I really wish GOG would do more to support Linux and the Deck. I started buying a little bit more there ever since Heroic came around but overall the Steam experience is still vastly superior.
I make sure that every game I buy on GOG is done so through Heroic, so that the team (hi, Linguin!) gets the small % of each sale. I do love that GOG have an arrangement with them - it makes me very glad there is some option. And lucky for us, that option is amazing.
As with each of these I post, I am just amazed that what I stumble over, save and share here in these posts is as interesting to others as it is to me!
Yeah I know. Cliche as fuck. But for those who weren’t around when It came out, it’s really hard to describe just how absurdly revolutionary OoT was. Between it and Mario 64 (another Top 5 game for me), you essentially had the foundations of 3D gaming that are still used today.
But besides that…it’s an amazing game that I’m still replaying nearly 30 years later. Ever single complaint I have about this game is a tiny issue that has been solved in other versions (like binding the Iron Boots to the C button).
The last console I had was the Sega Mega Drive, so I don’t have much knowledge of console games, but are you sure Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time “essentially set the foundations of 3D gaming that are still used today?”.
Quake 1, was released on June 1996. Quake II was released on December 1997.
Ocarina of Time was released on November 1998, the same time as Half-Life.
Sure, Mario 64 was released in June 1996, same time as Quake 1, but Quake 1 also had multiplayer - a key milestone for 3D gaming at that time).
You also had Frontier: First Encounters, released in April 1995, with primitive, but full 3D graphics:
I am just curious, is there something about Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time that I don’t know about with respect to their contribution to 3D gaming (either from a technical or game design perspective)? They are clearly great games, I just don’t really understand how they could be the foundation for all 3D gaming.
Fair enough lol. Not all 3D gaming obviously (I mean they aren’t First person shooters, like most of your examples), but effectively the Action, Adventure, Platforming, etc angle (which makes up a fairly massive chunk of games today).
What I’m talking about is the fundamental gameplay of both. Online Multiplayer was revolutionary, but it wasn’t really a fundamental change to the gameplay itself (Like with Marathon introducing mouse control)
It’s interesting that you mention Tomb Raider though because that’s a perfect comparison. It was a fairly indicative of the industry as a whole with its stiff controls, static cameras, and dodgy combat.
Mario 64 brought a full range of movement and action to games. It was really the first 3D game where just moving was fun (which is why they started the game in a peaceful courtyard, they wanted you to just have a fuck about). It also brought the user controllable camera to games (It hasn’t aged well, but that camera system was amazing when it came out). Also, while it didn’t invent the Hub world (it had been used in 2D games) it pretty much set the standard for it.
OoT built on Mario64 with two major bits of gameplay. Target lock-on (Then called “Z-Targeting”) and contextual buttons. Both of which are just so fundamental to games these days it just feels obvious. More relevant back then (but not now), it created the template for how you could faithfully transition a series from 2D to 3D while perfectly maintaining the feel of the 2D series.
Now, neither of those things alone would justify it being in my Top 5. The fact that they’re both so aggressively fun and well made does that.
I see. I still think claiming that Mario 64 and Zelda 98 are the foundation for most 3D action and adventure games doesn’t really align with reality.
Especially the piece about Mario 64 being the first 3D game were movement was fun. I understand that the definition of fun is subjective, but this is basically false.
Beyond Quake, in Frontier: First Encounters you could literally fly between solar bodies, do planetry landings, fly between cities. This is far more difficult to pull off well than the relatively primitive movement in Mario 64.
Same with setting the standard for player hubs. I haven’t played Mario 64, but I have seen friends play Mario Galaxy and the hub area in Galaxy is well designed, but simplistic and with no dynamism related to gameplay.
Not sure about how exactly target lock-on functions in Zelda 98, but target lock-on definitely existing long, long before Zelda and in more complex, dynamic environments.
Don’t get me wrong, you like what you like and clearly Mario 64 and Zelda 98 are good games, but it is strange to put them on the pedestal in this manner. Especially when many of your statements almost approach a PR level of what I assume is hyperbole (e.g. “first 3D game with fun movement” - this is clearly false).
Mario 64 was the first use of the analog stick in a console game. Push it a little bit to walk, push it all the way to run, and several states in between. Maybe you can find a simulator that had analog control, but I’m sure you can see the difference.
