't see much about GoW SM or TLOU2, did worries became needed?

@DonFerrari "There isn't a single indication of what you supposed is going to happen." - except 3 years with a big gameplay demo with the game coming in 3 months.

"We didn't see much about GoW SM or TLOU2, did worries became needed?" - ignoring the jumbled English - I'm pretty sure GoW had a combat trailer demonstrating the new playstyle. I haven't followed TLOU2. One should generally worry when no gameplay is shown.

Considering the companies record I see no reason to worry. The limited gameplay I've seen looked great and exactly like what I want. If it ends up being a dud oh well on to the next game there's plenty out there.

@method114 Yeah, that's fair. Sucker Punch are great and have made some of my favourite games, but not seeing much gameplay in 3 years has left me worried about the title in general.

@Zenos If that's how you see it, then it's too bad you feel that way. Not that you're wrong necessarily, but I was just trying to make a point that might make you feel more neutral about the game. I myself am more optimistic, but I also don't assume this is going to be a home run, end of story. Could go either way, but based on what I mentioned, it seems the odds are in SP's favor. Hopefully a reasonable amount of game play is shown in the next while to give gamers a better idea of what to expect.

We did get that 10 minute or so gameplay at E3 but I would personally like to see more gameplay of how the actual moment to moment open world acitivies look and feel like, but to be fair a lot more games these days seem to be trying not to show overtly too much, look at Halo infinite we haven't seen a single bit of gameplay since its 2018 reveal and its suppose to come out at the end of this year. And Avengers comes out september but aside from the intro mission that has been shown over and over again we havent really seen a decent amount of gameplay past that or how the multiplayer missions look.

@EricHiggin What is this? A balanced opinion from somebody that doesn't get triggered over a criticism? You are some sort of a rare Pokemon around here.

In general I agree that SP have a good record, but not showing gameplay for so long is rather worrying to me.

@Decker Yeah, but that thing was extremely limited and didn't really show much. 2 quick battles with no indication of how anything works. No UI, no tools, no special mechanics. Does the character have a stamina meter similar to Sekiro? How does the health work? Is there weapon durability?

I don't mind not showing too much, but I'd rather developers hide more of the story than the gameplay.

I'm not some sort of a fanboy partisan, so Halo Infinite and Avengers not showing gameplay is also worrying. I'd rather games are sold on their interactivity than anything else.