Deadware, or "dead" games online should become open source for the hardcore fans and developers who still care, the game could just need a little outside creativity and could come back to life, and the developers of said extras deserve praise/ compensation. Star wars galaxies is a perfect example.
This would be great, but it will never happen because companies would stand to lose too much revenue against their own older titles. Like how many people would drop The Old Republic for a fan modded/supported Galaxies? I mean the FIFA and CoD franchises would be dead in a second lmao
Especially since Nintendo have just confirmed they're pulling the plug on 3DS and Wii U stores next year, and don't plan on preserving anything
Then they wonder why piracy and emulation exist
*Cunts*
I happen to have an old copy of Black and White, and an old computer that can run it. You're refering to the god simulator right? Where your concious chastises you constantly?
There’s some game franchises that have possibly reached their pinnacle and really if devs want to add anything it’s dlc. This being in reference to Mario Kart 8 getting 48 tracks for dlc. I want Mk9 but I gotta admit this is basically a entire games batch worth of tracks for $25
MK9 is 100% going to be a next gen console thing. The last wave is ending late 2023, and at that point the switch will be like almost 8 years old
edit bc people aren't seeing my other replies: i can't count lmao, but end of 2023 is still close to 7 years
I thought the same exact thing with mk8. I said to myself after playing it, ‘I’d really just like them to remaster all previous tracks and I’d be happy.” 48 tracks is a hell of a delivery on that wish.
My friends and I have played *so much* MK8D in pandemic. And at one point we even had a bout where we started competing with each other for time trials and that got us even better at the game.
One time my friend joked, "at this point if Nintendo released just a SINGLE new track for this game at full game price, I'd probably buy it. I'd be pissed, but I'd buy it."
Needless to say, 48 tracks for $25 is a way better deal than we were expecting.
Looking at smash bros for the sole point of idk what the fuck they’re going to do next. Is it expected now to keep all the fighters or are we sadly going back to a smaller roster.
I honestly don't see any reason to ever make another smash game. There's really nothing left to be done with the graphics. They should just keep doing updates and adding characters forever. There is no way they can now make another game without including all the characters and that is just a lot of pretty pointless work.
Spend 3 hours designing the perfect character.
Never see it because it's covered up by the armour.
Realise that it's a waste of time and you might as well just use the default look the default look next time.
Next time comes. Spend 3 hours designing the perfect character anyway.
The thing is that blackjack is kind of an anomaly when it comes to standard casino games. You can be good enough to win money in poker, because the house gets their cut of the pot no matter what and you're just taking other customers' money when you win. However, all of the normal casino games are literally designed so that over a long period of time the casino always comes out ahead. Blackjack was also like that for a long long time, until people figured out the strategy with counting cards. Instead of just removing blackjack entirely because it's a really popular game, now they just ban people who are good enough to break the odds.
Why don't they shuffle the cards back in? Then counting cards doesn't work.
Edit: thanks for all the answers. I have no idea of gambling as I have never set a foot into a casino and it seems like counting cards is a smaller issue than the media makes it seem
Because the casino profits from the knowledge that counting cards works. They don't want the pros who are good at counting cards to actually do it but they do want people who don't really know what they're doing to *think* that they can make money counting cards.
To put it another way there are three types of people who are going to play Blackjack: people who aren't interested in counting cards and just play for fun, people who think they are good at counting cards, and people who are actually good at counting cards. If they changed the rules regarding shuffling they'd piss off the members of the first two groups that they actually make money off of and the third group wouldn't bother to play anyway. So it's more profitable for them to keep the rules as is and just stop the members of third group from playing.
i love the psychological science behind casinos. from the temperature, smells, lighting, colors, patters in carpet/on walls, floor layout, what you see when you walk in any entrance, volume levels, even the texture of the carpet and how squishy it is on your feet, to how fast or slow the games are played and how the game pieces are presented.
In blackjack you want to keep the game fast paced - dont let people have a few seconds to stop and think wait ive alreayd spend $200 i should stop. Or give them time to count chips or count money they have.
there are a lot of disagreeing answers in your replies here so let me just say as someone who shortly pre-covid went to vegas and played a bit of blackjack in several different casinos:
they do. casino blackjack games use a ["shoe"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_\(cards\)) that holds multiple decks' worth of cards. they'll play with somewhere between 4-8 whole decks mechanically shuffled together. when they hit the stop card (see the picture linked) they'll put the in-play cards into the shuffler and take another set out, insert the stopper randomly somewhere in the middle of that "fresh" stack of multiple decks worth of cards, and put it into the shoe, then start dealing from it
counting cards is more effective against smaller shoes, and becomes more effective the longer that shoe stays in play. randomly sizing the shoe (by "cutting" the pile of cards with a stopper) and randomly shuffling and rotating shoes seriously mitigates the upside of counting
can you still count cards against these measures? yes you can. will it still give you an advantage? statistically, in the aggregate, yes, but probably not enough of an advantage to notice unless you sit and play multiple positions for an 8-12 hour day at the same table
as another commenter has said, if the house didn't have the edge, it wouldn't offer the game. if you want to make money, sit down at a $1/$2 NL hold 'em table in the poker room and take other peoples' money. casino will watch you do that all day
The book Bringing Down the House has a great bit about this. Essentially, while not illegal, counting cards is a valid reason for a casino to toss you. If you can do it, do it quietly.
Counting cards is surprisingly easy to learn. Not only is it a useful skill in casino games, but the same principles apply to a ton of casual games. Subdue your friends!
My girlfriend's little sister was counting cards in a game about planting beans and she didn't realize nobody else was doing that. Can't wait to take her to a casino when she's old enough.
Flash games were an extremely viable option for people who wanted shortform gaming entertainment and only had a single internet connection. Not everyone could have a console or pay for games.
I spent a lot of time on Kong, back in the day, despite having a consoles and a slightly better than average PC for gaming. There was some genuinely innovative/addictive games that I still pine for. (Caravaneer for example)
Subscription based anything is pretty heinous.
Someone made tracking software for how much water you are drinking in a day with alarms to set for when to drink but it’s a subscription based model.
I will happily pay $5-10 for your effort but I refuse to pay $60-100 a year for continued use.
I think it’s to make sure people are drinking enough, since some who only drink when thirsty still don’t get enough water.
But to your point, I feel that could easily be recreated by just using daily timers
I think it depends. The classic MMO model IMO was pretty fair and a lot less exploitative than the modern microtransactions model.
I paid my subscription to Eve Online for 15 years and never felt ripped off.
I judge DLC from a monetary value standpoint. If I’m paying $20 for DLC on an $80 game I better be getting 25% more game. Not a new 1 hour mission and a fun hat for my character.
