No one has paid to replace it or has the money to do so. I faced this challenge in bike shops with advertising media. It is risky to accept large stuff like this from brand reps. It comes down to a plan and the level of investment in the product. Looks like someone bought in and had no long term plan for the space. Looks like a business on the threshold of black to red finances.
To be a loss leader doesn’t the need to lead to something?
The only way it could make sense that they’re selling these at a loss would be - oh yeah. They’re coming straight for Nintendo / Sony / Microsoft now, huh?
The day I see a steam console in wal mart is a day I will be very happy.
For Valve it would ideally lead to a new Steam account being created. Which would make sense if someone got one as a gift or something, naturally they would set up a Steam Account if they didnt already have one.
Also the new offerings are very much something Johnny Joe who has only ever owned a PlayStation, Nintendo, or Sony console would potentially buy.
Of course Johnny Joe would put the entire thing up his ass and die from heavy metal poisoning because he’s an idiot, but his peers would actually use them.
I guess that would depend on the front end and game support. If it is any less user friendly than Xbox or Playstation, people wont want to use it Johnny Joe and Little Timmy don’t want to fiddle with a bunch of settings and constantly change stuff to get games working. The Steam Deck does okay but I still find sometimes it needs some… coercing… to get some games to work right.
If they dial it in right, everything should work properly out of the box without needing settings changes.
A loss leader (also leader) is a pricing strategy where a product is sold at a price below its market cost to stimulate other sales of more profitable goods or services.
So the answer to their question is “Yes, a loss leader needs to lead to something”. I have no idea why you think they have no idea what they’re talking about.
“Git gud or die” literally is a genre. It’s called soulslike.
Also “every game should have difficulty options” and “every game should be a survival crafter” are both fundamentally “every game should be what I like.”
You can set a difficulty option to the default, what it would be if there weren’t a choice. Changing the genre of a game isn’t generally in the settings menu.
“Soulslike” is an absurdly nebulous term that just means “hard.” It isn’t a genre. It gets applied to games of every conceivable genre based solely on their difficulty. Battletoads is a Soulslike. Path of Exile is a Soulslike. Dead Cells is a Soulslike. Never mind that all of Fromsoft’s Souls games are specifically action-adventure RPGs, which is a genre.
Lets say they keep everything as it is right now, like they literally have the games they already have and add some difficulty options like less annoying backtracking. How does this “ruin” your experience?
Every one of these arguments is based on the entirely made up idea that sacrifices must be made to achieve these improvements.
What makes you think every game should be for every person?
No, it absolutely isn’t a made up idea that allowing barnacles to glomp on to an experience so that they can feel included cheapens the whole experience.
I do not want McDonald’s Souls. I get that you’re fine with it, I’m not.
What makes you think every game should be for every person?
What makes you want to make such a clear strawman argument?
No, it absolutely isn’t a made up idea that allowing barnacles to glomp on to an experience so that they can feel included cheapens the whole experience.
I love that you literally cant answer the question because you know its immature gamer gate keeping. You just completely avoided it.
I’ll repeat:
Lets say they keep everything as it is right now, like they literally have the games they already have and add some difficulty options like less annoying backtracking. How does this “ruin” your experience?
Edit: for a real answer, since the advent of video games there have been people like you claiming that they’re too hard. Video games are meant to be beaten. They are literally designed that way, just because you can’t seem to beat them doesn’t mean everyone should conform to you.
Seriously, go pick a different game. Thousands of games exist with difficulty sliders. Pick one and shut the fuck up about the ones that don’t.
for a real answer, since the advent of video games there have been people like you claiming that they’re too hard. Video games are meant to be beaten. They are literally designed that way, just because you can’t seem to beat them doesn’t mean everyone should conform to you.
This is not a real answer at all.
This is you first poisoning the well by insinuating that I’m bad at games firstly, and then pretending that these settings only have to do with hardness in 1 dimension. Its not remotely a good faith effort to answer.
Why would I assume anything but ineptitude on your part?
You either have a fundamentally flawed understanding of why single difficulty games exist or you are just bad at games. I don’t care which, I will say that Atomfall is extremely fucking boring.
Why would I assume anything but ineptitude on your part?
If you were being a reasonable well rounded human being and not a toxic gamer trope, that would be a reason.
You either have a fundamentally flawed understanding of why single difficulty games exist or you are just bad at games.
