Man, this is true now, but this conversation makes me very nostalgic for the good old days of the 1080Ti, where PC games were absolutely a "max out and forget" affair.
Sure, that was because monitors were capped out at 1080p60, by and large. These days people are trying to run 20 year old games at 500fps or whatever. But man, the lack of having to think about it was bliss.
Well, sure, but that's also because on PC I can choose to buy DRM-free games and have guaranteed backwards compatibility for the foreseeable future. Plus it's not a closed system based on a console that launched with a drive. People (me included) already own PS5 discs, not from a previous generation, but from this one. It's bad enough that I need to keep my PS3 around to play PS3 games, it'd be absurd to not be able to play PS5 games I already own because the thing is physically unable to ingest them out of the box.
So yeah, for people in that position the Pro is a hundred bucks more expensive than it says on the sticker, which is already a ridiculously high number.
I do feel for Sony's PR teams. Trying to explain the concept of visual improvements in 4K over Youtube's increasingly vaseline-smeared compression is an impossible task.
I don't know that I have used the SL/SR buttons on my Joycons once in years, so I don't know that is a priority for me.
Drift is a problem, but I've had it more on PS5 controllers, frankly. I do think that at least some portion of drift issues are actually connectivity. The Switch fills in connectivity gaps with the last remembered input and if you have a weak signal that sometimes manifests as the stick being "stuck" off center.
I do think Nintendo should have gone for a slightly bigger battery and a more powerful antenna, although I see why they didn't want to. Still, as far as form factor and usability goes, those things are the best controller this generation, if not ever.
First of all, favorite for what? For accesibility reasons if it's not a dual stick game I am defaulting to a fightbox-type device these days. I favor a WASD configuration, rather than a thumb-for-up configuration and I currently favor a tiny, minimalist haute board box with cherry switches (blue for buttons, greys for WASD). It's great, it lies on my desktop and it causes minimal strain even in high APM games.
For dual stick stuff, it again depends. Is this a shooter where aiming is a factor? Because then I'm gonna want some gyro. The DualSense is amazing to hold, just bonkers build quality. It is heavy and ugly as sin, though. It also doesn't work perfectly with every PC game, so it feels like a hassle to use it as my default. There's the KK3, which has gyro in Switch mode and seems to be less fussy than the DualSense. Plus they are trying to sell their hall effect sticks to third parties, so those are very smooth. It is a jack of all trades, though, and I actively hate KK's dumb extra button configuration, with start and select all the way at the top, I keep pressing the screenshot buttons by accident.
If there's no twitch aiming, and thus no major need for gyro, Victrix's Pro BFG is fun. It has modular design where you can put the dpad on either location. The dpad isn't great, but hey, the fightbox's there for that. It does have a six button configuration, too, if you're a controller fighting game guy. The best feature, though? Replaceable eight-way gates for the sticks, Gamecube-style. If you're a Smash guy or emulating Gamecube it's such a no-brainer high end replacement.
But honestly? Honestly?
The JoyCon.
I know people hate the JoyCon, but the idea of a split controller is amazing to me, and everybody else who has tried to do it, Lenovo Legion Go included, gets it wrong. The big handles aren't the answer without a middle segment to hold the controllers. The two little boards are fantastic for 3D action games, the amount of tech in such a small frame is astounding and the button-based dpad is so good I'm using fightboxes on the regular now. It's a shame there are some reliability issues, but I would buy a device just like it for PC tomorrow if they could sort out connectivity reliably.
My series 1 ended up developing a pretty bad flaw with the input chip and is dead-dead. It also developed a sticky X button right away, which I could repair but went back to not being perfect. The Series 2 has been more reliable, but I also use it less.
I'll take persona, although it's been way too many games with the same setup. Ditto for the Trails series.
Honestly, I don't think it got any better than ATB systems in FF 6 and 7. Everybody else is either riffing on those or spending so much money they think they can't be those and need to be Devil May Cry instead.
Ah, the hallmark of mainstream usability: a four bar chart with multi-segmented portions based on different independent ratings of compatibility that don't agree with each other.
Hah. I almost wrote that I also think the two Ultima Undergrounds are better than Deus Ex despite being much older and having an objectively very clumsy interface. Then I thought that'd get us in the weeds and pull us too far back, so I took it out.
Look, yeah, Deus Ex rolled in elements from CRPGs and had good production values for the time. But all those things were nothing new for an RPG, they were just new for a shooter. Baldur's Gate and Fallout were a few years old. The entire Ultima franchise had been messing around with procedural, simulated worlds for almost a decade at that point, which in the 90s was a technological eon.