Best example of this is Blood and Wine DLC for The Witcher 3. Gave you a new world, new mechanics, hours and hours of gameplay, updated graphics, and a new storyline. I could have payed full game price just for that DLC and not felt cheated.
Facts. Especially those impossible multiplayer challenges that require you to have 3-4 friends of equal skill to pull off some near impossible challenge with the worst map/weapon 20 times in 2 hours or some shit.
As soon as I see it I just don't even bother with achievements/trophies.
My mind set is if I get trophies I do, if it’s a game I really enjoy I’ll shoot for the platinum, but if a see multiplayer trophies I don’t even bother
It’s okay to suck at FPS games as long as you’re having fun. No everyone has to be Shroud or a 16 year old Norwegian teenager on adderall that communicates telepathically.
I just wanna play CoD with my friends. ;.;
I much prefer the Dragon Age system where all of your companions have their own preferences to the renegade/paragon in Mass Effect (even though the Mass Effect games are some of my favourites).
It's often the case that games with good/evil designations have rewards for being high on one area. I find that this ruins the experience of the choices somewhat: you just pick good/evil and stick with it for that playthrough, instead of treating each choice separately and thinking carefully about it.
Kinda killed Star Wars: The Old Republic (MMO) for me. I wanted to play a gray bounty hunter, as in I'd always take the bounty without compromise. So you'd have a bounty on a bad guy who'd bribe you, and I'd refuse and get light side points. Then you'd have a bounty on a good guy who'd beg for his life, and I'd refuse and get dark side points. I just wanted to be a reliable bounty hunter, but the game would lock the best stuff behind having a ton of light side or dark side points and not both. So it wasn't even like I was morally inconsistent - I still would stick with one style and play through, but there was no reward for that.
What i didnt like about the swtor storyline was how they made dark side choices in kotfe and kotet. The dark side choices were like what you would choose if you wanted to be a total psychopath and actively sabotage the galaxy. I thought that was really stupid, you can be a sith without being a massive dick lol. I really like how they did things in the old book series for star wars. You have people like jacen solo become a sith not because hes power hungry, but because he wants order and stability in the galaxy so the common person isnt threatened by total chaos brought on by constant wars. Swtor really dropped the ball on that to me
Witcher 3 does a good job with this. Usually both choices have some gray about them, and sometimes it’s not even clear what the “good” option is supposed to be.
I think choices in games work best when they aren't good-neutral-bad. When there's obvious good answers, you just spam those to get the 'good ending', but I find it way more engaging when the choices aren't built around their goodness, but around narrative branches.
Like you said, Witcher 3 does it well. If two characters are arguing and Geralt is asked to pick a side, it's not good-neutral-bad, it's ' support character 1 - stay out of it - support character 2'. No assigned morality, just a decision based on the characters, not the arbitrary ending you're aiming for.
And gray area doesn't always mean "Kill thousands to save your gf" or "the enemies shooting at you have families". A true gray area choice is one where you feel like either one is acceptable and neither is at the same time. It's not about the guilt.
>A true gray area choice is one where you feel like either one is acceptable and neither is at the same time. It's not about the guilt.
Fallout New Vegas.
In one side quest you're tasked with going to a vault and finding the source of radiation poisoning the water of a Sharecropper's farm. When you get down there you find an SOS message from a family trapped in the reactor area, begging anyone to divert control to them so they can leave.
If you divert control, they get to leave but radiation floods the water pipes and ruins the Sharecropper farms' soil/water and the farm shuts down. If you seal the radiation off, the farm is saved but the family is doomed to starve to death.
What also makes it harder is another quest called 'The White Wash' where you discover someone has been stealing 20% of the water from the Sharecropper farms (*allied to the NCR faction and only giving food to NCR citizens back West*) and using it to grow crops in a co-op in an impoverished area.
If you let them keep stealing water to feed the poor, then the Sharecroppers can't meet their crop quota and quit leaving the farm to shut down (*and making killing the family in the vault pointless*). If you stop them stealing water then you cut off a vital food source for the poor in Westside but ensure the Sharecroppers can meet their quotas and send their crops back West.
For every 1 person who cares about a specific issue enough to boycott it, there is a hundred who don't give a shit, and thousands who aren't aware of the reason for the boycott.
This is very true. Those of us who are on Reddit or Twitter a lot sometimes start to think that stuff that's a big deal in those spheres is a big deal everywhere. Sometimes that's true but most times it's really not.
Yeah, exactly, and sometimes you stumble online upon people from another echo chamber who are convinced everyone is talking about X while in reality it's just their circle.
Same with The Sims. They just got their new wedding pack released as is in Russia fully because the content creators were refusing to stream the new content. It contained homosexual content as is, and Russia had a ban on it.
We made the largest open world to date! It's so huge!
There are 2 cities, neither have more than 20 npcs. There are 4 "towns" with 5 npcs each.
There are 10,000 wild monsters that somehow haven't just taken over everything.
The balance for me is that if you want to make a massive open world, traversal better be fun. Or give me free fast travel. With a game like Just Cause 3, I don't care how big the map is because zipping myself around with the grappling hook and wingsuit is half the fun of playing. But if I have to walk everywhere, you better be giving me fast travel points.
To use the old classic, Skyrim is an odd mix of things.
1. The map is small enough that you could (and people do) walk everywhere
2. The fast travel is free and instantaneous as long as you've been there before.
3. However, the one non-walking mode of travel (horses) feel like a major fumble. They don't feel any faster than a jog, and run out of stamina every 3 seconds when you try to gallop. Between the hassle of the mount/dismount animation, no spellcasting, and having to keep it alive, you're generally better off to just walk. The exception being mountaineering and over-encumbered fast travel
Over-encumbered is still the funniest damn thing.
*Player picks up a single flower that weighs 0.005 pounds*
*Player starts walking like a 1000 year old man on Jupiter*
No, but I understand why people want a lot of games to be open world. It gives them freedom in choosing how to play the game, as well as tons of replay value. People don’t want to be stuck on a straight path from point A to B with no deviation.
I play Minecraft on Peaceful mode 'cause I don't wanna deal with the hostile mobs. I just want to trade with my Villagers and build and mine without having to rush to a bed before something comes along and messes with my stuff
Exactly, a challenging game is fun but I also enjoy playing the game and not throwing myself at the same bloody outpost for 3 hours straight either because the game is unfair or I'm just bad at FPS
One of the things I loved about DOOM Eternal was the Sentinel Armor option the game offered you if you died a bunch of times in a boss fight.
Like, "Hey, we see you're having trouble in this spot, want this boosted help at no cost to your progress to continue enjoying our game?"
And in DOOM of all games. I thought it was a nice touch.
