Its not quite a pirate game, but if you’re willing to expand your seach to include a nautical mystery game aboard a trading ship in 1807, than Return of the Obra Dinn is worth a look.
In multiple posts you mentioned how you expected people on fediverse to be “more principled” and how they can only support the smaller option or just give up and accept everything corps throw at them which is why you’re surprised some play gacha games.
Does that expectation also extend to “normal” F2P games like Apex, Fortnite etc? Does it include people playing full-price AAA games? Titles like GTA, Diablo, Halo, majority of MMOs and more - games that not only are paid but also include season passes and micro transactions.
Should people also avoid those?
Just so we’re clear, it’s a genuine question. I have no skin in the game as I don’t really play HSR, AAA games or really care what people expect from me but I’m curious about your perspective on things.
I avoid those games. But I don’t expect others to have the same tastes as me. I’m certainly not demanding people don’t like those kind of games like OP seems to be doing about Honkai
Which is totally fair - I feel like most (conjecture?) people who dislike such things will simply avoid these games and play other stuff.
OP focused on gacha games but didn’t mention paid ones despite the fact many of them implement similar monetization schemes which is why I’m curious about their point of view on this.
My main problem is with F2P mobile games that have any kind of gambling mechanics associated with them, or any games that are set up to get you to pay endlessly for the privilege of playing the game, even though it’s not marketed as a subscription service game.
World of Warships, World of Tanks, and War Thunder are the big non-mobile offenders, in this regard.
Games like Fortnite and Apex are just on the acceptable side of things, because they’re mainly selling cosmetics. They’re not claiming to be free, then blocking off large sections of the game behind grind-fests, which you can then get rid of with paywalls. As far as I know, you can play all the Apex and Fortnite you want, and the only temptation to spend money is based on “oooh, I want that cool-looking thing.”
Resisting the impulse to buy a cool-looking thing is everyone’s own responsibility. Therefore, selling cool-looking things isn’t unethical. Getting someone addicted to gambling and/or using Skinnerian conditioning to slowly acclimatize them to paying for a “free” game is NOT okay.
Alright, that cleared up some things, thanks. I assume FIFA’s (well, EA’s FC) Ultimate Team also falls under that umbrella since it’s straight up rolling for power?
Since you’re fine with cosmetics what about mobile/gacha games that are primarily that?
For example, I play a game called Girls Frontline - I didn’t pay anything yet have all bar 3 characters (the missing ones can be farmed on stages I haven’t played yet) with most of them leveled up and equipped for pretty much any available content. There’s no stamina that needs to be refilled and events have 3 difficulty levels to allow even new(ish) players to complete the story. The main monetary incentive here comes from skins (which can also be obtained using saved up resources). Would a game like this be alright according to your perspective?
While majority of gacha can absolutely be predatory there are more titles like that within the “genre” which is why I’m interested in your focus on mobile titles. Sorry if it sounds like I’m trying to look for a “gotcha” or something like that - that’s not my intention.
The Girls Frontline game seems to occupy basically the same space as Fortnite, from what you’re saying. Also, I really appreciate the fact that you’re questioning my position in a constructive way, unlike a lot of the people here, who basically jumped at me, automatically taking a de facto position of defending all gacha games, no matter how predatory.
Being asked these questions in a constructive manner isn’t just more polite, it IS actually constructive. It’s helping me to refine and understand my own position. I strive to be consistent and logic-driven, in my opinions, but nobody’s perfect. I can admit that some of my views may be somewhat emotion-based, and can be specified and sharpened based on discussion.
I think the most important thing to avoid, if you don’t want to be playing a game that’s unethical (and maybe even dangerous) is anything that combines a stamina refilling, gameplay limiting mechanic AND a pay-to-roll gacha mechanic. The worst of those being the kind where the common characters (or weapons, mechs, cars, etc) are super-duper weak, compared to the rare and overpowered characters.
Either one of those mechanics can be bad, especially if it’s tied to spending money. Combining them together is extra bad. It’s even worse if the game continually markets itself as “free.”