Given that not a single person has been able to make a cogent argument for them existing and the second thing is the comment of a toddler, Im going to go with the third option that Im shocked this level of toxicity exists on lemmy.
I don’t know why I expected better, but this is bottom of the barrel. You get better conversation on reddit, legitimately. This is all over a difference in opinion on difficulty settings in gaming. Its amazing really. Like you never sat back for a second and thought about how you were acting over a video game opinion.
No, this is all over you deciding that what you think is superior to everyone simply because you’ve declared it.
There are games that are designed to have varying difficulties. There are games that are not. Both can be complete experiences, both can be dogshit and lazy. I really don’t care what you ‘expect’ because Atomfall absolutely falls in the ‘lazy as fuck’ category. Gunplay is basic. Melee combat is basic. Stealth consists of ‘be behind something, don’t not be behind something’.
And you want to know something? It’s ok to be entertained by a game like that! What’s not ok is turning around and acting like you have some valuable opinion centered on games being more like fucking Atomfall.
Edit: I’m gonna quote you
Apples are so much better than oranges. You don’t have to peel Apples, the skin is actually good for you. I honestly fucking hate oranges because I can’t just bite into them.
If the above seems like an unreasonable statement to you, congratulations — you have conceded the argument. If you agree with the above statement, congratulations — you have outright lost the argument.
No, this is all over you deciding that what you think is superior to everyone simply because you’ve declared it.
At this point you arent even pretending to argue in good faith so there isn’t much point in continuing. You’re incapable of good faith discussion it seems, cant answer simple questions and couldn’t make an honest comparison to save your life.
Hopefully you don’t explode over every minor disagreement you have.
What was that? I couldn’t hear you over the ad hominem, you can cry in this cup I’m holding.
Difficulty sliders have existed for decades, just because you’re an idiot that’s never noticed that the games they’re attached to are typically bad isn’t my problem. Maybe go research game balance and why different designs exist for different games, it isn’t my responsibility to drag you to the finish line.
You are so toxic right now that if you ever grow as a person you’ll think back to how shitty you were right now in time.
Literally talking like a 4channer to someone, calling them an idiot, pretending you know what an adhominem attack is because you … don’t like adjustable difficulty settings in video games (and seem to think that sliders are all that difficulty settings are).
I have already addressed that you can have complete experiences from both single difficulty games and variable difficulty games.
The only thing that is unique about Atomfalls difficulty settings outside of the difficulty sliders is that there’s a very very easy mode instead of a very hard mode.
Again, research design philosophy for video games. Because as other users have mentioned — you are objectively incorrect. In the exact same way as someone who believes that games should only have one difficulty are incorrect.
Edit: actually, fuck you — I’ve read the rest of these comments. You’ve earned the tag “Terrible at video games”.
Edit 2: no no, I’ve got an even better tag — “IGN Game Journalist”.
The only one posed in the question this spawns from??
Lets say they keep everything as it is right now, like they literally have the games they already have and add some difficulty options like less annoying backtracking. How does this “ruin” your experience?
You’re objectively wrong. I just wanted to make sure you understood that.
No one cares what “you” want, unless “you” perfectly describe the purchasing power of 100k potential customers.
FROMsoft doesn’t care if you play their game, which is great for me because I like their artistic vision unfettered by useless contrarianism.
Oh, and to answer the question you think is a gacha - I’d rather the team spend every second making the game they want to then to spare even one developers afternoon to add “difficulty settings” - that employee could have been doing something actually useful to the game and its target audience.
You really following me around to just assert that your bad take is “objectively” right over and over again?
No one cares what “you” want, unless “you” perfectly describe the purchasing power of 100k potential customers.
This is a common complaint, and its what the folks like you are bitching about; the idea that anyone would dare have criticisms that you dont agree with.
Oh, and to answer the question you think is a gacha - I’d rather the team spend every second making the game they want to then to spare even one developers afternoon to add “difficulty settings” - that employee could have been doing something actually useful to the game and its target audience.
This isn’t an answer at all, as expected from you given that the stipulations are that this is separate to the games creation. The fact you can’t answer really goes to show that it is indeed just useless gatekeeping. That you follow me around for this really goes to show how toxic your mentality is.
You’re right, that was overly harsh. I have 0 respect for this clown shoes opinion of yours, don’t bother, goodbye. It’s possible not all of your opinions are this asinine - not likely, but possible. Not interested in learning really.
