Sci-fi survival builder: you’re on a massive spacecraft that ends up crash landing on an ocean planet; your goal is to figure out wtf happened and find a way off the planet. This game is 80% feel-good tropical diving simulator; and 20% thalasaphobic deepsea horror. This has become one of my go-to “idk what to play” games that I keep returning to for a nice digital tropical vacation… with a dash of fleeing in terror from, uh… spoilers. No really though, if you don’t already know this game’s story, DO NOT start looking up videos and posts etc about it - just buy it and dive in.
Valheim is more combat oriented, but is probably my favourite survival crafting game after Subnautica. You’re playing vikings trying to earn their way into Valhalla. I die a lot. Very fun.
Planet Crafter is more chill, more jank, and more linear, but it’s a survival crafting game that is clearly heavily inspired by Subnautica. You are sent to a mars-like planet to terraform it as part of your prison sentence. It’s a great podcast game, just build and explore and watch numbers go up.
Less on the survival crafting side of things, the environmental storytelling is also really good in Outer Wilds and Return of the Obra Dinn. Very different games, but they were actually what I went to after Subnautica to scratch that itch and it worked weirdly well.
The audio in this game really seals the deal. You’re just swimming along collecting resources and hear a terrifying roar. But you look around and can’t see where it came from… Do you keep going or nope the fuck outta there and go take a breather in your life pod for 20 mins while your heart rate comes back down?
Depends on what you want. If you want more of Subnautica story then get it. If you want more Subnautica style going into the depths, Below Zero doesn’t go that deep and about half the game is actually above water. While I loved Subnautica I felt pretty disappointed by Below Zero.
Yeah what Valve is doing is great. Hopefully they will become more mainstream in the future and become more known with the super casual crowd. Nintendo definitely needs more proper competition in the handheld market.
Also FYI it’s Phillips with double L, Philips with one L is the Dutch electronics company.
I mean… Phillips heads are hood for what they’re actually designed for, which is, uh, to strip really easily so they don’t get over-tightened. Which is irrelevant if your manufacturing is precise enough.
I hate not being able to pause a game, particularly a single player game. I think Elite Dangerous solidified my hatred of this, by not telling you the game is still running when you’re on the “pause” menu.
“B-B-BU-BUT it’s a simulation and you can’t pause real life so it makes it more real”
It’s a game, even if it’s a simulation game. It’s a toy for grown-ups. A very nice and fun and relaxing toy, but a toy nonetheless. It’s not more important than a phone call, call at the door, crying child, hungry cat, partner who needs a hand with something etc.
This probably extends to being able to save anywhere and rejoin later, but I think that one is covered pretty well by everyone else :)
The problem with Elite Dangerous is that it is basically an online game, even in solo play and they never bothered to figure out a way for solo players to pause.
I think it probably has something to do with online play, though, since Fromsoft’s multiplayer model revolves around invasion. Granted you can turn it off, so obviously there should be a pause option, but I have a vague hunch that the two issues are related from a dev/engineering perspective.
Elite dangerous is a multiplayer game. If you want to go do something else and don’t have time to put your spaceship somewhere safe, you can always exit to the main menu. It only takes a few seconds and when you come back your ship is exactly where you left it.
The game definitely has issues, but not being able to pause isn’t really one of them
I never really bothered with the multiplayer mode in it - I know the game was built with a multiplayer back end, but they did promise a single player mode, and they do present the game as having a single player/solo mode.
Obviously different things annoy different people, and I do get what you mean about quitting and restarting etc, but it was enough for me to stop bothering to play it and play X4:Foundations instead. I did still get over a hundred hours play out of it, so I don’t exactly feel hard done by, but if quitting to the main menu works, then it’s clearly mechanically possible for them to let you pause it, they just didn’t want to.
Really? Because there are plenty of reviews that captured the state of that game at release, and they’re generally better at articulating it than the guy who has 1000 hours in a game and calls it “literally unplayable” in a Steam review.
Individual Steam reviews may be trash but the average rating is valuable and usually pretty reliable. The biggest downside of the system is that it isn’t quick to “respond” to updates but the separate “Recent” rating helps a lot.
The point you’re responding to is that C:S 2 was praised by reviewers at launch despite it having TONS of issues and missing features. The Steam ratings were a way more accurate picture of the game.
Especially in a game like Civ. it’s hard to know how people feel about it until a week or so later. I remember when Civ 6 was said to be the best game in the series on release, but after spending some time with it, it was lacking. Reviews like these are more of a first impressions.