Ocarina of Time was a solution to that type of game in 3D space that, as discussed above in things like Tomb Raider, was far more awkward in its predecessors as the industry was figuring out how to make games work in 3D. It’s very similar to how Halo wasn’t the first console FPS, but it was the first one smart enough to put guns, grenades, and melee all on their own buttons, among other innovations.
I'd also add Mario 64's use of a controllable third person camera - all the games @Agent_Karyo mentioned are first person, and I don't think movement in those types of games is at all comparable. The camera was the key point to making a 3D platformer even possible at all, and it immediately became vital to many other genres too.
I know that by today's standards that camera is known for being rather antiquated, but it was revolutionary for its time. One detail I think deserves more credit is how they tried to anthropomorphize the camera as Lakitu to introduce it to players.
Yeah, OoT feels dated by modern standards, but that’s largely because it set the standard for 3D games. Future games have built upon the mechanics, but OoT was what paved the way.
In short. The higher the social status of the woman compared to the man, the more likely the man is to sexually objectify her. Wheras women aren’t more likely to do this based on relative status.
Objectification is defined as reducing a person to solely looks and sexual function.
Similar stuff is seen in primates. Females are easier targets to assert dominance over. Since they are physically weaker. Male long tail maqacues losing their status, would seek out younger/weaker targets to establish dominance over. Something that was interesting too, is that female maqacues with more masculine facial features, were less often subjected to dominance seeking behaviour (from both males and females if I recall correctly) than females with more feminine faces.
It seems to boil down to “who can I dominate with little risk?” Female? Easy. Big male? Stupid idea. Young male? No problem. Male of equal size? Potentially.
It isn’t that confident humans of the male reproductive caste treat women more flippantly; it’s that actual competency correlates with not being as much of an insufferable whiny piece of shit.
RDR2 is one of the best story games ever. It’s one of probably 3 or 4 I would call masterpiece, and it legit made me cry. I connected with the characters, I felt the pain of the gang falling apart, I felt fear and pity for dutch, it was just amazing. RDR2 is one of those few games where you can say "sure, it has amazing gameplay, the side games are fun, and it plays great, but I don’t play it because it’s one of the most fun games to play, I play for the story "
Watching Dutch slowly descend into paranoia and separate himself from Arthur (primarily due to Micah’s manipulation) was a wonderful bit of environmental storytelling. It was a B-plot that was running in the background whenever you return to the gang campsite… But Arthur only really begins to see it after it is too late for him to stop. Because by the time Arthur realizes what is happening, Dutch has already firmly made up his mind about Arthur, and Arthur has already started trying to get out of the life. And Arthur having doubts only serves to cement Dutch’s paranoia.
It was amazing storytelling. It was never about saint Denis, or the heists, it was about the little things you overheard in camp, the gang itself. Truly a amasterpiece
Just started a playthrough of Black Mesa, after having played HL1 like fuck idk, 18 years ago? Barely remember it, but going through the levels I’m like “Oh yeah I remember this part, with the mine cart/train thingies”
Looked at screenshots of HL1 the other day and laughed that I will never play it ever again
Why do people manufacture arguments like this? Who is arguing that one is okay while the other isn’t? A couple random people on the Internet?
The only thing I can think of is The Last Samurai is a 20 year old movie and that somehow means not bringing up this historic fictional movie = you’re okay about a white dude becoming a samurai but not okay about a black dude becoming a samurai.
Whataboutism at its finest.
Did it not occur to this person that perhaps some people just don’t care about the movie, haven’t seen the movie, or plain just didn’t bring it up because it’s a movie? Is it “double standards” for one to pick their battles and not be enraged at everything all the time? My god this shit is exhausting.
Disclaimer: I have no opinion on the game itself because I frankly don’t care about it because I’m not the biggest Ubisoft fan outside of Rayman. Nor does the above necessarily reflect my opinion on the game’s historical accuracy. I’ve always loved The Last Samurai and Memoirs of a Geisha though and find both beautiful and touching films, so make of that as you will.
The only thing I can think of is The Last Samurai is a 20 year old movie and that somehow means not bringing up this historic fictional movie = you’re okay about a white dude becoming a samurai but not okay about a black dude becoming a samurai.
You should watch the movie. Cruise’s character does not become a samurai. He spends time with the last samurai.
It is a fighting game with stereotypical characters. Not historically accurate in any way. This is astroturfing by some org that wants racial in fighting
I was pleasantly surprised by New Dawn. I had some big complaints about 5, so I initially assumed New Dawn (being a direct sequel to 5) was going to be more of the same. It was an interesting take on the series’ formula.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne