Honestly, I don’t think it’s that simple. Console online services get away with making you pay because the system is locked and you don’t have a choice. Pc gamers can host their own servers, and if steam ever becomes so anti consumer as to charge for access to your library, competitors will rise and the market will balance.
That’s true, but games exist already where people can host their own servers. Pc gaming is kind of like the sandbox of platforms. Other major consoles solved that problem by sunsetting their free services so that you can’t just go play an existing online game for free on their platform.
It would be a gargantuan task to sunset free online connectivity as it exists in pc gaming today.
The gameplay of ‘It takes two’ is very fun, but the characters and the story can be infuriating. If they annoy you in the trailers or in a gameplay video, be aware that their dynamic stays like that a long time - we gave up on it after a while because of it
Exactly this. It's a terrible, outdated story that essentially sells "staying together for the kids." The whole way through we were both like "ye these two need to get divorced." The book is a villain.
Oh, I assumed it was kid friendly. My soon to be 7 year old is just started Minecraft. He struggles with games so far as too complex for him, like lego Harry Potter or even hot wheels (all the ps+ kids games). I was hoping to try it takes two with him at some point. If the story is not nice, maybe that’s not a great idea. Playing Rayman together was fun and forgiving as he just keeps reappearing when he dies.
Just the scene with the elephant is thrown in as a bit of a joke. But can be quite brutal if the child is too young to understand. But it is just about ripping up a toy. So not really all that brutal.
The rest of the game is completely fine though, would recommend.
Starsector: It’s an Elite style open world space game. What makes it special is that it’s been in constant development for over a decade and has a crazy number of ships, weapons, lore and features. And a vibrant modding scene.
Also the devs are vehemently against DRM, so the only place you can buy the game is their own website. Or not buy. They put the full version up for anyone to download.
I’ll have to check that out. An indie game in a very similar vein is Evochron Legends. It’s available on Steam, too. I have a couple of hours in it, but it’s been a while since I last checked it.
I wanted to like it, but the gun play was underwhelming and gameplay kind of boring.
Worst of all was the progression. Upgrades were tiered in ways that made 1 a clear best choice. Perks were uninteresting passives or actives with bizarre activation requirements. No way to upgrade flares or pickaxes. And I’m not a guy that cares about cosmetics, so it just didn’t work for me.
I’m happy for everyone else that got a GOAT experience though.
I think it depends on how you upgrade it though, slight time increase, colors just for the fun of it, range on how far you throw. None of that Crosses over with the flare gun too much.
Zelda BotW and TotK. I just kind of get board cus the game is so wide but so shallow. I wish I could like it cus there is a ton to like.
Any souls like. They just seem very lazy and the combat is just silly to me.
Just about any competitive game honestly. Part of it is I suck at them but mainly the trash talking toxic communities. Plus honestly I’m not very competitive.
Pokemon. I can’t wrap my head around the complexity and “meta” and the story doesn’t real matter anymore. I did like my first Pokemon game but that’s it.
Most Mario except Mario RPG. I played the heck out of SMB 1-3 but when that was all that was available. When games expanded so did my tastes I guess.
Not the OP, but IMO it’s that difficulty is an actual feature. And that feels stupid. Difficulty should be a parameter, not a goal.
I’m a story guy myself, so if the game doesn’t have a really good story, it’s not for me. And souls-likes usually sacrifice everything to difficulty. And even if the story was good, dying 20 times with every new boss would break me out of it all the time.
I think with Souls games in particular, difficulty can be part of the atmosphere. Whether or not that is your sort of thing is another story. My husband completely bounced off of Dark Souls even after playing Elden Ring. To him, Elden Ring was the first Souls game that was more interested in being a fun game rather than a difficult experience.
Difficulty is not the goal of any of the Souls games (not talking about soulslikes). The challenge is a means to get you to think methodically and strategically, and is a vessel to bring you catharsis and release when you overcome it.
Can’t stand media that thrusts you into a zany, fantastical world where completely insane shit happens constantly, nothing makes sense, there’s no consistency and you’re supposed to somehow keep going through the fever dream of a setting for however many hours before you can piece together what’s actually going on and become invested
Needless to say I bounced off Nier: Automata really hard
Yeah, I never once felt that any scenes in Near A Tomato actually connected to one another. In a good mystery game, you make a discovery rife with questions, and then slowly answer more questions that lead to other questions. Nier is just about constant random shit involving attacks from the machine life forms - which are all promptly forgotten.
I don’t know how we’re supposed to care and worry so much about 2B and 9S dying when it literally happens once in the prologue, and the very first lines of the game are about how annoying it is to keep dying and being reborn.