Unless my friends, who have put a lot of hours into both Civ 5 and 6, unanimously recommend 7 to me, I have no intention of getting it.
I’m both satisfied enough with what I already own, and not sold on the new one yet. Not to mention that it’ll inevitably be a vehicle for more dlc and expansion packs
No one’s said anything about hating it. For me, it’s primarily a co-op game, and if they’re not going to switch to it, it’s better for me to save the cash, and put it towards something else
For me it’s not that I hate ciri at all. I completely understand women’s complaint that most games have a male protagonist and they can’t relate to that. I feel the same way, I like to feel at least somewhat immersed and I can never really get that with a female protagonist. It’s not like I don’t try either, I just never end up getting into the games I have tried that are like this.
I know it’s hard when the story is based on an individual, but I just wish more games had an option so everyone could play who they want to. I don’t hate them for this choice, it will just be another game that “isn’t for me” in the same way a hyper competitive PVP game “isn’t for me” which is fine.
Exactly lol, it has nothing to do with some weird gender thing. It’s a role playing game. You’re playing as a role. Even in Skyrim the role you’re playing (even if you choose a white male human) is someone living in Skyrim, a fictional place fighting dragons and draugr. So I think gender is one of the smallest differences.
God forbid you play a different perspective and see what it’s like.
Female V in cyberpunk is one of the best gaming experiences. You feel being catcalled and hit on directly - and you beat the ever loving shit out of them for doing it.
Ha, one of the first times I saw someone playing as a woman (in third person) I asked why and he joked and said “dude why would I want to stare at a man’s ass for 60 hours?”. Not a bad argument tbh…
I think he means he thinks women have trouble identifying to male protagonists as he has trouble identifying to female protagonists. If it was a male it’s ok because he’s a male (he can relate to).
He’s conflating women “can’t get behind a male protagonist” with women “who want more representation” and using it as his excuse. I think most gamers don’t care, and don’t think we should always have the choice. The only people who will hate this choice is people who already wanted to hate on women to begin with.
Which to that I’d say women have been able to “get behind male protagonists” for decades now.
I think choice is fun, for some games, but some games like the Witcher tell a specific narrative, and it makes sense that they are tailored for a specific character, and I think we all know the sort of abuse that Ciri is going to see in the world of the Witcher.
I think of any gender has trouble “identifying” with a character of another gender that’s 100% a them issue, they need to figure out why they have such a problem with it, because that says more about them then it does game makers. (I know not you, the original person).
Seriously all it says to me is that you’re insecure with yourself if you can’t even play a fictional fantasy game as a woman.
Definitely. It is probably in part cultural indoctrination teaching that women are weak & such. And they don’t want to feel weak. Many of my favorite games have women protagonists.
Pretty much, yeah. Part of it is the whole “power fantasy” thing. I get, as others said, that it’s a fantasy world so how could you expect to be immersed with mutants and whatever, but that’s not the point. I don’t expect it to be a VR experience where I can’t even tell I’m not in the real world, and as others assumed no for fucks sake it has nothing to do with hating women. That’s absurd. It’s just a personal preference thing. I’m not going to write to the devs bitching or make some stupid “woke game” post, I just probably won’t play it.
Is it really like that for you? Does the same thing happen with books, movies, TV? Should they have an “option”?
I have absolutely no trouble immersing myself into Aloy, Lara Croft, Jesse (Control), Red (Transistor), Bayonetta, Faith (Mirror’s Edge), and others.
Like, the character not being the same gender as me, doesn’t even register as an obstacle for inhabiting them. I’m able to mentally become them in literally the exact same way I do any other protagonist.
Since, it’s not like I need to be the same as someone in order to see the world through their perspective.
The opposite, the less they are like me, the greater the chance I’ll get to experience something from outside my own lived experience. And I like that.
I’m with women in that they should have representation in games (and stories in general), but even just for myself I’m cheering this particular progression on for the sheer variety it brings.
Is it really like that for you? Does the same thing happen with books, movies, TV? Should they have an “option”?
It is like that for me and they don’t need to have that option, that’s unrealistic to expect. You can’t choose anything in a book or movie. It just becomes something that “isn’t for me” which is fine. Not everything has to be my taste. I was simply explaining why it had nothing to do with hating ciri for some people.
