if its well designed to utilize openworld concept. For example, kenshi is very well designed for openworld. Kingdomcome games are well designed for it too.
Being lazy and not feeling like doing every single thing in openworld game is good thing because it will make replaying it sometime later nicer by leaving content untouched. But if the content is just finding one more collectible then its just awful gamedesign.
I dont necessarily seek out openworld games, just good games that fall into the slots i like. Unfortunately things have been very barren regarding that to the point i’m starting to lose interest in games.
Seven countries need to reach the threshold and 1.000.000 signatures are required in total. The seven countries goal has already been reached, so right now only signatures are needed, regardless of the countries they are coming from.
I hit a wall recently with Star Wars Outlaws. The open world is cool until you realize that every enemy base has two or three possible entry points, complete with yellow-painted paths. There’s no room for creative infiltration - either you do it Ubisoft’s way, or it isn’t possible in the game. The NPCs in the open world just drive around aimlessly. It doesn’t feel like anyone in the world is trying to achieve anything besides you. It makes me realize how far we have come with modern open world games like the recent Zelda games. Without room for emergent gameplay, an open world feels like little more than a framing device for a game that is actually linear.
So thats the reason behind the steamdecks fume mania huh? I’ll keep that in mind (hopefully not on my nostrils!) if I ever get one. Thank you for keeping up with the blogposts! They make my long bus rides way more entertaining :)
I only really like STALKER I think, because it’s generally compressed and dense rather than stretching out over nothingness. It’s technically multiple levels than being overworld I guess.
I really stopped caring for Pokemon after X and Y, and Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire. The switch games were big misses. I kinda liked Sword and Shield, but they had no lasting power on me. Scarlet and Violet are by far the worst Pokemon games to have ever come out of mainline Pokemon.
I didn’t play through Marcus Arceus at all, even though I own it. Maybe I will give that a shot.
Isn’t this what Brilliant Diamond and Pearl were supposed to be? Granted had none of the fun stuff extras that omega ruby and sapphire added, but that was still the premise, right?
3d Pokémon can be done well and beautifully. Pokémon coliseum proved that years ago
yeah…do NOT read up on how vampires came about in the elder scrolls…or anything about the daedric princes…or the dwemer…or the slough…or the falmer…especially not the bosmer…
…actually, if you think the lore of the elder scrolls is in any way milquetoast, you clearly haven’t read ANY of it anyways.
ES is among the most fucked up fantasy worlds in all of fantasy…like…H.P. Lovecraft/Stephen King levels of fucked up. worse, in some cases.
but there’s tons of absurdly funny shit too!
that’s part of what makes the ES lore so great; it’s got quite literally everything!
There are at least three rapists in Morrowind, although technically it isn’t really rape when somebody only wants to gently rape your corpse. So let’s keep it at two.
Anyway, it seems they were already toning it down quite a bit in Oblivion if there was only one to be found.
I’m a huge open world and/or sandbox nut. Non-linearity is my jam. Kenshi, Rimworld, AssOdyssey/Shadows, Project Zomboid, Witcher 3, X4…
Don’t get me wrong, I love a good story, but story takes many shapes, and not all stories are pre-written; plenty are emergent. I grew up playing with Legos (and still do), and me making whatever story I wanted (or that emerged along the way) was part of the appeal.
Honestly, apart from FF8 and TW3, and now Expedition 33, I haven’t found many games with written stories that grabbed me. I read books when I want that fulfillingly-crafted linearity.
Indeed, I often times will play for a few hours and find all sorts of cool things, but nothing that moves the story along.
Case in point, I have been playing BG3 for months a few hours here and there and I’m only in the beginning parts of Act 3. And before that I dumped probably 400hrs into Elden Ring, and then went back in for many, many more when the DLC came out.
I played BG3, put over 100 hours, it took me 2 years. But I don’t mind, it was an easy game to pick up after a break and continue with, and the quests were rewarding in themselves, you didn’t need to complete the whole game to understand it.