I know a lot of nier automata fans irl and sometimes it’s hard to argue with them about the game
I think that the worst part about nier automata is that it tries to be all philosophical and deep while saying absolutely nothing. By being so mysterious about its world, the whole game builds up to some kind of reveal that creates a gigantic twist… But then you realize that the twist doesn’t really exist and that yeah all the shit is just random stuff.
Such a huge disappointment. And the combat is terrible imo
Suprisingly, while Omori had much MUCH more of a “random shit happening” feeling because of its setting, it had an extremely good story and I had never been that attached to characters before. So I don’t even think Nier’s problem is the fever dream feeling
With you on BotW. Love the dungeons, but in terms of the open world I never felt the oooh, the aaah, the escapism that everyone cooed about etc. Gliding was fun!
Maybe this is because I’ve never played a Zelda game before so I have no nostalgia attached to it?
Maybe this is because I’ve never played a Zelda game before so I have no nostalgia attached to it?
Don’t know about that, because I very much grew up with Zelda for the Gameboy, SNES and of course N64 and I loved them all. Maybe it’s just Breath of the Wild…
Yes but poorly. There are no real dungeons and the open world has maybe 5-6 enemies total, everything else is just a variation on color and strength. That’s a far cry from the original game.
So I was curious about this and looked it up and there are technically 8 regular enemy types (bokoblins, moblins, lizalfos, chuchu, keese, octoroks, wizzrobes, pebblits, lynel). There are then also the different types of guardians, 2 overworld bosses (Talus and Hinox, I don’t count Molduga), and the yiga.
Depending on how you cut it there are then 8 up to 13 overworld enemy types. However, the real issue is you typically only encounter 3 maybe 5 (bokoblins, moblins, lizalfos / keese, chuchu) while running around.
I think the thing people forget when talking about variety is it matters how you use it. BOTW and TOTK basically have a few set grunt types that are what you predominantly fight, and it gets boring fast (in my opinion).
Edit/Note: I didn’t count stal/cursed enemies as they’re basically the same with slight modifications.
I think the main reason more players become patient gamers is due to more and more games release broken and buggy. So they have to wait to see if the game gets fix or not.
The main reason more people are becoming patient gamers is people are generally more broke and stressed than they have been in the past.
I think the main reason more players become patient gamers is due to more and more games release broken and buggy.
Yes this is also a reason but the reason behind that is that less and less money and creative control is being given to the workers who are actually doing the labor of making games.
We are in the middle of a massive class war being fought aggressively by the rich against the rest of us and we need to keep that front and center in every context that is affected by it. When your favorite game company gets bought out by some massive hydra of a company that promises nothing will change and then proceeds to gleefully harvest the spinal cords of all the former employees with its tentacles like a mortal kombat finishing move, remember the reason. This is an economic war and your favorite game company was just another battlefield torn to pieces.
The X-COM series is pretty much these choices all the time, though less in a moral sense and more a strategic risk and reward sense. What do you use your limited time and resources on, how much do you risk when the stakes are high, etc. It’s a little different than the sorts of decisions you’re thinking of, but quite interesting.
I would second Xcom and add: unlike other strategy games, where each character is a nameless unit, Xcom names your units. Not a big deal, but it is a big enough change where you start to create your own stories, even in your head, for the characters. Playing the game in a not easy game mode, causes you to lose soldier from time to time. This really heightens tension when certain characters die, whom you remember, and when some miraculously live. Its a very small, yet somehow meaningful addition to what would otherwise be an endless sea of soldiers.
Are names unusual? The only other tactical game like that that I’ve played is Final Fantasy Tactics and they all have names.
But I agree. In XCom you just accept that you’ll have losses. But they still hurt. My first run-in with Chryssalids was especially brutal. I escaped with two of my men and a failed mission. The rest were one-shotted or eaten by their own.
You bring up a good point, what I was lacking in my post was the combination of names, permanent death, and the very real threat of death. Not certain if Tactics works in a similar way.
It does work the same. The biggest difference is that there’s one or two player characters at any time that will give you a game over if they perma-die. But most of your crew are blank slates (with a name) that you build up, give a specific role, and can perma-die. The roles are more distinct, and there are more roles, so losing them feels like losing a party of your team. Like, your summoner might die, and that was the only summoner you had. You have to put in some effort to replace them.
Now, there is a difference of feel. Random mobs feel like they are for grinding rather than an actual threat. So deaths outside of the story feel like you should just reload your last save to save you the trouble. XCom generally felt like a person died, but it was easier to replace their role with the next man up.
And on a similar note, Massive Chalice is a Kingdom under attack from an otherworldly source. Do you choose to defend point A and let point B and C receive corruption points? Do you take your party of developed, well leveled but older than dirt characters into the fight to guarantee success, ensuring they die of old age while your young upstarts grow old and feeble from lack of combat experience?
bin.pol.social
Ważne