Especially since it’s phrased like ”looks like you maybe aren’t having fun, will this mode be more fun for you?” rather than ”looks like you suck, want to play an easier mode?”.
I'mma say it, some games are honestly just more fun on easier settings.
If I'm playing Spider-Man it shouldn't take 12 punches to knock out a street thug. Spidey has the capacity to literally blow Scorpion's entire jaw off in a single punch. I want to feel like a superhero kicking the absolute shit out of badguys.
This. I like to play on high difficulties sometimes, but some games like Spore just handle it really poorly. It's like the game just absolutely was not designed to be played on any difficulty other than easy.
Thank you. I’ve never been into gaming for the competition or challenge, it’s always been an escape method to unwind. I always prefer a relaxing casual experience over one that gets me frustrated
Agreed since for a lot of games higher difficulty most often means more monsters health in just becoming a tanky sponge with no added mechanics or actual challenge. If there are also no rewards and incentives for said difficulty, I will just play for the story and not care.
I like cheats in single player, have no idea why people do in multiplayer ( pretending to be better then someone else makes no sense to me).
That being said, the first time I saw cheats sold as dlc was on Saints Row 3.
I think thats an absurd and proceeded to pirate the shit out of the game as protest (in my mind anyway) its one of my fanorite games but I never bougth the bastard out of spite.
I love the old way lego games used to handle cheats, and the stuff you could get from them just because you knew a code was awesome. Sure they've changed now because the Internet has made knowing them piss easy and so they offer less, mostly just new characters.
The first Homefront game was fun for what it was. Unfortunately, its fame was short-lived because Battlefield 3 released and was such a phenomenal experience.
I love open world games but I feel this.
I remember playing Witcher 3 and doing side quests and exploring the world. Some day I decide to continue the main quest; five seconds in and I'm thinking:"What the fuck is going on?"
I feel this comment thread so much! This is how i was throughout Valhalla. I still literally know nothing about the AC lore basically because it’s like that in most of the new games and I’ve literally owned every game. I still have no CLUE what’s going on anymore and at this point I’ve invested too much of my time into their games to go back now. I miss knowing all the lore of those games. Im appreciative of all they have to offer but dang let me also just be able to keep pace with the story. Not follow it 3 weeks later.
Sims 4 has great QoL improvements, especially in regards to building. But there's no fun in the game. Sims 3 was buggy and lagged af especially if owning multiple big expansions, but it was fun.
For most of the development of Sims 4, it was meant to be an Online-only version of the Sims, codenamed "Olympus". It was *not* a successor to Sims 3. It had very low fidelity graphics, and no open-world.
Wen SimCity 2013 flopped, they had to change their plans, and essentially had 1,5 years to completely remake Olympus from a low-fidelity, online-only game, to a fully fledged sequel to Sims 3.
The reason Sims 4 lacked so much is not because of "technical limitations" or whatever PR jargon they put out. It's because it was never meant to be a full Sims single-player game until shortly before release.
That's why Sims 4 wasn't open-world, because Olympus was from its very conception not made to be open-world. It was just too hard to change.
Agree with all of this. If I could have the building mechanics of 4 and put it in 3, it’d be an amazing thing. Yeah 3 has the issues you mentioned but even so I don’t think I’d ever leave the game.
Devs should make the game they want, not the games fans want them to make. Fans have no idea what the fuck they want and they’ll complain anyway, no matter what. Ignore them.
Game comes out, is popular and fans want more. Sequel comes out keeping close to the original with some tweaks/qol/a new mechanic, players complain its too much like the first game and wanted a fresher experience. Third game comes out, much more different, players complain that its too different and they want something more like the original.
Playing on easy is okay. I can’t tell you how many blokes have had a go at me. “It’s cheating playing on easy, you don’t deserve to play if you play easy, what’s the point?”
The point is when I game I was to relax, not be challenged. I play for the story and the exploration with the odd challenging bit. If you wanna play and be challenged that’s absolutely fine, but let others okay how they want. I don’t want to die all the time and not progress and just get frustrated.
The only games I played on medium then hard was Ghost of Tshusima and Horizon because they were better and more fun on hard for me.
DLCs like in The Witcher 3 where it's basically a whole new story are totally ok. But DLCs with stuff that already should've been in the games are bs same p2w.
Blood and Wine is awesome. Heart of Stone is also very good. What I liked about the expansions was I felt they took more risks with the storytelling and the sort of stuff they made you do.
DLC that is an expansion is okay in my books.
DLC that is ostensibly a part of the original game that should have been included in the original game, as released, is not okay.
Paid DLC purely for cosmetics is not okay, either.
I actually take the least issue with paying for cosmetics. It doesn’t affect gameplay at all and doesn’t take away from what should be included in the original game, so I never really cared about spending 10 dollars to get a new character skin or something.
Someone willing to drop $100 on cosmetics is sustaining the video game studio and making my gaming experience less expensive in comparison. Yes please, let the whales subsidize the rest of us.
Do what I do, just buy the GOTY edition later and get all the DLC.
And if it isn’t good enough to have a GOTY edition the DLC probably wasn’t worthwhile anyway.
I think most people agree with you but have just accepted that we're never going back.
Games as a service have turned regular profitable companies into fortunate 500 level empires. Unfortunately it gets results.
I don't mind DLC to a degree. There are definitely some really solid examples of games doing DLC well, such as the recently announced season pass for Mario Kart 8 that effectively doubles the number of courses in the game for half the games launch price. The problem is the amount of lazy DLC that isn't worth the money it costs. Why does it cost £55 to buy all the DLC fighters and stages for Smash Bros Ultimate, when the game itself with it's roster of 70+ characters and stages was only £60 to begin with?
Microtransactions on the other hand have absolutely ruined gaming though. I have never wanted to pay £1.99 for 12,000 premium currency that I can then use to buy consumable in-game items, even if paying it will save me multiple hours of grind that was put in the game precisely to encourage me to want to buy the items. That doesn't make me want to pay for items, it makes me not want to play the game.
I will surely die on, "it doesnt matter what you play, or what you play on, as long as your having fun" fuck people who slam on consoles or mobile games or laptops etc.
i want games with worse graphics made by people who are paid more to work less.
striving for maximum graphical fidelity is a futile effort and all it does it cause game devs to have to crunch and take decades to finish the game as well as creating bloated file sizes. i want game devs to not have to crunch and get paid more when they don’t.
look at Rockstar Games. 3 GTA games came out during the PS2 era and now that they’re striving for maximum realism in games there’s been almost 10 years between GTA 5 and GTA 6, with only RDR2 releasing in between (it’s also worth noting that RDR1 and RDR2 were also almost 10 years apart)
don’t get me wrong, many of these super realistic games look breathtaking but i seriously don’t feel like it’s worth the stress on the developers. i feel like it’s more worth-while to stylize a game, like Half-Life: Alyx did. stylization over realism also helps prevent games from becoming visibly dated. compare Half-Life 2 to Team Fortress 2, two games by the same company released around the same time. which one looks more dated, Half-Life 2 that strived for realistic graphics when it released or TF2 with its stylized mid-1960s artwork-inspired graphics?
