If you must know, I'm actually not a Mario Kart fan, played the older ones but haven't touched the series since DS. More of a Kirby Air Ride and F-Zero GX kinda guy. But I can still understand the appeal well enough to not post this kind of thinly veiled "I'm mad that other people like something I don't" thread.
I think people are very much taking this less as an “I’m curious, why do people find this fun? I want to understand” post, and more of a condescending “I think it’s not fun because I have taste and am presuming people who think it is fun do not until proven otherwise, now prove me otherwise” post. Some people, including me until I saw these comments, were seeing your post body that tells us why you don’t like the game less as sharing your own perspective and wanting someone to show you a bright side, and more as trying to denigrate people who see it as fun. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I think you can reread your post body and see how people might interpret a far less curious, far more judgmental tone from it.
To actually answer your question: I played Mario Kart Wii mostly as kid against the computer and other people, and a few times as an adult against other people. I like to think I was good at the game, that skill mattered and it wasn’t random and unfair. I won almost every time both against the computer, and against other humans. So I just didn’t perceive the game as “mostly random and unfair.” (Although now that I think of it, when I had the option I’d usually switch all items to Strategic against the computer, eliminating a lot of the catch-up items, so perhaps I did perceive it initially and just removed it from my experience to the point I don’t remember it? Although when I played against other humans it was usually on their console at their place with their settings, which probably didn’t have it set to Strategic.) The catch-up mechanics could sink me if I made a mistake, but if I drove well the whole course I almost always came out in front. Perhaps you’re thinking of later editions that I never played and have no opinion of, or the computer plays badly and the people I played against were bad at the game?
I can understand why, but I wanted to hear their reasons for it.
You make it sound like people make a pros and cons list before deciding whether to like something or not. We don’t choose what to like. People clearly have fun playing Mario Kart, that’s it.
We’ll see how much is recency bias and how well it will stand the test of time, but I really think Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 will be on this list going forward. It’s definitely one of the best games I’ve ever played, and I’ve played a lot of games. It’s not perfect, but it’s close enough in all the parts that actually matter.
I still have to play it, but Clair Obscus seems like this year Baldur’s Gate 3, which is rare. A game that came out of no where and is ready to win goty
I must say you are really getting me hyped to play this game. Bgs3 was a masterpiece, and i also love games like Persona so i am really excited to try a French jrpg like Clair Obscur
If it’s the one that got them their recognition, it’s little more than arbitrary; luck, place and time; things that don’t have to do with how good the work is. Some “masterpieces” weren’t considered such until they were exposed to people over and over again, like The Mona Lisa at the Louvre or It’s a Wonderful Life on TBS. I’d have a hard time calling a number of games masterpieces that I didn’t care for, because this isn’t objective.
A masterpiece could just refer to a piece of art from a master. It could refer to the quality of an engineering project, or the skill involved in the work’s creation. Are these not objective qualities?
I don’t really think the Mona Lisa is a great image, personally (it’s a boring portrait), but I can still recognize that it was masterfully done.
This gets trickier with games, because an experienced game designer can, for instance, look at the UI design and graphics programming of a Ubisoft open world slopfest, and say those parts were masterfully done (even if the overall game isn’t so fun). And, even the best of video games have bits of them that weren’t as good.
Is there any community or a different set of servers to point to? Titanfall 2 was my favorite game before the DDoSes, and when I’ve periodically checked you can try matchmaking but there’s nobody left to play with anymore. Is there a Discord or another set of servers or something?
I’m actually not sure, its my kid who plays. He was very excited and playing on xbox. I thought it was cool and unexpected but I guess maybe it died back down again.
no Linux support - Heroic works, why doesn’t Epic do what GOG do and revenue share w/ Heroic?
exclusivity deals, which reduces options outside of EGS
Epic’s anticheat works on Linux, but their own games that use it don’t, that’s a pretty big slap in the face
I certainly want more competition to Steam, but that competition needs to do something other than exist for me to use it. GOG is that, and if they properly supported Linux, they’d get most of my gaming money. But they don’t, so they only get some of it.
Yeah, this probably reads like a Linux fanboy post or something, but I’ve been using Linux longer than Steam supported it with its client, and I’ll still be here if Steam leaves. It’s my platform of choice, and a vendor needs to meet me here if they want my business. Valve did, so they get my money. I honestly don’t need much, I just need games to work properly on my system.