If a game has no stamina-based playtime-limiting mechanic AND the unlockable characters/skins are entirely (or almost entirely) cosmetic, I figure it’s basically fine.
I’m glad I could give you a chance to expand on your view in a more neutral manner. I like discussing things and learning other people’s points of view so I try to approach online discussion in a positive and open-minded way. It’s not always easy but I try.
I think the main reason people jumped on you so easily was the tone of your OP and some of the more heated comments - they come off like you aren’t really interested in an explanation but rather looking for affirmation in shit talking other people’s interest in those games. Feeling strongly about a topic can be a detriment at times and it’s an easy way to derail a decent topic for a conversation.
That said, seems like we’re pretty much on the same page even if I don’t feel as strongly towards the disliked parts of the industry as you do. I simply stick to titles that don’t punish me for not spending ever increasing amounts of money.
Receiver is pretty good. You have to clear the slide, and remember to count bullets, did your own jams, and otherwise it makes shooting more of a simulation rather than an arcade.
They released two games. The first was just a game jam thing they threw together that established the core mechanics. The second was much more fleshed out and polished.
If I’m not mixing something up, they also created Overgrowth (third-person action platformer with rabbits beating up wolfs). And in order to distribute it without messing with third party services, they’ve created Humble Bundle. They sold it to some company later but for a long time it was them putting together the bundles.
Breathe of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom are at the top of that list for me. The “old” style Zelda games are objectively better in terms of pacing and exploration. And I absolutely hate the weapon durability system in the better ones. I’ve read their reasoning behind it, but they’re wrong. It sucks and makes the game more about hoarding the good weapons and avoiding combat whenever possible, which is boring as shit.
I never really got into 3D Zelda (but had some fun with most of them) and Breath of the Wild/Tears of the Kingdom are a absolute low for me mostly because of the ugly as hell art. Both games have the worst cell shader look I have seen in a very long time and it makes both games unplayable for me. I get kind of sea sick playing them (I tried at a friend’s place who loves both games).
I hate that I cannot follow the quests and progress in the story without looking up how to. If your world wasn’t built for a player to figure out by talking to NPCs, you built a crappy world.
I really think the weapon durbility system is a mindset problem. It’s the same problem with any rpg where at the end of the game you have hundreds of unused potions “just in case”. Don’t get me wrong, it is still on the designers to change a players mindset about items.
But I found myself enjoying BotW and TotK waaaay more when I switched to: “I don’t care about my weapons, everything is expendable”
I mean, the no build mode is ok. The concept of building a fort and defending it Left 4 Dead style, if done right, could be endlessly fun with friends. Each wave would require repairs and more sophisticated builds to take on tougher mobs. But yeah, what Fortnite became never drove me to play it unless friends asked me to.
Save the World is very fun. I also got fortnite the day it came out on XBox and loved save the world. When they shut that down, I never played fortnite again… until i saw they brought back save the world and I’ve been playing regularly lately.
Zelda breath of the wild - it’s one of the worst Zelda games I’ve ever played and I’ve played so many. There were so many bad decisions made with this game from weapons breaking to getting rid of traditional dungeons. It’s a great open world game but a terrible Zelda game.
The Horizon series by Guerilla Games - These games are good for the most part, however they suffer from long stretches of boring open world where you have to fight robot dinosaurs with underpowered weapons. The whole point of the combat is to find weaknesses with the enemies and exploit/attack those weaknesses, but the game never at any point explicitly explains that concept or focuses on that concept. It expects you to just understand what to do. Not to mention the absolutely stupid grinding for mats to make new weapons and armor. Melee combat is terrible, the story for the most part is pretty good but man does it take forever to pick up, it overstays it’s welcome. They are technical powerhouses but just so grindy and boring.
I agree with all you said about Zelda BOTW. As a Zelda game I was really disappointed. But if you set aside the Zelda part it was actually a pretty fun game for me. I really enjoyed the exploration and it was the best open world game I played so far. But too easy forgettable dungeons and too easy bosses and darn weapons breaking really bothered me so I’m not even interested in the TOTK. I’ll wait for the next Zelda game and keep my fingers crossed.