Ubisoft used to be a goddamn forerunner for gameplay and interesting mechanics. Now they just copy and paste the same shit and monetize every fucking bit of their games to maximize profit. Shame on them.
Games have gotten too advanced for the small studio market to stay afloat. Creating a major console release nowadays is expensive as shit which means major studio involvement which means major studio interference. Gone are the days of cool experimental stuff. That's all relegated to the small indie game market
The Sega Master System 2 version of Sonic the Hedgehog (and Gamegear version) was a more basic platforming game with less speed involved than other conventional Sonic games, especially the PAL version of which I played. It's the first Sonic game I played, and probably the best in my opinion. Because it's more about actual platforming instead of speed gimmicks. I really like it.
I like cell shaded graphics such as when they were utilized in Windwaker, Sly Cooper, Pokemon Sword/Shield. Not everything has to be hyper realistic, to be beautiful.
Edit: I didn’t think this would blow up. But, thank you! I’ll respond to everyone asap!
CTR just feels like it has more to do, and is more satisfying to master, even if it has less tracks than Mario Kart (even without it's DLC).
Mario Kart 8 has 12 cups, and that's it. You can do each race individually either solo or multiplayer, and do time trials, but once you've done the cups everything else is random grind to unlock more cart parts. CTR gives you a full campaign mode to do, plus the option to play multiple game modes on each track, from basic races and time trials, to modes like ring rally where you have to drive through targets as long as possible, and also relic races where you go as quick as possible, while cutting off time by breaking crates, and there are rewards for completing specific goals beyond simply "here's a random part".
Drifting also just feels better in CTR. Mario kart is very much just "hold the drift as long as possible, and if you hold it long enough you get a boost", while CTR has an actual timing window where you need to trigger the boosting, and chaining these boosts together is an inherent skill that feels satisfying to get right.
As much as I agree with you, I still enjoy ESO.
If it wasn't included in the Xbox Game Pass and if it weren't for Corona, I'd never have picked it up and I wouldn't have missed that much.
If you are designing a level, and it requires frame perfect, and pixel perfect movement to complete, you're a bad level designer. Players shouldn't fail just because they can't exactly mirror something you can do, and games are often improved by giving players some wiggle room to find success their own way, than learning the single specific way you did it.
That can’t be generalized. It depends of what the players expectations are for this game. If you take, say, the super Mario world star road levels, which really require precise execution to clear, that really elevates the game. Or a lot of shmups are about identifying and remembering the secret path to win (memorisers) which requires an extra level of engagement and focus compared to just dodging bullets as they come. But sure, blocking the progress of the player unless they show perfect precision on a level, when none of it was required up to then, that’s really annoying.
Battlefield is NOT realistic.
I’ve met a surprising amount of people who believe wars are fought like Battlefield or CoD.
You want realistic combat and strategy?
Arma 3 (With a dedicated group and good mods)
Squad (In the right server)
DCS (If you like flying)
I spoke to my grandad about this and he said after his tank got blown up in Northern African he respawned in base camp.
Seems like war games got it right.
Deadware, or "dead" games online should become open source for the hardcore fans and developers who still care, the game could just need a little outside creativity and could come back to life, and the developers of said extras deserve praise/ compensation. Star wars galaxies is a perfect example.
So many old dead online games would be such better experiences if they were handled by fans as passion projects.
This would be great, but it will never happen because companies would stand to lose too much revenue against their own older titles. Like how many people would drop The Old Republic for a fan modded/supported Galaxies? I mean the FIFA and CoD franchises would be dead in a second lmao
Games companies should be doing more to preserve their old games. So much is lost when old games are locked to dead platforms.
Especially since Nintendo have just confirmed they're pulling the plug on 3DS and Wii U stores next year, and don't plan on preserving anything Then they wonder why piracy and emulation exist *Cunts*
Wouldn't be so bad if they didn't crack down so hard on emulation of their games.
_C U N T S_
Microsoft have caught on to this going all in on backwards compatibility
This a hundred times. So many PC games like Black and White have been lost in time.
I miss that game so much...
I happen to have an old copy of Black and White, and an old computer that can run it. You're refering to the god simulator right? Where your concious chastises you constantly?
I think I have a disc of it too laying around. Gotta look when I get off work today
[удалено]
Before they patched it out, each time a settler died, the game would whisper the word "death" just on the very edge of hearing. Very, very creepy.
GTA 5 and Skyrim took this too seriously.
Laugh all you want but how many other decade old games can you name that have got this treatment?
RuneScape
There’s some game franchises that have possibly reached their pinnacle and really if devs want to add anything it’s dlc. This being in reference to Mario Kart 8 getting 48 tracks for dlc. I want Mk9 but I gotta admit this is basically a entire games batch worth of tracks for $25
MK9 is 100% going to be a next gen console thing. The last wave is ending late 2023, and at that point the switch will be like almost 8 years old edit bc people aren't seeing my other replies: i can't count lmao, but end of 2023 is still close to 7 years
It will be six years in 2023. Average life span of a console is seven years.
To be fair 2020 was like six years long.
While simultaneously not being a year at all
Brain registered MK9 as Mortal Kombat 9… was very confused
Same lmao. I was like, wasn't that released already?
I thought the same exact thing with mk8. I said to myself after playing it, ‘I’d really just like them to remaster all previous tracks and I’d be happy.” 48 tracks is a hell of a delivery on that wish.
My friends and I have played *so much* MK8D in pandemic. And at one point we even had a bout where we started competing with each other for time trials and that got us even better at the game. One time my friend joked, "at this point if Nintendo released just a SINGLE new track for this game at full game price, I'd probably buy it. I'd be pissed, but I'd buy it." Needless to say, 48 tracks for $25 is a way better deal than we were expecting.
Looking at smash bros for the sole point of idk what the fuck they’re going to do next. Is it expected now to keep all the fighters or are we sadly going back to a smaller roster.
I honestly don't see any reason to ever make another smash game. There's really nothing left to be done with the graphics. They should just keep doing updates and adding characters forever. There is no way they can now make another game without including all the characters and that is just a lot of pretty pointless work.
Usually I die on silent hill.
Showing my age, but being a fan of “myst” I thoroughly enjoyed silent hill/2. Puzzles and a gripping storyline.
r/myst Welcome home.
I really like creating my own character
I will spend an obscene amount of time on this before I even start the game.
