I’m certainly not expecting this game is amazing, but in terms of bringing a playable slice of a popular fictional world to life, I have a lot of respect for it. What I’ve watched doesn’t even fall too hard into the worst of Ubisoft formulas - and I would argue a lot of people can’t even identify what those are.
I don’t even expect to love it myself if I ever get it, but some of the hate towards the game seems so poorly formed and weird - stuff like “Looks like a mobile game” or “The main character is so ugly”. I can even get worries about it being a Ubisoft game, but just like EA, it seems like they do put out a game low on microtransactions every so often. I want to be sure they’re recognized for efforts when the game is decent.
I don’t even get the main character complaints… She’s got a cute coffee shop barista vibe to her lmao people are just weird about women being “beautiful” in such stereotypical ways I guess. Must be exhausting and extremely lonely to have such trivial “standards” for a damn video game character.
Wipeout. They can continue from Omega, it was great fun. Formula Fusion is a really cool spiritual successor by many of the original minds, but it's a little lacking in content.
Edit: lol, took me four hours to realise that continuing on after Omega rather ruins the title of that one
I was actually slightly put off by how tightly it looked like it was imitating the first couple of Wipeout games, like the UI being almost identical and a bunch of the teams being the Wipeout ones with the serial numbers filed off. Like they're unwilling to try their own ideas, you know? If it's so similar, well I can still play the old games. I assume you feel differently?
i think that’s sort of the whole point. i mean the dev is called Neognosis. though i can definitely see how that could be unsettling if you’re intimately familiar with the franchise, which i am not.
i had the pc version of 2097 as a child and i could never get the hang of it. too technical for a 9-year-old i guess. so i never really had any nostalgia for the specifics, i just saw Ballistic on sale and thought “hey that looks like wipeout, I wonder if they still have that weird floaty feel”. it does feel like i remember, and after spending some time with it i really enjoy it even though i’m still no good 25 years later.
also they did add go-karts so it’s not entirely plagiarized ;)
Watch Dogs. It’s without a doubt my favorite video game franchise of all time and it saddens me that there hasn’t been any sign of a new game being in development at all. I’d love if the game went back to its roots by following the first entries formula, but that’s just a minor preference and at this point I’d take anything.
Crazy talk, and you’re onto something… that’s been solved already.
First part: you hate that a 10+ years old game is only getting cosmetic changes instead of a rehaul of the whole character model. That’s crazy, nobody’s going to do that, not the ones expecting a profit, and not the modding community doing it for free. If you feel it’s a silly change, you’re right, but realize that it’s the only change they could do.
You’re onto something: body feature sliders. Male, female, giraffe, and turtle bodies, have some structural differences, that however mostly match to the same bones having different shapes. The solution is a body shape slider, or 50. It’s something that existed, in some games, since at least the 2000s. Others were lazy and didn’t do it.
For reference of how far this could go, the following all have the same bones, only change in shape, size, and muscle placemen:
I agree with what others said that more customization is generally good, but not all games really need that level of customization. For something like animal crossing, I think the body type thing is fine, since the designs are more neutral unlike what you’re describing. I think what could help is a third option that’s a more neutral body type. Or maybe if it’s not relevant, just don’t have a body type option.
I also don’t know much about runescape, but I assume this was an update that just changed the names from genders to body types, so adding other options might have increased the scope of the update. I think at least uncoupling that from gender is at least an improvement over before. Plus, I kinda disagree that people would only pick the corresponding pronouns. Plenty of people have a gender expression that doesn’t necessarily match their gender identity.
Oh definitely, heck, in Animal Crossing they might as well just ask for your pronouns and nothing else… In fact doesn’t New Horizons basically do that? But I’m referring more to the more common scenario of “Beefy Guy” and “Curvy Cutie”, which we see in World of Warcraft, you can pick whatever pronouns you want but it’s going to go on either on testosterone fueled bearded Dwarf you’ve ever seen or the hourglass with pointy ears we call a Night Elf…
When you only get two body type options and neither have any level of androgyny, what does pretending they aren’t gendered when they clearly are accomplish? That’s the part I have an issue with, it’s dishonesty being masqueraded as progress. Either have androgynous character options or don’t pretend “Body Type A/B” is a solution to a problem.
