Beg to differ...

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/TSuB12cRqWw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nothing in that suggests that it's more linear than Uncharted. Perhaps equally linear.

And I'm usually good with Linear as long as the cutscenes aren't too long.

Sadly, the worst part about The Order is its slow, clunky controls and terrible aiming system. The story and graphics should be the least of anyone's concern. Luckily they have a lot more time to hopefully fix these issues.

What's wrong with the aiming? Looks normal enough in all the previews.

Which is why I'm not worried about the controls and aiming so much.

They need to just rip off Gears of War's controls, those were nearly perfect for 3rd person shooters. I never grew tired of the gameplay in that series, just the setting and enemies.

I guess the cutscenes are kind of my issue. I don't want to play for 3 minutes, watch a 30 second cut scene, play for 2 minutes, watch a 45 second cut scene, repeat. Even if it does play out seamlessly, it looks all kinds of boring.

I also hate (hate, hate) when a game basically stops until you do whatever trivial objective it wants you to do. Example at 2:50-3:20 of that video.

My point is, it's understandable that some people might pay that price for those trinkets if they're fans of an established franchise. But there's no franchise and no fan-base for new IPs. It makes no sense to pay money for trinkets having to do with a property you're not familiar with.

^ unless you just think those trinkets look cool.

Love the avatar Dan

As it stands now considering the game is almost eight months away I'm not really paying to much attention to trailers, in game footage or images. Same with Bloodborne, The Division and even Batman. A lot can happen and change which we've seen plenty of. When we head sown the home stretch a few weeks or month away is to me it really starts to matter. The Order has a lot of high expectations...we'll be fine and in six months I'm sure we'll see far better.

Just noticed and it is very nice!

Yeah, I'll take that a step further. I have a couple of games that I actually own (not PS Plus, but bought) that are available through the PS Now Beta and they don't show up as "Owned" but rather are available for rent.

Honestly, they shold have kept the name Vita TV like it is in Japan. Not only is the name Playstation TV deceptive and confusing, but also they already had a line of Playstation TVs that were, you know, actually TVs.

How do I get one of these?

I swear I read you could stream any digital title from your PS3 or PS4 to the PStv. If you can't the name change is absurd.

While I guess I agree that it's a little deceptive, I think the name change was smart from a marketing standpoint in countries where the Vita didn't take off. And as a practical matter, PS Vita + PS Now + PS4 remote play on your TV makes the device a very capable "Playstation". If they get the apps right, I don't see why it wouldn't compete very well against Amazon TV and Apple TV given its capabilities and price point.

What I don't understand is why they didn't set it up with Dual Shock 4 rather than Dual Shock 3, unless they thought it would undercut PS4 sales.

Also, people have mentioned bandwidth caps, do we have any idea what kind of numbers game streaming eats up?

Only marginally more than video streaming, I would think.

Controller inputs.

Guaranteed, this is exactly why. The Playstation TV (or Vita TV) is fully capable of streaming ANY game offered on PS Now today, right? So they don't want gamers to put it all together too quickly. When this new generation of consoles ends, you'll see DS4 support and therefore PS4 games on PS Now, absolutely. Sony has to play this as conservatively as possible, because if the streaming game services get as good as promised, then they'll eliminate the need for a high-powered "console" to play games entirely. Right now, that's where they're making money and they'd be stupid to undercut that so soon (think iTunes, and why Apple hasn't offered a full-on streaming service... until their purchase of Beats, of course. It's because streaming IS the future... of music... of movies... and of games. All of which aren't 'as good quality' as the real "local" thing, but good enough for the vast majority of people) Obviously, there's more to it than just PS Now (like remote play), but I think that's the killer feature that will be tightly managed to ensure sales on the PS4 hardware are strong.



Microsoft's "Yuma" was supposed to be pretty much the same thing. They killed the announcement before E3 last year, and chances are they'll leave it on the shelves until it makes sense to release it, which would be 5 or 6 years down the road... not at the same time you're trying to sell $400 hardware.

While everyone has been focusing on the "New" games and release dates...maybe with the exception of The Last of Us....there still may be some hope of filling in a long dry spell between now and mid August. We still have the two Metro Redux which are said to be "sometime this summer"

http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/12/580...033-last-light

Well I hope something comes out soon. There's only *1* retail game on next gen consoles the entire month of July. Sniper Elite 3. Bleh.

I think you're severely underestimating the appeal of testicular obliteration in 1080p HD.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/zJ5SPd92l3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I had my share of fun with Sniper Elite 2. But it was kind of a one and done kind of fun. I don't think you're sniping Nazi balls in 3, and that's disappointing.

The Last of Us is slated for July 29th too.

Don't they lose a lot of money architecting and even selling the consoles for the first few years of life?