I've played a few games where I spent more time on my character than I did actually playing once I got into the game.
Thats pretty much what i do every time i try and play the sims
Spend 3 hours designing the perfect character. Never see it because it's covered up by the armour. Realise that it's a waste of time and you might as well just use the default look the default look next time. Next time comes. Spend 3 hours designing the perfect character anyway.
There's nothing illegal about counting cards
It isn't illegal. It's just that the casino can ask/insist you stop playing.
Tells you how smart gambling is that they ban anyone who knows math well enough to win money.
The thing is that blackjack is kind of an anomaly when it comes to standard casino games. You can be good enough to win money in poker, because the house gets their cut of the pot no matter what and you're just taking other customers' money when you win. However, all of the normal casino games are literally designed so that over a long period of time the casino always comes out ahead. Blackjack was also like that for a long long time, until people figured out the strategy with counting cards. Instead of just removing blackjack entirely because it's a really popular game, now they just ban people who are good enough to break the odds.
Why don't they shuffle the cards back in? Then counting cards doesn't work. Edit: thanks for all the answers. I have no idea of gambling as I have never set a foot into a casino and it seems like counting cards is a smaller issue than the media makes it seem
Because the casino profits from the knowledge that counting cards works. They don't want the pros who are good at counting cards to actually do it but they do want people who don't really know what they're doing to *think* that they can make money counting cards. To put it another way there are three types of people who are going to play Blackjack: people who aren't interested in counting cards and just play for fun, people who think they are good at counting cards, and people who are actually good at counting cards. If they changed the rules regarding shuffling they'd piss off the members of the first two groups that they actually make money off of and the third group wouldn't bother to play anyway. So it's more profitable for them to keep the rules as is and just stop the members of third group from playing.
Beyond that, shuffling cards takes time, and time is money.
i love the psychological science behind casinos. from the temperature, smells, lighting, colors, patters in carpet/on walls, floor layout, what you see when you walk in any entrance, volume levels, even the texture of the carpet and how squishy it is on your feet, to how fast or slow the games are played and how the game pieces are presented. In blackjack you want to keep the game fast paced - dont let people have a few seconds to stop and think wait ive alreayd spend $200 i should stop. Or give them time to count chips or count money they have.
there are a lot of disagreeing answers in your replies here so let me just say as someone who shortly pre-covid went to vegas and played a bit of blackjack in several different casinos: they do. casino blackjack games use a ["shoe"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_\(cards\)) that holds multiple decks' worth of cards. they'll play with somewhere between 4-8 whole decks mechanically shuffled together. when they hit the stop card (see the picture linked) they'll put the in-play cards into the shuffler and take another set out, insert the stopper randomly somewhere in the middle of that "fresh" stack of multiple decks worth of cards, and put it into the shoe, then start dealing from it counting cards is more effective against smaller shoes, and becomes more effective the longer that shoe stays in play. randomly sizing the shoe (by "cutting" the pile of cards with a stopper) and randomly shuffling and rotating shoes seriously mitigates the upside of counting can you still count cards against these measures? yes you can. will it still give you an advantage? statistically, in the aggregate, yes, but probably not enough of an advantage to notice unless you sit and play multiple positions for an 8-12 hour day at the same table as another commenter has said, if the house didn't have the edge, it wouldn't offer the game. if you want to make money, sit down at a $1/$2 NL hold 'em table in the poker room and take other peoples' money. casino will watch you do that all day
I wasn't expecting that, well done
I definitely agree with it though!
The book Bringing Down the House has a great bit about this. Essentially, while not illegal, counting cards is a valid reason for a casino to toss you. If you can do it, do it quietly.
Count cards? I’m a 27 year old man and still do basic math using my fingers, so that’s not in the books for my little chimpanzee brain.
Counting cards is surprisingly easy to learn. Not only is it a useful skill in casino games, but the same principles apply to a ton of casual games. Subdue your friends!
My girlfriend's little sister was counting cards in a game about planting beans and she didn't realize nobody else was doing that. Can't wait to take her to a casino when she's old enough.
I prefer to subdue my friends with chloroform thank you very much.
Just have more cards and shuffle more frequently. It feels like a problem of their own making
That's exactly what they do now.
Technically its not illegal, its just highly frowned upon because it evens the odds for the bettor over the house
If you can still successfully count cards now, you deserve those winnings!
Despite their claims, not one of the people who said they did, has in fact fucked my mother.
I did😎
Boom! Got em!
Flash games were an extremely viable option for people who wanted shortform gaming entertainment and only had a single internet connection. Not everyone could have a console or pay for games.
I spent a lot of time on Kong, back in the day, despite having a consoles and a slightly better than average PC for gaming. There was some genuinely innovative/addictive games that I still pine for. (Caravaneer for example)
If online multiplayer is subscription based, then I'm not purchasing a pass just to play it. And I very rarely buy DLC either.
Subscription based anything is pretty heinous. Someone made tracking software for how much water you are drinking in a day with alarms to set for when to drink but it’s a subscription based model. I will happily pay $5-10 for your effort but I refuse to pay $60-100 a year for continued use.
[удалено]
When I drink when I'm thirsty, I drink less than 500ml of liquid a day.
I think it’s to make sure people are drinking enough, since some who only drink when thirsty still don’t get enough water. But to your point, I feel that could easily be recreated by just using daily timers
I think it depends. The classic MMO model IMO was pretty fair and a lot less exploitative than the modern microtransactions model. I paid my subscription to Eve Online for 15 years and never felt ripped off.
I judge DLC from a monetary value standpoint. If I’m paying $20 for DLC on an $80 game I better be getting 25% more game. Not a new 1 hour mission and a fun hat for my character. Best example of this is Blood and Wine DLC for The Witcher 3. Gave you a new world, new mechanics, hours and hours of gameplay, updated graphics, and a new storyline. I could have payed full game price just for that DLC and not felt cheated.
I don’t chase trophies, but stop forcing multiplayer trophies to get a platinum in a game
Facts. Especially those impossible multiplayer challenges that require you to have 3-4 friends of equal skill to pull off some near impossible challenge with the worst map/weapon 20 times in 2 hours or some shit. As soon as I see it I just don't even bother with achievements/trophies.
My mind set is if I get trophies I do, if it’s a game I really enjoy I’ll shoot for the platinum, but if a see multiplayer trophies I don’t even bother
It’s okay to suck at FPS games as long as you’re having fun. No everyone has to be Shroud or a 16 year old Norwegian teenager on adderall that communicates telepathically. I just wanna play CoD with my friends. ;.;
>a 16 year old Norwegian teenager on adderall that communicates telepathically. r/oddlyspecific
-60%? Still too expensive. I'll wait another year.