There are definitely games I have started played, then couldn’t remember what I was doing after a break and wasn’t enthused enough to return to it. I can’t remember specific games but I know it happens.
I’ve put around 400 hours into that game. But I’ve only “completed” it once.
I came from divinity where you needed to play the game on tactician to experience all the content. Not sure if bg3 is the same way but I went in with that mindset.
Such a great game and so much to explore. Took me back to when I was a kid trying to 100% mass effect.
So many studios fail to breath life into their worlds and pump them full of tedious bs. (Looking at you starfield. What a let down that was…)
Yeah I’m only playing balanced or whatever the middle/default difficult is. I have 263hrs as of right now and have really been enjoying it. And I’m doing Dark Urge so I’m missing a bunch of content just because of “bad decisions”, and the way I ended up in act 2 I also know I missed a bunch of content. I’m not even close to being done with Act 3 (I don’t think) and I’m already debating if I will do another playthrough afterwards, or play something else from my ever growing backlog. And I’ve never been a 100%'er and usually happy/lucky if I even finish it. 😂
The ol Ubisoft formula? Yeah - I enjoy sprinkling them in to my gaming.
Easy to pick up. Only got a bit of time? Go unlock some area or marker. Got a longer amount of time? Make progress towards the main quest. That with achievements gives me a list of short and long goals I can work towards.
Funny that you mention it. I usually play an open world game in parallel with a heavier on rails RPG/CRPG – and opt for the open world game when I want a more “brain off” session.
I’m not totally sure what that would add to the experience. The core battles are still the same, just with more added on. I like pixel graphics and old gameboy music, but I don’t see why people would buy it. It’s seems strange considering it would be the same game as before, but less.
Pokémon: Violet except: it’s 2D, scarcely animated, without double-battles, without shinies, without several types, without terastallizing, without the open world, without the rideable legendary, and so on.
That was me imagining it if it were limited to gen 1 gameplay. Maybe there’s a case to remake regions in like a style like emerald, but I still think it’s just a game that already exists but with less.
If you don’t know about them already, you should look into pokémon rom-hacks. Some are kinda like what you described, but they add their own twist like changing the story, adding new types, or adding newer pokémon or mechanics. A lot of them are really well made too.
Just because there’s more “stuff” in a game like Violet doesn’t mean it adds to the overall experience. Sometimes it detracts from it. A lot of times it detracts from it.
This is of course all subjective and if you enjoy the additional mechanics, it’s good you have them. There are of course others out there who would disagree with you and appreciate a more “core” experience in a Pokemon game.
Pokémon: Violet except: it’s 2D, scarcely animated, without double-battles, without shinies, without several types, without terastallizing, without the open world, without the rideable legendary, and so on.
In my opinion, they can keep everything you’ve mentioned except terastallizing, a rideable legendary, and probably a good amount of your “and so on.” I’m pretty sure Pokemon games have had an open world since the beginning, but maybe some people have different ideas of what constitutes an open world.
If you want a pokémon game without new things, why want a new pokémon game? That doesn’t really make sense to me. I don’t think most of the gimmicks they’ve made have throughout the gens have been very good, but I appreciate them for the splash of novelty and I just ignore the ones I don’t like because I know they’re not permanent. I almost never tera-ed my mons in violet, I just grinded levels and planned my party like I have for 20 years.
By open world, I meant being able to travel through most routes and towns without a black screen or loading screen.
That said I wasn’t making a quality statement. I was comparing the most recent game with the first and I don’t know how there would be a significant market for a much more clunky version of an existing game with a huge chunk of features removed.
I’d say Pokémon is one of the franchises to which the transition to 3D added nothing of value to the experience. Every 3D Pokémon has been ugly as sin.
I definitely think the quality on the 3D models could be better, but I think the move to 3D has made the game more immersive and things like the size variations are charming details that makes “your” pokémon feel more unique. I was mainly questioning whether a product like that would actually sell well enough to be worth the effort, not making any statement of which is superior.
bin.pol.social
Ważne