It’s very simple, valve is a gamer company. Epic is a money company. Every single thing each respective company does shows that. I’m not a bitch, I’m never going to let those Epic cunts have a penny of my money. Fucking with the games industry, fucking with gamers, locking exclusives, it’s all bullshit & they can suck my cock
Oh so they have no responsibility at all then. Might as well stop checking IDs when people enter casinos or buy alcohol because they’re not supposed to if they’re underaged.
They make a deliberately addictive mechanic that they know ruin peoples’ life, and they also know they have a big young audience, but you think that’s fine? Shame of you, really.
It’s also in TF2 btw
And whatever you say, it’s still exploiting adults. In many countries, like France, casinos are legally obliged to detect addicted people, prevent minors from playing, and let people opt out legally, and never allow them to gamble afterwards. Valve blatantly doesn’t respect this and takes efforts to bypass the law. They got banned in Belgium and France, and used a legal loophole to avoid being banned in France.
You’re acting like a Valve fanboy. Be objective. Apart from that, Valve is an overall good company for the video games industry, but they act like a piece of shit in other places.
I mean… Do you support the recent proposal to ban online porn? How about alcohol?
Valve provides a game, an appropriate age rating, a description of the monetization scheme, and a way for users to freely trade items.
If minors transform that into a gambling addiction, it’s certainly a big problem, but I don’t see how that translates into “Steam bad, Epic Games good”
Do you support the recent proposal to ban online porn?
No, but that’s another subject. Not easy to regulate and is not as life threatening as many other things. We all consumed some when minors and it never was a huge deal for most people. Gambling is much worse imo, as it impacts your finance. Gambling is already banned/regulated and Valve is avoiding the current laws.
How about alcohol?
It’s already pretty well restricted for minors. The world would be better without it, but as nicotine, can’t go back now that people are used to it.
but I don’t see how that translates into “Steam bad, Epic Games good”
Never said that.
I talked about this because the original comment said Valve wasn’t here for money. Why do they push gambling then?
I think a modern port for other systems would do very well, Sony just isn’t interested in reviving the series which does suck. They did HD versions for PS3 which regained some interest in the franchise, but then they just ported the PS2 versions for PS4/PS5…
If we can have those HD versions on Steam, it’d be a huge deal. Right now most people can’t play the game without jumping through hoops. As an aside, you can play the decompiled versions on PC using OpenGOAL.
I played the HD version on a PS3 emulator and honestly didn’t notice that much of a difference from the PS2 game with upscaled resolution.
I think the point of this post, which I agree with, is that the PS2 version that is available via emulators or on the PS store currently is good enough as it is and the series doesn’t need revived at all.
Sort of in the same vein is that I tried playing MGS1 twin snakes which is the gamecube remake of the PS1 game. Maybe it’s nostalgia of the original being my favorite game of all time, but it just didn’t hit the same for me as the original. It’s just about the closest thing to what a modern “remake” would look like, except I guess with the graphics of how the new remastered snake eater game looks instead of the GC graphics.
It sucks that people might skip timeless classics like these because they’re not remastered with updated graphics.
OpenGOAL runs flawlessly ime. For TPL and Jak 2, there are some extra qol settings and some added secrets to mess around with (in Jak 2, you can unlock cheats for invulnerable vehicles throughout the city, real time of day, turbo jetboard, etc). They’re still working on Jak 3, but you could always get PCSX2 for that one. PCSX2 is a fantastic emulator for PS2 games that also works pretty much flawlessly. It’s how I replayed the old Sly games and a bunch of others.
Still the best engineered bang for your Buck/power draw card ever created in my eyes. Power draw of a lightbulb and I put it side by side with my freinds Xbox one at release and beat its performance.
It’s like we’re returning to the early 00s lol. I used to rock a 450w psu in my 750ti build. :( granted I use a 650w today but my rx580 SND Ryzen 5 1500x is getting dated when it comes to new releases.
This is the first year I really don’t meeet requirements. Don’t know what to do with this market lol
It does add a lot of very good playable content, but the quality and tone of the writing is a departure from the main game. Some find it a deal breaker.
A great product does not necessarily mean there is a winning formula though. We have a trash sequel when the new game does not do something that the existing game does. Even worse, the existing features are locked behind additional payment, so why would players not continue to play the existing game?
KSP 2 - Let’s forget the technical disaster. A lot of features are missing at the start. You could argue that it’s in early access, but why would I pay for a product that does less? Then we add in the many bugs and performance issues, and you know it’s game over.
Cities Skylines 2 - Again, you can’t do everything you already can in CS1. Plus, the first game is supported by a huge number of mods. There’s really no reason to play the new title. Again, it does not perform any better.