Why do you keep commenting to me? You seem to be extremely bothered by my opinions, I assume mostly because you have no real rebuttal, just weird gatekeepy anger.
Dark souls would be a very different experience if the monsters weren’t threatening and there were no setbacks for defeat. People believe the experience is important. Accepting that defeat is only a temporary setback and you can just try again is a significant experience, and if you make the game trivial you won’t achieve that.
Dark souls would be a very different experience if the monsters weren’t threatening and there were no setbacks for defeat.
Crazy strawman argument here. Its not even remotely close to what is being argued.
People believe the experience is important.
What Im suggesting doesnt prevent them from having that. The fact they feel it must be imposed on others for them to play those games is ridiculous and childish.
Accepting that defeat is only a temporary setback and you can just try again is a significant experience, and if you make the game trivial you won’t achieve that.
This assumption that difficulty settings are all about making a game trivial is just so obviously bad faith nonsense.
More than that, some people do just enjoy things that way and they don’t care about the other parts of the experience. There is literally no reason all people involved cant have cake. Its literally just angsty gatekeepers whining that they think there needs to be a bar to entry to play a video game; something people do for fun.
Let me just skip ahead to asking you the question none of you annoying gatekeepy folks can answer.
Lets say they keep everything as it is right now, like they literally have the games they already have and add some difficulty options like less annoying backtracking. How does this “ruin” your experience?
I think our assumptions are not shared, so arguing more isn’t going to be productive until that’s straightened out.
When you say difficulty settings, I think of lowering enemy effectiveness, raising player effectiveness, and removing consequences for bad play (eg: permadeath of characters). Is that what you mean?
You mention less annoying backtracking. Can you imagine a game where the “annoying back tracking” is fulfilling an important role (eg: resources attrition, encouraging revisiting areas)?
If so, is there a threshold beyond which is too much? If there’s a slider that adjusts enemy damage, should it go to zero? If no, how do you decide the limits? What about the players who want to exceed them?
It seems like you have the assumption that everyone should be able to complete every game. Is that correct? Is that true for all media, or only video games?
I would write more but I’m on my phone and almost to my destination.
When you say difficulty settings, I think of lowering enemy effectiveness, raising player effectiveness, and removing consequences for bad play (eg: permadeath of characters). Is that what you mean?
Can be, doesn’t have to be.
Can be things like making it such that you can fast travel instead of travelling slowly back. Can be that you skip a minigame you just don’t think adds anything to the game. Can be that you do or don’t want certain queues etc.
Can be a lot of things and the point is basically that there are a lot of things which can be toggleable settings which are extremely easy to implement, and greatly improve the experience for some players, while players who want “what the developers envisioned” or whatever, can play it that way just fine.
Others can make certain elements harder or easier or non existent based on their preferences.
You mention less annoying backtracking. Can you imagine a game where the “annoying back tracking” is fulfilling an important role (eg: resources attrition, encouraging revisiting areas)?
I can imagine some situations where it could be sure, but most of the times it isn’t and the times it isn’t isn’t worth the effort for me. It just makes the game less fun for no conceivable benefit most of the time. The backtracking Im describing here is essentially filler (the type I don’t think most people like).
If so, is there a threshold beyond which is too much? If there’s a slider that adjusts enemy damage, should it go to zero? If no, how do you decide the limits? What about the players who want to exceed them?
I think the idea here that you seem to be putting out is that there is some point at which a players choice to change the difficulty is no longer valid, and I don’t think any such point exists. Let people do what they want, and give them some reasonable defaults that you’ve actually tested for/think blend well.
It seems like you have the assumption that everyone should be able to complete every game. Is that correct? Is that true for all media, or only video games?
I’ve seen someone ask this before and I think its an absurd question to ask. No one in their right mind buys any media to not finish it. No one walks into a movie hoping its so shit they walk out half way, or starts a novel hoping they’re so bored they put it down.
Of course everyone should be able to complete every game. I can’t even think of what point this could be leading to except the obvious absurd idea that people should be expecting not to be able to enjoy the things they purchase.
Still on my phone so this might be a little limited.
I can imagine some situations where it could be sure, but most of the times it isn’t and the times it isn’t isn’t worth the effort for me. It just makes the game less fun for no conceivable benefit most of the time. The backtracking Im describing here is essentially filler (the type I don’t think most people like).