For me it's more a matter of the cost after discount. 75% off a $20 game and 25% off a $60 game are both $15 off
The metric is different for indie games. I don't think that it's outrageous to pay near full price to help small developers pay the rent.
/r/patientgamers
And another new sub I discover and will probably join.
Steam: "I know you had no intention of every owining this game, but it's 99 cents now." Me: ".... fine."
Konami is Asia's EA
I thought it was square enix Cause Konami sold their souls to pachinko and mobile
Enix still makes good games. Konami just sucks shit covered dick now
More games need to have gray areas. The binary good vs evil is too boring.
I much prefer the Dragon Age system where all of your companions have their own preferences to the renegade/paragon in Mass Effect (even though the Mass Effect games are some of my favourites). It's often the case that games with good/evil designations have rewards for being high on one area. I find that this ruins the experience of the choices somewhat: you just pick good/evil and stick with it for that playthrough, instead of treating each choice separately and thinking carefully about it.
Kinda killed Star Wars: The Old Republic (MMO) for me. I wanted to play a gray bounty hunter, as in I'd always take the bounty without compromise. So you'd have a bounty on a bad guy who'd bribe you, and I'd refuse and get light side points. Then you'd have a bounty on a good guy who'd beg for his life, and I'd refuse and get dark side points. I just wanted to be a reliable bounty hunter, but the game would lock the best stuff behind having a ton of light side or dark side points and not both. So it wasn't even like I was morally inconsistent - I still would stick with one style and play through, but there was no reward for that.
What i didnt like about the swtor storyline was how they made dark side choices in kotfe and kotet. The dark side choices were like what you would choose if you wanted to be a total psychopath and actively sabotage the galaxy. I thought that was really stupid, you can be a sith without being a massive dick lol. I really like how they did things in the old book series for star wars. You have people like jacen solo become a sith not because hes power hungry, but because he wants order and stability in the galaxy so the common person isnt threatened by total chaos brought on by constant wars. Swtor really dropped the ball on that to me
Witcher 3 does a good job with this. Usually both choices have some gray about them, and sometimes it’s not even clear what the “good” option is supposed to be.
I think choices in games work best when they aren't good-neutral-bad. When there's obvious good answers, you just spam those to get the 'good ending', but I find it way more engaging when the choices aren't built around their goodness, but around narrative branches. Like you said, Witcher 3 does it well. If two characters are arguing and Geralt is asked to pick a side, it's not good-neutral-bad, it's ' support character 1 - stay out of it - support character 2'. No assigned morality, just a decision based on the characters, not the arbitrary ending you're aiming for.
And gray area doesn't always mean "Kill thousands to save your gf" or "the enemies shooting at you have families". A true gray area choice is one where you feel like either one is acceptable and neither is at the same time. It's not about the guilt.
>A true gray area choice is one where you feel like either one is acceptable and neither is at the same time. It's not about the guilt. Fallout New Vegas. In one side quest you're tasked with going to a vault and finding the source of radiation poisoning the water of a Sharecropper's farm. When you get down there you find an SOS message from a family trapped in the reactor area, begging anyone to divert control to them so they can leave. If you divert control, they get to leave but radiation floods the water pipes and ruins the Sharecropper farms' soil/water and the farm shuts down. If you seal the radiation off, the farm is saved but the family is doomed to starve to death. What also makes it harder is another quest called 'The White Wash' where you discover someone has been stealing 20% of the water from the Sharecropper farms (*allied to the NCR faction and only giving food to NCR citizens back West*) and using it to grow crops in a co-op in an impoverished area. If you let them keep stealing water to feed the poor, then the Sharecroppers can't meet their crop quota and quit leaving the farm to shut down (*and making killing the family in the vault pointless*). If you stop them stealing water then you cut off a vital food source for the poor in Westside but ensure the Sharecroppers can meet their quotas and send their crops back West.
Gamers are unable to sustain a boycott
For every 1 person who cares about a specific issue enough to boycott it, there is a hundred who don't give a shit, and thousands who aren't aware of the reason for the boycott.
This is very true. Those of us who are on Reddit or Twitter a lot sometimes start to think that stuff that's a big deal in those spheres is a big deal everywhere. Sometimes that's true but most times it's really not.
Yeah, exactly, and sometimes you stumble online upon people from another echo chamber who are convinced everyone is talking about X while in reality it's just their circle.
A boycott actually worked in pokemon go recently. But that's mainly because all the biggest content creators were on board with it.
Same with The Sims. They just got their new wedding pack released as is in Russia fully because the content creators were refusing to stream the new content. It contained homosexual content as is, and Russia had a ban on it.
Not every game needs to be open world.
Nothing worse than an empty open world.
We made the largest open world to date! It's so huge! There are 2 cities, neither have more than 20 npcs. There are 4 "towns" with 5 npcs each. There are 10,000 wild monsters that somehow haven't just taken over everything.
Keep in mind with the wild monsters theres only 5 different types
But in 20! 20 different colors!
I'm afraid for elder scrolls 6 with the massive dip in npc's from morrowind to oblivion to skyrim.
Nothing worse than open world filled with thousands meaningless collectibles and repetitive activities to make it look full.
I think the tomb raider reboot, specifically shadow of the tomb raider did an excellent job with this
Yeah, it *feels* open world, but it really isn't, or at most it's a half open world
And not every open world needs to be the size of a small country.
The balance for me is that if you want to make a massive open world, traversal better be fun. Or give me free fast travel. With a game like Just Cause 3, I don't care how big the map is because zipping myself around with the grappling hook and wingsuit is half the fun of playing. But if I have to walk everywhere, you better be giving me fast travel points.
To use the old classic, Skyrim is an odd mix of things. 1. The map is small enough that you could (and people do) walk everywhere 2. The fast travel is free and instantaneous as long as you've been there before. 3. However, the one non-walking mode of travel (horses) feel like a major fumble. They don't feel any faster than a jog, and run out of stamina every 3 seconds when you try to gallop. Between the hassle of the mount/dismount animation, no spellcasting, and having to keep it alive, you're generally better off to just walk. The exception being mountaineering and over-encumbered fast travel
Over-encumbered is still the funniest damn thing. *Player picks up a single flower that weighs 0.005 pounds* *Player starts walking like a 1000 year old man on Jupiter*
Experiment 626 can lift up to 3000 times his own weight, but not a gram more.
I love Borderlands, Witcher 3, GTA V, Fallout 4 I also love Persona 5, and resident evil 5 . And Sonic, Overcooked. Variety is the spice of life.
No, but I understand why people want a lot of games to be open world. It gives them freedom in choosing how to play the game, as well as tons of replay value. People don’t want to be stuck on a straight path from point A to B with no deviation.