This is a weird take but I think remake or remastered these days are more like sequels than sequels, just because they keep the story and mechanics.
I find that game developers or many businesses try to reinvent the wheel when there’s no reason to. Say the Subnautica sequel, why waste money on voice over, add a land mass, cut the beloved submarine, shorten the story and overall map size, all that. I will never understand and sincerely hope the next Subnautica title does not reinvent the wheel.
I wouldnt go that far. Skylines 2 has a new game engine. If it wouldnt have turned out to be incredibly slow, it would have been a very successful launch.
And I cant imagine anyone buying Skylines 2 if it used the same engine as Skylines 1. Then it truly would have been no point. The new engine was supposed to make cities more beautiful and more realistic. They just didnt manage to make it fast.
I unfortunately bought the game for 50 dollars in launch day and I have just 3 hours in it. I cant bring myself to play it because of the sluggish feeling.
You are absolutely right. The vision for sequel can be good but the execution has to be equally sound too. In the ideal situation, I guess CS2 needs to be a rebuild of CS1 with a new engine, so it can fully replace CS1 right from the start, if not do something extra. They did a few things praiseworthy though, like baking in road lane customisation, which was done by mods in CS1.
But then, we are not too fair. Simulation games are different from RPG. Story has an ending and we want to see how it continues to develop. For simulation games, I don’t think players want anything to be removed on a sequel, unless they are absolutely bad design. Even so, players expect QoL here and there to make their lives easier, which alone can be the single reason to buy the sequel.
Cities Skylines 2 - Again, you can’t do everything you already can in CS1. Plus, the first game is supported by a huge number of mods. There’s really no reason to play the new title. Again, it does not perform any better.
CS2 looks and performs better than the original now that a lot of the bugs have been squashed and optimizations are in place (in my experience, anyway). Its memory management in particular is way better than CS1. I don’t get the simulation slow down to the same extent that I did in CS1 as the population increases.
The new road tools alone are reason enough for me to never go back to CS1. The service building upgrades are an added feature that’s a big plus as well. I also find that the economy is a little more functional and transparent than in CS1 (again, after multiple patches).
I don’t find the lack of bike lanes, quays, or modular industry to be so important as to ruin my enjoyment of what is otherwise a state of the art city building game.
Yeah, I don’t want a sequel for sequel’s sake. If you don’t have an artistic or consumer perspective vision on why a sequel is needed or wanted you should be focusing on something that can be justified like that.
Story and exploration games have this built in. Why do players want a sequel? To have more story, to explore more, to return to this world once they’ve tired of the previous game. Rpgs are expensive, slow, and risky, but you basically never have to justify your next game.
The games mentioned here struggle there. KSP does what it does well. Any sequel comes with huge questions of why people would want another space program simulator, and it’s clear that corporate just assumed that people would buy it because they loved the first one.
And that’s not to say games that don’t feel like a sequel is warranted can’t benefit from one. Roguelikes are about as anti sequel as city builders and there are two roguelike sequels I love. Rogue legacy 2 was the devs reimagining the concept of the first game and making a higher budget (especially in gameplay) game that doesn’t just feel like a cash grab. And Hades 2 is similar in many ways, but different enough to feel warranted and clearly made uncynically. It clearly exists because the leads felt there was more to do with the premise that didn’t belong in the first game.
And there’s the thing, I think that ksp probably did have a sequel in it. Something like a space colony sim where you’re a space station having to build and manage ships and colonies, or something else may have been warranted or good. But it would’ve come from a creative lead wanting to do it rather than what clearly happened of a corporation purchasing the game and deciding that since they owned it they had to make a sequel to use the ip
KSP does what it does well. Any sequel comes with huge questions of why people would want another space program simulator
I think that there were pretty clear ways to expand KSP that I would have liked.
There was limited capacity to build bases and springboard off resources from those.
I’d have liked to be able to set up programmed flight sequences.
More mechanics, like radiation, micrometeorite impacts, etc.
The physics could definitely have been improved upon in a number of ways. I mean, I’ve watched a lot of rockets springily bouncing around at their joints.
Some of the science-gathering stuff was kind of…grindy. I would have liked that part of the game to be revamped.
I don’t think that graphics were a massive issue, but given how much time you spend looking at flames coming from rocket engines, it’d be nice to have improved on that somewhat. I’d have also liked some sort of procedural-terrain-generation system to permit for higher-resolution stuff when you’re on the ground; yeah, you’re mostly in the air or space, but when you’re on the ground, the fidelity isn’t all that great.
bin.pol.social
Ważne