So when it is not filler, should you be disallowed from skipping it? Who is to say what the benefit is? Does the design intent matter?
Of course everyone should be able to complete every game. I can’t even think of what point this could be leading to except the obvious absurd idea that people should be expecting not to be able to enjoy the things they purchase.
This is a big disagreement. I don’t think everyone should be able to finish every game. They should be able to work the controls. If someone made Calculus Souls I’m just not going to beat it. I’m not good at math. I don’t expect them to give me the answers or add in an Arithmetic mode. If it’s there, fine, but that’s gravy. That’s like getting a second game for free.
Did you ever read the book House of Leaves? It’s great. Unreliable narrators, unconventional layout and use of form. Several friends of mine bounced right off of it. “Can’t read this”, they said. I wouldn’t say they were gatekept. I wouldn’t say the author is ableist because they didn’t also provide a linear narrative, without all the footnotes. I accept that not everyone is going to finish that book. Even if they paid money for it.
My dad bought a big jigsaw puzzle once. Loves puzzles. Couldn’t do this one. He put it back in the box and never finished it. He didn’t say it was an accessibility problem. It would never occur to him to ask for, like, the backs of the pieces to be numbered
People routinely accept that things will be hard, and maybe they can’t beat them. Maybe they could with more practice, but it’s not worth it. This is not a failure of the game or toy.
That’s what a lot of these discussions feel like. Someone made something interesting and challenging, and people want it changed. If you take all the footnotes out of house of leaves, you get a very different, much reduced, result.
I think the idea here that you seem to be putting out is that there is some point at which a players choice to change the difficulty is no longer valid, and I don’t think any such point exists. Let people do what they want, and give them some reasonable defaults that you’ve actually tested for/think blend well.
Well, earlier I said something about tuning difficulty down to the point of triviality, and you said that was a straw man.
But look, I’m not against options in games (assuming everyone playing gives informed consent. Unilaterally cheating is not okay). I just think the framing of it as accessibility in the same way that subtitles or changing controller inputs is dicey. “I think this would be more fun” is a fine, subjective, argument. “This game is ableist” is much shakier.
Of course, if you’re not saying lack of options is ableist but having them makes the game more fun, then I guess we violently agree.
Well, with the footnote that I do believe some people would ruin their own fun by turning the difficulty too high or low, but that’s not my business, and could be a net zero when compared to people not having fun with the available options. (But like for real when I was a kid I briefly ruined Diablo by cheating myself all the cool items.)
And the thing I was waiting for in real life has occurred. No more editing! Post away!
So when it is not filler, should you be disallowed from skipping it? Who is to say what the benefit is? Does the design intent matter?
Why should you? Why should the player be disallowed from doing anything? They bought the game. They should be allowed to do whatever to the point of unreasonable hardship for the developer. Like if a dev has to go out of their way, fair enough, but if its like, they’re just not exposing the ability to change a setting, thats ridiculous.
Did you ever read the book House of Leaves? It’s great. Unreliable narrators, unconventional layout and use of form. Several friends of mine bounced right off of it. “Can’t read this”, they said. I wouldn’t say they were gatekept. I wouldn’t say the author is ableist because they didn’t also provide a linear narrative, without all the footnotes. I accept that not everyone is going to finish that book. Even if they paid money for it.
These aren’t comparable situations. That one person almost certainly would have had to actually make significant effort, probably exceeding the effort of making the book to make it accessible. Video games aren’t that. More than that, the changes we are talking about are minor and relatively (compared to the scale of a game) easy to add. to add to that, people can still be into the majority of a game and not like one particular element, and there is no reason they shouldn’t be able to remove the bug bear. It is for entertainment after all.
That’s what a lot of these discussions feel like. Someone made something interesting and challenging, and people want it changed. If you take all the footnotes out of house of leaves, you get a very different, much reduced, result.
The question, as before, is, if the people who want that original experience can still just choose that, why are they up in arms at the idea of allowing people to experience things differently that don’t affect them?
Outside of completely made up arguments that this is not possible, no one has had an answer for this, just anger, as if they are mad at the idea of people not having to go through the “struggle” they feel they went to. Not having to have the “skills they built up”.
I’ve had countless people say the most toxic things I’ve seen on lemmy in this very thread over that idea, and I think thats the core of it. That behind all the bullshit excuses people have come up with, they feel like their achievements would somehow be worth less if other people could play the game differently to how they played. Like their other way of playing isn’t “official” enough and shouldn’t be supported at all.