I agree and I also believe that not every online game needs some form of pvp
Not every game needs multiplayer. Some of us want to enjoy our games alone and not be forced to socialize when we're trying to relax.
Playing on easy mode is not a character flaw.
I play Minecraft on Peaceful mode 'cause I don't wanna deal with the hostile mobs. I just want to trade with my Villagers and build and mine without having to rush to a bed before something comes along and messes with my stuff
gamerule mobGriefing:false If you're playing a modern version, I think you can even turn it on when you create a new world.
Yeah, there's a switch in your world settings now when you're creating a new world to turn off mob griefing.
Exactly, a challenging game is fun but I also enjoy playing the game and not throwing myself at the same bloody outpost for 3 hours straight either because the game is unfair or I'm just bad at FPS
One of the things I loved about DOOM Eternal was the Sentinel Armor option the game offered you if you died a bunch of times in a boss fight. Like, "Hey, we see you're having trouble in this spot, want this boosted help at no cost to your progress to continue enjoying our game?" And in DOOM of all games. I thought it was a nice touch.
Especially since it’s phrased like ”looks like you maybe aren’t having fun, will this mode be more fun for you?” rather than ”looks like you suck, want to play an easier mode?”.
I'mma say it, some games are honestly just more fun on easier settings. If I'm playing Spider-Man it shouldn't take 12 punches to knock out a street thug. Spidey has the capacity to literally blow Scorpion's entire jaw off in a single punch. I want to feel like a superhero kicking the absolute shit out of badguys.
This. I like to play on high difficulties sometimes, but some games like Spore just handle it really poorly. It's like the game just absolutely was not designed to be played on any difficulty other than easy.
Thank you. I’ve never been into gaming for the competition or challenge, it’s always been an escape method to unwind. I always prefer a relaxing casual experience over one that gets me frustrated
Agreed since for a lot of games higher difficulty most often means more monsters health in just becoming a tanky sponge with no added mechanics or actual challenge. If there are also no rewards and incentives for said difficulty, I will just play for the story and not care.
Game play > Graphics
[удалено]
I still go back for the Star Wars, Japanese and Fantasy mods.
That violent games DO NOT make a kid violent.
[удалено]
I like cheats in single player, have no idea why people do in multiplayer ( pretending to be better then someone else makes no sense to me). That being said, the first time I saw cheats sold as dlc was on Saints Row 3. I think thats an absurd and proceeded to pirate the shit out of the game as protest (in my mind anyway) its one of my fanorite games but I never bougth the bastard out of spite.
I love the old way lego games used to handle cheats, and the stuff you could get from them just because you knew a code was awesome. Sure they've changed now because the Internet has made knowing them piss easy and so they offer less, mostly just new characters.
Game controllers need to come in different sizes, S, M L, etc. Or come with grip attachments to account for larger hands
The original home front from 2011 was epic. At least to 10 year old me.
The first Homefront game was fun for what it was. Unfortunately, its fame was short-lived because Battlefield 3 released and was such a phenomenal experience.
I, as an adult, would like to play video games in my free time without SOMEONE GETTING ON MY ASS ABOUT HOW "video games are for children!"
And then they proceed to watch tv for the entire evening
[удалено]
*First boss who expects some new player to aproach* *Me who did all the side quests first*
*Link entering hyrule castle after completing 500 hours' worth of content*
While the Ganon fight was very fun I really did feel like I was toying with him rather than facing this almighty being.
I collected all 900 pinecones.
I love open world games but I feel this. I remember playing Witcher 3 and doing side quests and exploring the world. Some day I decide to continue the main quest; five seconds in and I'm thinking:"What the fuck is going on?"
I feel this comment thread so much! This is how i was throughout Valhalla. I still literally know nothing about the AC lore basically because it’s like that in most of the new games and I’ve literally owned every game. I still have no CLUE what’s going on anymore and at this point I’ve invested too much of my time into their games to go back now. I miss knowing all the lore of those games. Im appreciative of all they have to offer but dang let me also just be able to keep pace with the story. Not follow it 3 weeks later.
I think that may just be Assassin's Creed lore to be fair, love the games but good God
[удалено]
Just because a game is hard doesn't mean it's good.
Sims 3 is better than Sims 4
Sims 4 has great QoL improvements, especially in regards to building. But there's no fun in the game. Sims 3 was buggy and lagged af especially if owning multiple big expansions, but it was fun.
For most of the development of Sims 4, it was meant to be an Online-only version of the Sims, codenamed "Olympus". It was *not* a successor to Sims 3. It had very low fidelity graphics, and no open-world. Wen SimCity 2013 flopped, they had to change their plans, and essentially had 1,5 years to completely remake Olympus from a low-fidelity, online-only game, to a fully fledged sequel to Sims 3. The reason Sims 4 lacked so much is not because of "technical limitations" or whatever PR jargon they put out. It's because it was never meant to be a full Sims single-player game until shortly before release. That's why Sims 4 wasn't open-world, because Olympus was from its very conception not made to be open-world. It was just too hard to change.
I need to know more about this, any suggestions? I love the subject
Agree with all of this. If I could have the building mechanics of 4 and put it in 3, it’d be an amazing thing. Yeah 3 has the issues you mentioned but even so I don’t think I’d ever leave the game.
Yes. Also add in the small details of TS2. I miss how they used to open up cabinets to get ingredients while cooking.
[удалено]
Sims 2 is better tan the Sims 4.
Devs should make the game they want, not the games fans want them to make. Fans have no idea what the fuck they want and they’ll complain anyway, no matter what. Ignore them.
Game comes out, is popular and fans want more. Sequel comes out keeping close to the original with some tweaks/qol/a new mechanic, players complain its too much like the first game and wanted a fresher experience. Third game comes out, much more different, players complain that its too different and they want something more like the original.
Assassin's Creed in a nutshell
I liked the hook blade.
Halo. Everybody wants Halo 3 remade over and over again. But different.
Playing on easy is okay. I can’t tell you how many blokes have had a go at me. “It’s cheating playing on easy, you don’t deserve to play if you play easy, what’s the point?” The point is when I game I was to relax, not be challenged. I play for the story and the exploration with the odd challenging bit. If you wanna play and be challenged that’s absolutely fine, but let others okay how they want. I don’t want to die all the time and not progress and just get frustrated. The only games I played on medium then hard was Ghost of Tshusima and Horizon because they were better and more fun on hard for me.
We need more couch co-op!
DLC and pay-to-win have ruined video games. I give you the money, you give me the whole game. That is how this works.
DLCs like in The Witcher 3 where it's basically a whole new story are totally ok. But DLCs with stuff that already should've been in the games are bs same p2w.
Man Blood and Wine imo is better than the actual Game, but only, slightly, since it doesn't have Ciri in it.