One of the best things about art is it can help to share what others experience; it gives us an opportunity to “walk in someone else’s shoes”. I think this can lead to more empathy in a world sorely lacking in it.
I don’t get you at all but fair fucks to you being civil about the matter. You got a lot of hate on here while simply stating a preference that you unfortunately share with a bunch of incel neckbeards.
I’m the other way, interestingly. I like playing a woman as a protagonist. Not because I’ll lust over them or anything, it’s simply more enjoyable.
I appreciate that. I just see it as the typical “people love to attack others online” and I have no desire to try to insult people even if they’re telling me liking chocolate over vanilla is wrong and I’m an asshole for it lol only I know myself, and I know there’s no hatred or misogyny behind my preferences.
Many Mass Effect players reported that FemShep was the better way to play the game. Many guys play female avatars in games because the cosmetic choices are usually more interesting. This actually came up in a study on MMORPG players many years ago, and I imagine it is still true today.
So it’s not the magical powers, physical abilities, sexual magnatism, combat prowess, charisma, or anything else that Garalt has that you don’t that throws you off? It’s only that he has the body shape of a man that allows you to be immersed? If you played Garalt, but the body was modded into that of a female character, you’d lose your immersion, even though it’s damn near equally unlike you as a person as before?
I can’t understand hating Ciri as a chracter, but I can understand being kind of a disappointed not having Geralt as a playable character.
If you consider it as an isolated game it doesn’t matter, but when you play three games as one character and then suddenly switch to another character it can feel kind of melancholic, in absence of a better word. Especially since now there’s a non-zero chance that they’ll kill Geralt in the new game.
But anyway, Ciri was an interesting character and those parts in Witcher 3 where you played as her were great.
and then suddenly switch to another character it can feel kind of melancholic
Its not that sudden, Ciri was playable in Witcher 3 at times and the ending that has to be canon for her to be the W4 Protag leaves Geralt alive and old, and if you count B&W the owner of a vineyard where he can chill with his girl of choice, so they don’t even need to kill him off
“He’s old and hangs out in Toussaint now, he sends Ciri letters” would be easy to do
Well obviously Geralt survives in the end of witcher 3 and most likely will be alive in 4, but what I meant is that they might kill him in the new game like they did with Vesemir in Witcher 3. They don’t need to, and I hope they don’t, but it would be kind of an easy plot device so there’s a chance. But at this point it’s just speculation anyway.
My main point was more in line that some people just don’t like change and that would be enough to make them oppose Ciri as the main character.
I heard somewhere that I think CDPR said even that ending there is a way Garalt could still survive. I don’t remember what the ending is, but also it doesn’t really matter because they can do what they want with him.
On one hand it can be damaging to take away opportunities from kids, on the other hand roblox is massive groomer haven; I genuinely don’t think the kinds of connections they would make there would be worth the long term harm that may result for being involved in that shit.
Ultimately I think you did the right thing by banning it. You’re locking out like a 10th of their social life but those aren’t contacts they want.
Yeah we’re giving him and his friends alternative multiplayer games to have fun on with each other. It’s not like we’re killing his social circle - we’re just upgrading the forum.
Do you know any of the friends’ parents? Maybe you can all gather some ideas together and have a more uniform policy on what’s banned and what might be fun alternatives.
I agree with this. Roblox is huge and often how kids of an age socialize/play. Teach them why mtx aren’t okay, and protect yourself from having to pay.
Get them into some irl stuff too. DND group, sports, book clubs, etc.
This 2D platformer metroidvania has memorable characters and very cool worldbuilding. You switch between characters to match their abilities to the right situations. They live on a living, planet-sized creature and are fighting off the parasites that are slowly killing their creature-planet. You’ll swim through its blood vessels and explore its organs.
It’s not super long—I finished the story in 9 hours. It’s just about the right length to satisfy.
Donkey Kong (1981) popularized having different levels in a game to progress a storyline. Until then, you would have the same level over and over with increasing difficulty
Battlefield 1942 always stands out to me as the one that popularized large scale online battles on big maps with vehicles. At the time it was revolutionary in online gaming.
Command & Conquer: Renegade came out around the same time as well, with similar features. I kinda wish that game had a sequel as well.
Another gameplay feature that comes to mind is the exclamation/question mark above NPC characters for quests. I remember it first from WarCraft 3, but I think it really kicked off with World of WarCraft to get adopted by many more games.