Pretty sure they’ve stated Zelda games will lean closer to the two recent entries going forward, so those of us who think like this really can only cross our fingers that something resembling previous Zelda titles returns.
What I love about the Zelda games is that they try out something new with each title. So who knows, maybe they’ll eventually do a Zelda that’s geared more to fans of the older titles.
Weapon breaking is controversial but I see it as a mechanic with positive impact on the game. Just because your weapons were not permament it actually added choice into which weapon do you want to use in the battle
It does not add any choice. All it did was encourage me to speed run my way to the master sword and essentially go down the line of weapons I had in a boss fight until I ran out. There was no strategy, just a sense of never wanting to use any of the good weapons and hoarding them. It was so bad I marked a spot on the map where weapons would respawn every blood moon so I could at least have some good weapons. Guess what that’s called in every other game? A repair mechanic. Don’t even get me started on the master sword “breaking” for no thematic reason.
I’m on the disagree side on this. As much as I did use whatever garbage the game threw at me, there was no incentive to use your best weapons tactically, because unless you were fighting a boss, breaking a good weapon would not bring an equivalent reward… and then the major bosses were weak to the Master Sword anyway.
It also felt incredibly unrewarding to explore and open chests only to find yet another disposable weapon rather than some permanent upgrade like the heart pieces used to be.
Around the time I felt like Horizon Zero Dawn did more to encourage smart use of multiple weapons than Zelda did, by giving them different funcions and making it so enemies had different defenses and weak spots.
I felt the same way about the first Horizon game. I was playing on normal, barely making any progress because A) I couldn’t be assed to care about any of the characters, and B) the combat was really finicky.
I mean, I get it you’re fighting giant killer machines with a bow and arrow, but still. I had a way more enjoyable time when I turned the difficulty down and got a couple mods (just ammo and carry capacity upgrades so I didn’t have to stop to collect resources after every single fight).
Pretty much any competitive online game. It’s not that I don’t like competing. I just feel bad for the others if I win and I feel bad for losing if I lose
Look a remaster should or could have obvious upgrades, sometimes it’s visuals, videos, style, controls etc. that to me is good.
But that quote specifically tells me “the game has been changed for current day sensibilities” and I hate that. I feel it takes away from what the original had in mind, for good or bad.
I understand that many media have been racist/misogynist/ageist and accept that it was a product of its time. But I don’t think it does it any good to essentially pretend that it didn’t happen and I feel we’re just pretending it isn’t what it truly is when it’s changed.
I do think remakes are different however. I feel they are taking the idea of the original but redesigning it in a way that the new designers for see.
BUT the fact is, that quote is only ever seen on media that hides the past, not remakes the future.
It does tell you that it’s been changed, though. You can typically still go and play the original game. And it enables the people affected by -isms to enjoy it when sometimes said -isms would pull them out of it for them otherwise.
And it’s not like the original intent was for people to be distracted by what would have, to the developers, have likely seemed a small or unquestioned detail. We can never truly approach a game the way its original audience did anyway because culture changes so much, and a large part the experience you have with art is what you bring to it. Thus why graphical updates can make the game look like you remember it, even though it now looks much prettier. I think these sorts of updates can be similar to that.
Granted, it’s harder to access the original game because of hardware. But even so, a lot of original intent is always lost in the process of making a remaster. I’d argue “for modern audience” updates tend to be less of a departure than changes in visual design (the different lighting in the various Myst remasters that changes the mood, the extra foliage in Shadow of the Colossus remasters) or mechanics updates (the ability to control Resident Evil like a regular game instead of via tank controls).
Edit: I think my ideal scenario would be if remasters include “modern audience” updates of all kinds, to make the game as enjoyable for new players as possible, but also that the originals be made more easily available such as by legalizing or sanctioning emulation for old games.
Interesting but I do think things are a little different:
A lot of people seem to be commenting about how a remaster is about changing atmosphere or visual changes. And I agree with you. But OP is asking specifically about games with the quote “for modern audiences” in the game and that quote is not added for the visual or control or minor game design changes, but instead specifically to tell you it’s removed the “isms” out.