I feel The Sims 4 gets this right by letting you pick between male, female, or a custom gender (where you can decide if the sims pees standing up or sitting down, whatever pronouns you want them to have, whether the sim gets others pregnant, becomes pregnant, both, or neither), and ALL THREE of them have a healthy amount of customization options to go for whatever look you want.
Yeah I agree with you there. If you’re gonna just give two or three body type options and no other customization, there should be an androgenous option or at least they should all be generally androgenous. I think the issue with runescape probably stems from how the game was before.
I don’t remember 4 being that chill, when you press the frog button and have to leg it back to the start for fear of losing your loot it gets pretty intense!
Jonathan S. Harbour of the University of Advancing Technology argues that Tomb Raider (1996) by Eidos Interactive (now Square Enix Europe) is “largely responsible for the popularity of this genre”.
Hell, Max Payne was definitely more popular, and it came out in 2001.
Well you are right but I’m talking about the style and feel that one of those earlier pivot resident evils created. It plays the same as gears of war and all other cover shooters that followed. Sure third person existed but everything today plays in a way that series established.
yeah it was such an improvement so instantly adopted that people forget 3rd person shooters used to put your character right in the middle before that.
Crush the Castle inspired Angry Birds and several other games with the same catapult mechanic. Loved that flash game way before Angry Birds was put on the App Store.
Could even say it goes back to the Zelda games on NES. Metroidvania games might also count. Those games all have the “you might progress in any available direction” mechanic, which IMO is the core of the open world mechanic.
There’s also some games like Star tropics where the whole world was open (as in you could return to previous locations) but progress was more linear.
Would super Mario world count as open world? Not as old as the NES ones I mentioned, but I’m curious. Or say if you could go back to previous worlds in SMB3, would that be open world?
Depends on how you constrain that idea. Open worlds were a very early idea, but old computers were somewhat capacity limited in how much content you could have.
Here you had several town maps, including dual carriageways, main roads, side roads, one way streets. And you could just drive down any of them. They were all nondescript, but the amount of memory really limited what could be done.
There was also the games using the freescape engine. Driller, Darkside and Total Eclipse. These were all about as open world as you could achieve on the hardware of the time.
In terms of "open world" the definition is open to interpretation. I'd argue that text based adventures were open world too in their own way. So it really depends on what features people agree makes an "open world" game as to what the first game that contains all those features was.
Open world RPGs were always the goal, old games tried to mask the hardware limitations by using several techniques. By the time the Witcher 3 came along open world RPGs were the most common thing, in fact at the time lots of people called the Witcher a sellout because of that, it’s like if it had come up a couple years ago and had base buildiechanics, EVERYONE else was doing it.
There are LOTS of examples that pre-date TW3, I’ll limit myself to a few, just because it’s the ones I played. In the 90s and early 2000s I used to play Ultima Online, which is an MMO from 97 that has a vast open world. But if you want first person, Oblivion is old enough to drink.
In a way, I’d say World of Warcraft (2004 onwards) popularized that.
Here’s your starting place. Here’s a bunch of easy quests and monsters.
You quit the starting area. Everything feels huge and really, really fucking far away. One step in the wrong direction and you’re assaulted by an enemy with a 💀 for a level. Not only that, most people would only see the loading screen once before doing an hours-long playthrough and that also increased the sense of “fucking huge world”
I think the fault lies with Ubisoft and Assassin’s Creed. They really championed the idea of a bloated open world stuffed with systems that don’t really interact with each other, and now AAA gaming just keeps trying to stuff more mechanics in the pile.
bin.pol.social
Ważne