I don’t remember being possible to spawn on teammates in BF1942, but definitely remember it as a first to select spawn points on map like Battlefield always did.
I can’t remember if that mod had squad spawns. But I definitely remember playing it a lot, that was an absolutely revolutionary mod with so much content, not to distract from other great BF1942 mods though. I believe the original DICE team originated from that mod team to create Battlefield 2 as well.
DICE hired a few of the DC devs to work on BF2, then promptly laid them all off about 6 months or so after release, and then the laid off devs and others who weren’t hired made Kaos Studios, and made Frontlines: Fuel of War and Homefront, before being corporate acquisitioned into non existence.
There were a few BF42 mods that, on certain maps with certain vehicles, allowed you to spawn in vehicles.
IIRC, Forgotten Hope had a number of para-assault maps that allowed players to spawn inside of the aircraft they would parachute out of.
I believe you could also do this in… I can’t remember the name of it, but the Star Wars themed 42 mod (which the BattleFront series either largely copied or was directly inspired by), I think it had some spawn-in-able vehicles as well.
Also BF Vietnam, the official game, used a similar concept of having ‘tunnel exits’ that could be built/placed by Viet Cong engineers, which were placeable spawn points, and the US had the ‘Tango’ … mobile river boat with a helipad thing… which was a mobile spawn point.
I am 99% sure it was BF2 that first introduced being able to spawn on a player, I don’t think any of the mods for the earlier games pulled that off always had to be a vehicle or placeable static object.
I’m not sure I’ve ever had more fun with any game than I did with BF1942. It was just so much fun. There were games with smoother play and deeper mechanics and better graphics, but none were as fun. The dumb mechanics made it amazing, like being able to lie down on the wing of a plane and snipe people while your buddy flew, or dive bombing and parachuting out at 10ft above the ground to capture a point, or shooting the main cannon from a tank into a barracks that has 15 people spawned inside it, or piloting a goddamn aircraft carrier and running it aground to get to a spawn point safely. It was so stupid but so fun.
EA did this thing a while back where they saw people were still playing Bad Company 2 on PC on community servers. They updated the game to require a login to EA’s server on boot, then took those servers down. Always online is cancer.
They finally killed off BC2? So I can finally give up on the futile effort of reinstalling the game every year, in hopes that maybe I’ll find a populated server this time around?
I miss that game so much. Rush was so much fun. The maps were designed perfectly for that game mode, unlike future BF titles where it’s a tacked on feature. It was so good, that I found out the hard way that I actually don’t like Battlefield games, after wasting money on BF3, 4, and Hardline, and hating all of them. I just want more Bad Company games.
It was dead last time I tried playing (because of the login thing). Unless someone made a community patch to bypass the login prompt, I guess.
You’re pretty much in the same situation I’m in. BFBC2 was the last Battlefield game I liked, and it was because Rush was so much fucking fun in that. I hate how much the newer ones kind of mostly focus on Conquest, personally.
Conquest is not my idea of fun, either. It’s a lot of running back and forth between the same objectives over and over again until someone wins. To me there’s no thrill in that.
I like the concept of “push/bomb/capture the objective and move on to the next phase of the map” in any game that has it. Used to play a lot of Team Fortress 2 and Overwatch because of it. But now I’ve moved past those games as well. Overwatch has an issue where the meta evolves faster than I can keep up, and TF2 has the opposite problem we’re the meta doesn’t evolve at all because Valve doesn’t update the game. So I’ve stopped playing shooters for now until something new comes out that satisfies my desire for this kind of gameplay.
That’s what every game company has said about every game for decades though! A game disc which installs and plays the game was legally still some nebulous “this provides a licence to play the game which can be revoked at any time”, it’s only now that the companies actually have the power to revoke them at any time.
👨🚀🔫👨🚀Always has been. You never owned the software. Even when games were on cd or cartridge. The only thing that is your legal possession is the physical CD or cartridge and the license that came with it.
Always has been a blatant motherfucking lie, you mean.
Saying you don’t own a game you bought is exactly as batshit insane as saying you don’t own a paper book you bought. We wouldn’t put up with this shit for that, so we shouldn’t put up with it for games either!
Stop letting the copyright cartel steal our property rights and drive us into serfdom.
