Dodgeball Academia. It’s an awesome little indie action RPG. I love the art, combat, and character designs. It reminds me a bit of Pokemon (though you don’t catch anything… besides dodgeballs). It’s a 9/10 so far!
There are a lot of games where a sizeable amount of players won’t have the initial achievements.
They may have just launched the game and never played it, achievements could have been added later on after the release like with Grand Theft Auto IV, some people only play multiplayer, or there may be something in place to disable achievements when you mod the game like in Fallout New Vegas.
Yup, the sample size is out of people who've booted up the game ever. So 13% of players downloaded it, installed it, thought about playing it, and didn't get much further than the menu screen. 7% of players of Fallout: New Vegas never finished the first mission.
or there may be something in place to disable achievements when you mod the game like in Fallout New Vegas.
This is why my achievements for Skyrim look completely incongruent with my play time. Someone might assume that I’d spent 700 hours in the character creator…
I didn’t realise Skyrim blocked achievements when modding, I’d definitely didn’t back in the day, it’s one of the few games that I have all achievements on and I’ve modded it to hell basically every time.
I think it didn’t used to either, as I have some achievements on the original version of the game, and I’m pretty sure I’ve never played it unmodded. But I have no achievements at all on the later editions, despite many, many hours of playtime.
I spent a ton of time in Kingdom of Loathing. I kept an old laptop that still had a flash enabled browser for a few months to play Bloons Tower Defense 4.
There was this game, I forget the name of it, but you had to build and drive little vehicles to overcome challenges. It was technically amazing for a Flash game, and I’d love to have it back.
These stats are what I have in my head when I am deciding on what to buy. Fact is, most people on the internet are overwhelmingly negative and unable/unwilling to give games a fair shot.
This sounds critical, but look at the numbers. I have a family member who, when asked about Cyberpunk, said it was a shit game, that enemies were too spongy, driving was terrible, and said it was “literally unplayable”. (not bug related, just gameplay) When asked about story he said “Oh I only played a couple of missions”.
Like what? I’m not saying you need to play 100% of Gollum to know it’s a bad game, but come on, talk about judging a book by it’s cover. If you aren’t going to give it a fair shot then why buy it at all, just don’t buy the game?
So many people go into games expecting them to be bad, or expecting bugs/problems that guess what, you’re probably going to find something wrong with it. Maybe watch a few less reviewers ahead of time, maybe turn off the FPS counter, and I don’t know, see if you have fun playing it.
In response to cyber punk though, it's entirely possible for gameplay to be bad enough that even a good story can't save it. Personally, I had a problem getting invested in cyber punk's story because I just was not enjoying the moment to moment gameplay. Each person has subjective opinions on where that line is, so I think it's fair for someone to judge it even after just a few missions (though I agree, it might be they enjoyed it more if they gave it more time)
To be fair to your family member, a couple of missions in Cyberpunk is a couple of hours. I remember an extremely late title card in that game. That's more than a fair shake.
I may just have not the most critical taste but I recently picked up Cyberpunk (v1.6, not the latest update) and I loved it, my first AAA game, played it for 170 hours within a few weeks. The story and worldbuilding is amazing imo.
You’re right about people not giving some games a chance. Pretty sure that Cyberpunk had quite a hate hype trend at the start.
Oh it was incredibly popular to hate it. I still see threads that are CJ’ing around about how horrible it is. Because it’s fun to hate something on the internet. Now, the people who had bugs or actually “literally unplayable” statuses - genuine. That sucks, I’m sorry, but to everyone who just jumped on the hate train, well I feel bad for people who can’t enjoy things because of that.
Well, he did play the game, he’s judging the book by the first few chapters. If you don’t like any aspect of the gameplay, even if the story could be good, it’s very understandable why he dropped it.
Bloodborne (PS4). Only 44.6% of players beat the first boss, Father Gascoigne
He was the second boss for me. The first one I encountered was the Cleric Beast. Then I got so fed up with the frame rate after that I swore off the game, especially since I just found it to be Dark-Souls-but-less. Still, Gascoigne was a hard fight, so it's not surprising that the first major souls-esque game on PS4 had a huge dropoff at a difficulty spike.