And yeah, System Shock had created a template for a shooter RPG, they just applied it to a lone survivor dungeon crawly horror thing, rather than try to marry it to the narrative elements of NPC-focused CRPGs, which is admittedly a lot more complicated. And Deus Ex was fully voiced and had... well, a semblance of cutscenes. In context it's hilariously naive compared to what Japanese devs were doing in Metal Gear or Final Fantasy, but it was a lot for western PC game standards.
But it wasn't... great to play? I don't know what to tell you. Thief and Hitman both had nailed the clockwork living stage thing, and at the time I was more than happy to give up the Matrix-at-home narrative and the DnD-style questing for that. The pitch was compelling, but it didn't necessarily make for a great playable experience against its peers.
I didn't hate it or anything. I spent quite a bit of time messing with it. That corny main theme still pops up in my head with no effort on demand. I spent more time using it as a benchmark than Unreal, which I also thought wasn't a great game.
Also, while I'm here pissing people off, can we all agree that "immersive sim" is a terrible name for a genre? What exactly is "simulated"? Why is it immersive? Immerisve as opposed to what? At the time we tended to lump them in with stealth games, so the name is just an attempt to reverse engineer a genre name by using loose words that weren't already taken, and I hate it. See also: character action game. Which action games do NOT have characters?
The closest thing we had was the System Shock duology, since both predate Deus Ex. Deus Ex was basically accessible System Shock. Having dialogue trees and NPCs without losing the open-ended nature of System Shock's more dungeon crawl-y approach was the real selling point. Well, that and the trenchcoats and shades. The Matrix was such a big deal.
But even then, each of those elements were already present in different mixes in several late 90s games. Deus Ex by some counts was one of the early culminations of the genre blending "everything game" we were all chasing during the 90s. The other was probably GTA 3. I think both of those are fine and they are certainly important games, but I never enjoyed playing them as much as less zeitgeist-y games that were around at the same time. I did spend a lot of time getting Deus Ex to look as pretty as possible, but I certainly didn't finish it and, like a lot of people, I mostly ran around Liberty Island a bunch.
I played more Thief 2 that year, honestly. I played WAY more Hitman than Deus Ex that year. I certainly thought System Shock 2 was better. Deus Ex is a big, ambitious, important game, for sure, but I never felt it quite stuck the landing when playing it, even at the time.
I'm not of the opinion that more simulation and more "realism" are always better, but I would absolutely take a System Shock 2 remake, especially after the System Shock one (1 one?) turned out great.
Kind of overrated? I mean, it was cool to see a bit more of a palatable cinematic presentation in real time to go along with the late 90s PC jank, and that theme did kick ass, but it's less groundbreaking in context than I think people give it credit for. And it doesn't hold up nearly as well as System Shock 2, in my book.
All of that's fair. It's gonna be very dependent on your price flexibility and your preferences between Meta and Sony's ecosystems and platforms.
I'm with you that VR is absolutely optional, too. I don't think it's a mass market proposition and hey, I personally don't use the VR devices I own frequently, so...
I'll say the one thing I think you're wrong about is how available the dirt cheap ground level "phone in a box" alternative is. I don't think that's compatible with anything anymore. The Samsung Gear VR is discontinued and unsupported in software, the Labo thing was always a gimmick and I'm not aware of a phone conversion kit that will give you any compatibility with any of the ongoing VR platforms. Entry level to be able to do anything VR (as in, at least compatibility with PC VR games) remains the Quest 2 at this point. Next would be the Quest 3 and the PSVR2 and I suppose some of the cheaper PC HMDs. After that you get into the PC high end.
I hear you, but for a budget rig something's got to give. If it's any consolation regarding Meta, they used to bleed money every time they sold one of those, so you wouldn't have done them any favors. I don't know if the balance is less crazy for them these days.
You make a good point in that holdouts that haven't purchased a PSVR2 due to lack of games may feel more justified to take the plunge now, but the extra money of the adaptor starts to sting in that case, particularly if splurging on something that may not get much use isn't acceptable for your situation.
Yeah, it's a nice feature that the PS5 seems to use primarily for performance. I do wonder why it's turned off here and whether there is a standardized way to report eye tracking in VR to relevant middleware they could be tapping into instead. I genuinely don't know enough about the technicalities of all the overlapping VR platforms to tell.