There are two different ownerships that are being conflated here. When you buy a book, let’s say it’s a new book, just released, and rapidly becoming a best seller. You own your copy of the book, you can read it, you can make notes in it, you can lend it to a friend but while your friend has the book you can’t read that book yourself, or you can sell the book again but once you sell it you won’t be able to read it anymore until you purchase another copy or go to the library. What you’re not allowed to do just because you have the book is make copies of it to sell or give away (which is somewhat challenging to do anyway with a physical book that has hundreds of pages), you’re not allowed to make and sell an audiobook recording of the book, you’re not allowed to go and make a movie based on the book. You’re not allowed to take the characters and write a sequel to the book and sell it. The author still owns the rights to the contents of the book.
In the early days of books, especially the 19th century as books became easier to produce and more people could read, a lot of this started to become problems. People with printing presses would see a book people like, get a copy, and start printing and selling copies on their own. They made translations and sold copies in other countries. People would produce plays based on the books, and depending on where it was performed the author might never know about it. This was all usually done without the involvement of the author and the author often was not paid from these. A surprising number of highly regarded and top selling authors wound up making very little money from their books because they weren’t being paid for most of the copies being sold. Many died poor. This led to the development of the concept of copyright and various other associated rights.
These rights became more complicated as media progressed. With audio recordings there are multiple rights involved: the person who wrote the song has a copyright on the actual music and lyrics, and the person who performed the song has a copyright to the recording of their performance. Sometimes these are the same person, sometimes they’re different.
The laws kept getting more complicated. With software, the developer or publisher owned the software, often because the developer was working under contract to the publisher or sold the software to the publisher. It’s kind of rare to sell the actual software to a customer, and is usually done only for corporate or government clients. In that case the entire rights to the software are transferred and the publisher/developer can’t sell another copy to someone else. Much more commonly only a license to the software is sold to many different customers, and what exactly that license involves can vary widely in the legal terms of that license (which most people never read). Some are very restrictive. It used to be that a lot of licenses specifically tied the copy that you purchased to the hardware you first installed it on. If that hardware died or you purchased a new model, too bad, you’re now supposed to buy a new copy. Some licenses said you’re not allowed to change the code of the software, some licenses allow it. Ten or fifteen years ago people didn’t really think about the idea of streaming gameplay and creating a video from a game was considered a derivative work and not allowed, like making a movie from a book. Now a lot of licenses explicitly allow streaming gameplay, but some older games that weren’t planning for it might not have the rights to stream the music from the game.
If you violated those rights in the past, the terms technically said those rights ended and you were supposed to stop using the license. In practice this was on the honor system and the licensor would rarely know about it, unless they sent an auditor to check compliance, which was usually only worth doing at large companies. With the internet, companies now have the ability to actually access your computer and monitor your use of the software you’ve licensed. They can even disable your access to this software. Unfortunately, of course, a lot of companies have gone the greedy route and used this to their own advantage and at cost to the customer. Not everyone does, though. It’s really important to know what the terms of the license say. If they say they can delete the game you’ve bought and not refund you, don’t buy from them. Don’t give them money for this crap. Let the game flop, even if it otherwise looked great. Support the developers and publishers who want to support the customers. Read the terms on your software; you should always have the option to say you don’t agree and get your money back if you don’t go through with installation. And the laws that allow bad licenses don’t have to stay as they are; some jurisdictions are friendlier to consumers than others.
It’s the same with paper books though. If you buy a paper book you don’t automatically own the rights of that work. You own the copy and can sell that copy or even make a copy for private use. But you can’t make copies of that book to sell, since you don’t own the copyright
Copyright is definitely being abused by the big corporations but without copyright small artists/software developers would constantly get their work stolen by those big corporations.
…which is the entirety of the important part. Once the store sells you the copy, that’s it: the copryight holder has no more right whatsoever to say what gets done to that copy. In particular, it does not have the right to dictate to you when, where, or how you may use your property, e.g. by requiring an Internet connection for the fucking thing to run!
The copyright holder’s temporary monopoly privilege should not be allowed to supersede or infringe upon the copy owner’s actual property rights in even the slightest way. Full stop, end of. The publisher’s business model is its own damn problem, not the customer’s. If it relies on destroying the latter’s rights in order to achieve profitability, the business deserves to fail!
For its 30th Anniversary Magic the Gathering hyped up the return of $1000 card packs with the CHANCE of pulling non legal reprints of its original Alpha set, including the covered Black Lotus, that is…again…not legally playable in any format and is worth the same as a lotus you get from your home printer. For $1000.
bin.pol.social
Ważne