I’ve had someone really iron in that this is the true intent when they revealed that they would prefer someone cheat in the game rather than the developer simply exposing those same things as options.
Well, earlier I said something about tuning difficulty down to the point of triviality, and you said that was a straw man.
It was. My point initially wasn’t about that, but when asked specifically, I think yea, why not, who cares. Why are other people caring so much about how others enjoy their media product.
But look, I’m not against options in games (assuming everyone playing gives informed consent. Unilaterally cheating is not okay).
I mean this conversation, I think, has pretty clearly morphed into a bunch of people vehemently angry about the prospect of souls like games having any difficulty changes, harder or less hard.
I don’t think anyone has been thinking about multiplayer.
I just think the framing of it as accessibility in the same way that subtitles or changing controller inputs is dicey. “I think this would be more fun” is a fine, subjective, argument. “This game is ableist” is much shakier.
I’m not sure I’ve used that as the core of my argument or my argument at all actually. Not sure though as, like you’ve probably seen, there are a shit ton of comments on this tree.
I think some forms of media will inherently be somewhat inaccessible, but there is no reason to go out of your way to support things being less accessible, even if accessible means to people who simply don’t like a thing one way vs the other.
Well, with the footnote that I do believe some people would ruin their own fun by turning the difficulty too high or low, but that’s not my business
See thats the thing. Everyone else in this thread has been violently angry at the idea that other people could have fun differently to them.
Ill give you one example. I liked Cyberpunk. It was a decent game, and I’ve played through it a few times.
The first time I played it, I played without any mods, very hard, just because (I’m honestly only including this to stop bs arguments, though you haven’t seemed supremely disengenous like many others on this thread so far, and feel I shouldnt need to, to make my point), and then every time after that I played with mods, and I wish I just played with the mods from the start.
What did I change? I completely removed the breach protocol minigame (I generally feel all minigames suck, add no fun, and are just literally wasting my time, easy or difficulty), I used teleportation to avoid needing to do lengthy backtracking or worrying too much about missing items, I added a multiplier to xp to reduce grind and I used mods to remove useless mods (in game term) from guns and skip the randomized store inventories in the game. These were all downsides to the game that some people swear up and down add to the game. They absolutely do not to me.
With much experience now, I can confidently say that had I been presented with the options to simply tune things in that way, it would have massively improved my experience with the game.
Cyberpunk luckily, is relatively open for a game in that mods like this are plentiful and easy to come by, and the code fairly accessible. Many games are not. In many games, you just have to deal with the shitty minigame, or random loot or whatever.
Its not that I would necessarily hate those games or that they “aren’t made for me” as many assholes in this thread have tried to imply must be the logic behind every critique, its that those elements were just generally subtractive to the experience, and I have yet to see anyone explain why I should be forced to play with them.
To many people, dying over and over isn’t fun, and in Cyberpunk if that was a problem for me, I probably wouldn’t find it all that fun either. Given this game has so many ways to solve every problem, and the combat I found pretty easy, I played with very hard, but if I was getting annoyed by having to repeat the same thing for hours on end, I would have no problem changing difficulties for this.
Cyberpunk is no worse for wear for having these options available to people. People who don’t know modding exists and who like the game as it is, aren’t affected by this.
I think its a great example of how this mentality of “made to be played this way” is all elitist gatekeeping in gaming. People don’t know fuck all about development. Their opinions aren’t coming from some deep love of a genre. They’re coming from feeling like a part of their identity will die if the game they feel they are “good at” is more accessible, and thats it really. This isn’t a job or for money, so that idea is just absurd.
What a trite, immature, troll like response this is.
Not having good difficulty settings is not a genre. It’s a lacking.
This tired response of pretending any criticism of anything means a person “must clearly not be the target audience” is extremely thoughtless gatekeeping.
It’s such a bad argument on its face too, as if someone disliking a flaw in something means they clearly must haste the thing in its entirety. insufferable people.
I don’t know where all your hatred is coming from. My comment was a genuine suggestion to a problem you’re facing that worked for me. Do you need to be able to consume and experience everything there is? Personally, I don’t. If a game is not for me, then it’s not for me and I move on. It has never stroke me as ‘gatekeeping’.