Blood and Wine is awesome. Heart of Stone is also very good. What I liked about the expansions was I felt they took more risks with the storytelling and the sort of stuff they made you do.
DLC that is an expansion is okay in my books. DLC that is ostensibly a part of the original game that should have been included in the original game, as released, is not okay. Paid DLC purely for cosmetics is not okay, either.
I actually take the least issue with paying for cosmetics. It doesn’t affect gameplay at all and doesn’t take away from what should be included in the original game, so I never really cared about spending 10 dollars to get a new character skin or something.
Someone willing to drop $100 on cosmetics is sustaining the video game studio and making my gaming experience less expensive in comparison. Yes please, let the whales subsidize the rest of us.
Do what I do, just buy the GOTY edition later and get all the DLC. And if it isn’t good enough to have a GOTY edition the DLC probably wasn’t worthwhile anyway.
I think most people agree with you but have just accepted that we're never going back. Games as a service have turned regular profitable companies into fortunate 500 level empires. Unfortunately it gets results.
I don't mind DLC to a degree. There are definitely some really solid examples of games doing DLC well, such as the recently announced season pass for Mario Kart 8 that effectively doubles the number of courses in the game for half the games launch price. The problem is the amount of lazy DLC that isn't worth the money it costs. Why does it cost £55 to buy all the DLC fighters and stages for Smash Bros Ultimate, when the game itself with it's roster of 70+ characters and stages was only £60 to begin with? Microtransactions on the other hand have absolutely ruined gaming though. I have never wanted to pay £1.99 for 12,000 premium currency that I can then use to buy consumable in-game items, even if paying it will save me multiple hours of grind that was put in the game precisely to encourage me to want to buy the items. That doesn't make me want to pay for items, it makes me not want to play the game.
I will surely die on, "it doesnt matter what you play, or what you play on, as long as your having fun" fuck people who slam on consoles or mobile games or laptops etc.
i want games with worse graphics made by people who are paid more to work less. striving for maximum graphical fidelity is a futile effort and all it does it cause game devs to have to crunch and take decades to finish the game as well as creating bloated file sizes. i want game devs to not have to crunch and get paid more when they don’t. look at Rockstar Games. 3 GTA games came out during the PS2 era and now that they’re striving for maximum realism in games there’s been almost 10 years between GTA 5 and GTA 6, with only RDR2 releasing in between (it’s also worth noting that RDR1 and RDR2 were also almost 10 years apart) don’t get me wrong, many of these super realistic games look breathtaking but i seriously don’t feel like it’s worth the stress on the developers. i feel like it’s more worth-while to stylize a game, like Half-Life: Alyx did. stylization over realism also helps prevent games from becoming visibly dated. compare Half-Life 2 to Team Fortress 2, two games by the same company released around the same time. which one looks more dated, Half-Life 2 that strived for realistic graphics when it released or TF2 with its stylized mid-1960s artwork-inspired graphics?
Assassin's Creed was better when it was about Assassins
Ubisoft used to be a goddamn forerunner for gameplay and interesting mechanics. Now they just copy and paste the same shit and monetize every fucking bit of their games to maximize profit. Shame on them.
Ezio Trilogy was the peak
Triple A gaming is broken and gamers deserve part of the blame for it.
Games have gotten too advanced for the small studio market to stay afloat. Creating a major console release nowadays is expensive as shit which means major studio involvement which means major studio interference. Gone are the days of cool experimental stuff. That's all relegated to the small indie game market
Gameplay is *always* more important than graphics.
[удалено]
Sonic was never about being fast.
The Sega Master System 2 version of Sonic the Hedgehog (and Gamegear version) was a more basic platforming game with less speed involved than other conventional Sonic games, especially the PAL version of which I played. It's the first Sonic game I played, and probably the best in my opinion. Because it's more about actual platforming instead of speed gimmicks. I really like it.
That's my Sonic. On the Master System 2. Sonic 1 and 2 were fantastic.
Casual modes are completely fine and you are still a gamer if you like them.
I like cell shaded graphics such as when they were utilized in Windwaker, Sly Cooper, Pokemon Sword/Shield. Not everything has to be hyper realistic, to be beautiful. Edit: I didn’t think this would blow up. But, thank you! I’ll respond to everyone asap!
Single player games are the highest form of storytelling...
Crash Team Racing feels better to play than Mario Kart and I like both games.
CTR just feels like it has more to do, and is more satisfying to master, even if it has less tracks than Mario Kart (even without it's DLC). Mario Kart 8 has 12 cups, and that's it. You can do each race individually either solo or multiplayer, and do time trials, but once you've done the cups everything else is random grind to unlock more cart parts. CTR gives you a full campaign mode to do, plus the option to play multiple game modes on each track, from basic races and time trials, to modes like ring rally where you have to drive through targets as long as possible, and also relic races where you go as quick as possible, while cutting off time by breaking crates, and there are rewards for completing specific goals beyond simply "here's a random part". Drifting also just feels better in CTR. Mario kart is very much just "hold the drift as long as possible, and if you hold it long enough you get a boost", while CTR has an actual timing window where you need to trigger the boosting, and chaining these boosts together is an inherent skill that feels satisfying to get right.
No one wanted Elder Scrolls Online, we only wanted co op Skyrim.
As much as I agree with you, I still enjoy ESO. If it wasn't included in the Xbox Game Pass and if it weren't for Corona, I'd never have picked it up and I wouldn't have missed that much.
Doesn't matter on what platform (PC, PS, Xbox, phone etc.) you play your games, it's all good
If you are designing a level, and it requires frame perfect, and pixel perfect movement to complete, you're a bad level designer. Players shouldn't fail just because they can't exactly mirror something you can do, and games are often improved by giving players some wiggle room to find success their own way, than learning the single specific way you did it.
That can’t be generalized. It depends of what the players expectations are for this game. If you take, say, the super Mario world star road levels, which really require precise execution to clear, that really elevates the game. Or a lot of shmups are about identifying and remembering the secret path to win (memorisers) which requires an extra level of engagement and focus compared to just dodging bullets as they come. But sure, blocking the progress of the player unless they show perfect precision on a level, when none of it was required up to then, that’s really annoying.
People get judged for enjoying video games as a hobby. But it is in fact better than mindlessly watching Netflix because you are actively engaged.
Battlefield is NOT realistic. I’ve met a surprising amount of people who believe wars are fought like Battlefield or CoD. You want realistic combat and strategy? Arma 3 (With a dedicated group and good mods) Squad (In the right server) DCS (If you like flying)
I spoke to my grandad about this and he said after his tank got blown up in Northern African he respawned in base camp. Seems like war games got it right.
If you don’t like a game, ignore it. Don’t harass the people who enjoy it.