I think your point about isms makes sense, it’s just that I’m of the opposing view. That I think the “isms” have been removed out is like censoring a painting or movie. Sure it’s easier to digest, but what made the media so poignant is sometimes the rawity of it.
I guess I don’t think you’re wrong, just that I think it takes away from the original media for the only reason that “it sells more if we can widen the audience”.
For me the ideal would be you could choose between the two. How the game was originally made but with the updated graphics/control/design. Or the new one that removes any isms to placate people’s sensibilities.
I don’t think however my preference would happen because it goes against the idea of “hay we can sell more if we tell everyone we removed everything controversial about the game”. So I guess your idea solution is probably the best middle ground :)
I usually emulate on my Steam Deck. I still have a Nintendo Online subscription going as it’s required for multiplayer (hate that that’s a thing), but I rarely use the emulators. I wouldn’t pay for the Online+ subscription, it doesn’t seem good value to me.
I’m in a similar boat. Before I had my Steam Deck, I played retro Nintendo games on the Switch. However now I prefer to move between my Steam Deck, PSPi6, and Anbernic handhelds (depending on what I want to emulate). It’s annoying that you can’t get the save files off the Switch, though. I have some games that I got pretty far into, and I would like to move those over.
PS5 is nice if you can’t afford a PC capable of 4K or Ray Tracing for the games that are on every system ($500 for a machine capable of high fidelity gaming is a good value; couldn’t build a PC for that price with the same capabilities atm).
It might be more worthwhile if the exclusives for it weren’t able to be counted on 1 hand. There’s very little to warrant buying a whole system if you’re only interested in the exclusives.
The Ray Tracing argument and 4K are both shit arguments. On the PS5 most games are not 4K native, those that are, are locked to 30 which is an horrible experience. Ray Tracing is the same thing, and not only is PC Ray Tracing much more advanced and better looking, but it also locks you to 30 fps modes on PS5. I doubt the PS5 Pro will change that. If you forget the 30 fps sad modes that have 4k/ray tracing, suddently you can actually build a PC yourself that plays the same games for $600-800 (bit more than a PS5 but ITS A FULL PC, does everything, not games only) that for that price can play 1080-1440p games with ease at 60 fps with graphical fidelity similar to the PS5 if not better since you can better fine tune the graphical settings of all games. Ray Tracing will kill it, just like it kills the PS5.
In my style of life (PC-first) I myself consider a console to be one of those extra expenses that you have only if you have free money to spare. Having games on your couch and big TV is amazing, but if you need a PC anyway for daily life, might aswell waste a bit more and get a great PC for gaming too. If it’s a powerful laptop, it can also be your living room “console” just by plugging some cables anytime. Having a console after having a good PC feels like luxury to me (in a bad way), and very optional.
However if your PC is absolute trash but you see no reason at all to buy a new one, because your life style rarely needs to use it, and you absolutely cannot be bothered with Windows configuration and all its BS, then a console is 100% justified. Consoles are great for people who just don’t care and just want to play a game a few times per month.
I guess some people want a pc and a console like me and some people just want a big gaming pc. Both ideas are fine and no one should be looking badly at the other.
We’ve made our calculations and for me a « shitty PC » and an easy to setup gaming system like the ps5 is what I need.
But it’s perfectly fine for me if someone wants to go the other way. I’m not gonna say they are dumb and their way is shitty because it’s not mine…
The thing that always bothers me about people saying consoles are a good deal as the hardware is cheap compared to a PC is just that it gets more expensive really quickly with software. Particularly if you get a digital only console it only takes a few games until you’re at the price of a PC. I just can’t justify buying a locked down system anymore.
As someone who skipped the last generation… I think this one is way better… Because it’s fully backwards compatible. Since I got a PS5 I’ve gone back and played many games I missed. Meanwhile the only game for the PS5 I play is GT7. And since I’ve loved every GT game, it was worth it for me. I expect that GTA 6 will be the next PS5 game I actually get.
bin.pol.social
Ważne