The one that always got me is that even predominantly multiplayer games have a very low participation rate in multiplayer. I've heard about 70/30 split from developers in most cases (and I've gotten a peak behind the curtain at a few other games where this trend continues to hold up, within a margin of error), where even if your game has a bad single player mode and focuses on multiplayer, only 30% of the player base will ever go online. I'll bet that's why these games stopped putting in achievements for "win one online multiplayer match", because it was astonishingly low. Far more people finished a single player story in Street Fighter V (which were awful) than those who went online to play multiplayer.
Multiplayer trophies are the worst, in general, except in multiplayer-only games. Once the servers go offline, those multiplayer trophies become unattainable. It’s especially a problem on PlayStation where, once the trophies become unattainable, so does the platinum.
39.6% of players have beaten the final boss of Elden Ring. Considering how huge the game is, and how difficult it can be, I found that to be a surprisingly large number of people. I'm not sure how that compares to dark souls 3, but Dark Souls 2 has about 33% completion and dark souls 1 (prepare to die edition) has less than 25%
Generally, I like using achievements to figure out where people called it quits on a game. Like Saints Row the Third. 90% of people cleared the first mission, but the percentages drop with each successive story achievement until you've got the achievement for the last mission which only 27.9% of players bothered to finish. Or you have Hades where around 50% of players just never finished a run of the game and only 25.6% completed enough runs to see the main ending.
My roommate was one of those “completed a run but didn’t finish enough to see the ending” people.
He said that completing the run alone felt like the end of the game to him and he couldn’t bare the thought of struggling for what he barely managed to achieve once.
Personally I just don’t like going through the same basic thing fifty times.
Yeah, it was fun the first dozen times, Hades, but running around looking for a couple lines of dialogue to unlock the “real” ending isn’t actually what I consider fun gameplay.
That’s the reason that only 15% of Crusader Kings II players have “The Marriage Game” achievement, which is awarded for getting married. In a game about dynastic politics.
It’s worse for CK2, you only get achievements if you’re playing on ironman mode. Given how complex it is to just understand how to play the game properly, even if you really enjoy it you might play for hundreds of hours before even starting an ironman run!
Paradox games require you to turn on Ironman mode to get achievements, which is why all of them have really low achievement percentages. That combined with vanilla just seems like not a whole lot of fun to me.
That’s stat is on ps5 and there’s no mod support, also achievements aren’t disabled if you use mods on the GOG version. I mod it to reach level 72 and max all the stats and I still got the achievements.
Kind of an old one, but Creeper World is kind of like that. I don’t know if it’s actually released, though. It was originally a flash game and the developer was making a new version, but in the devlogs I’ve seen he had changed the game significantly multiple times and then I lost interest. Might be worth checking out either way.
Creeper World is sort of like this. Basically the enemy is a self replicating liquid that destroys everything it touches and you have to fight it off and secure each map. It was originally a flash game so go with those expectations but it’s pretty fun regardless. I recommend CW3 as the best one.
3 just feels a little more polished than 4. The transition to 3D was very cool but I think the developer’s inexperience with working in 3D hurt the game a little. Plus 3 has a lot more user content than 4 due to being much older. They are both very good games regardless!
Riftbreaker has a much more “hands on” action approach rather than being an RTS but you might like it, it’s a good game.
Im also waiting for Diplomacy is not an option to leave early access, seems like a promising title although it’s kinda simple.
Would you say Age of Darkness is worth buying now or should I wait until it’s completed? It looked interesting but reviews are mixed when it comes to bugs, technical performance and content overall.
Tried both of these, while fun they aren’t quite what I’m looking for. Riftbreaker is definitely on a higher level then DINAO.
I would say go for it, AFAIK the game is mostly complete (IIRC only big things left are the last 3rd of the campaign and faction-specific models for buildings, possibly multiplayer) and while the bugs can be pretty bad they aren’t very common, usually get fixed quickly, and tend to only occur after major updates. Nothing I would consider inappropriate for an EA game at it’s stage in development.
bin.pol.social
Najstarsze