Furthermore, what you’re expressing are neither criticism nor preferences. It’s just pure hate towards anything and anyone you don’t like, as displayed here:
I fucking hate creatives who believe super deeply they’ve created some masterpiece meant to be played one way.
Sure, ‘hate’ doesn’t have to be literal. I sometimes say it too, without meaning it literally. However, I’d argue that the second comment has clearly showed the intent and meaning behind the first one.
I don’t know where all your hatred is coming from.
Yes, you do
My comment was a genuine suggestion
You know it wasn’t
Do you need to be able to consume and experience everything there is?
No one has made the claim they do. They’re discussing something they dislike, in this, a place for discussion.
Meanwhile, you’re over here like “just dont play games then if you’re going to complain”. Why don’t you just not use lemmy if you’re going to complain. See how useless and bad faith that argument genuine suggestion* is?
Personally, I don’t. If a game is not for me, then it’s not for me and I move on.
This right here is annoying, trolling, gatekeepy bullshit too where you pretend that if someone has any criticism of anything, clearly it’s not for them.
Furthermore, what you’re expressing are neither criticism nor preferences. It’s just pure hate towards anything and anyone you don’t like, as displayed here:
This is the most ridiculously blatant words twisting I’ve ever seen. Your brain stem must be tied into knots with those mental gymnastics.
In this context, though, yes, you are obviously not the target audience and that is specifically your issue with it. You really are just being a crybaby about something not having a specialized programming element to allow you to customize the game to make it just right for your specific taste and play style preference.
Should every restaurant make sure to have everyone’s favorite food available even if it’s entirely antithetical to the intention of the menu?
In this context, though, yes, you are obviously not the target audience and that is specifically your issue with it.
It literally isnt at all. You know you’re wrong too and thats why this is a frustrating argument. You aren’t arguing with your real opinions here.
If you made your restaurant analogy honest, it would be like a restaraunt has peanuts sprinkled on a dessert you like, so you ask them not to sprinkle peanuts there, and some other patreons flip their tables and bark like dogs at the idea that you would dare ask them not to do that, acting as if it must mean you don’t like the dessert if you don’t get the peanuts.
You really are just being a crybaby about something not having a specialized programming element to allow you to customize the game to make it just right for your specific taste and play style preference.
While I like games that have multiple difficulties to make them more accessible this is an unrealistic expectation. Difficulty settings can add a lot of extra development time. Its not always as easy as just adding a slider in the menu. There is a lot of Q&A that needs to go on behind the scenes. I do appreciate the games that put in the effort to flesh out a good difficulty system. Single difficulty games also have a rough balancing act as now matter what they do there will be people that say its to easy or too hard.
In what way is any of what I said unrealistic? Its already been done. Many games have much higher standards than just one difficulty.
Difficulty settings can add a lot of extra development time.
Literal nonsense. This is one of the things that modders change most easily. Many of the things I want in difficulty settings are as simple as flipping a boolean.
I’m not saying difficulty settings that are robust are nothing, but you’re pretending they take up way more effort than they do.
Difficulty is a way some devs express their vision - nearly anything by FROMsoft, for example.
Why would you want to limit their artistic expression to suit your needs? Just play something else. Or mod the difficulty down if it’s so important to you, but it’s not their job to make sure you, personally, enjoy the game, because that’s how you end up with mediocre catch all by-the-numbers fests like GTA.
Why would you want to limit their artistic expression to suit your needs?
This is a nonsensical argument as no ones artistic vision is limited with what I’ve suggested.
You are now following me around and its kinda weird you are so entrenched and toxic about it.
The fact you could not answer the question regarding fromsoft of
Lets say they keep everything as it is right now, like they literally have the games they already have and add some difficulty options like less annoying backtracking. How does this “ruin” your experience?
Combined with this super weird behaviour of following me around with comments varying from just insults to half-assed answers tells me that your toxicity is something you are aware of and don’t have a problem with.
Pillars of Eternity. I really appreciate that they must have had some Anthropology majors on the team, especially for II, because the worlds feel much more exotic than other RPGs. It shows up just how generic Medieval Fantasy most RPGs are.
The tropical Roparu (?) society with its caste system is particularly interesting. The interaction of the various factions is believable. And of course the pantheon is well though out.
The downside is that they can be clumsy about exposition of the world - especially in the first one, you get these enormous lore-dumps.
This kind of thing is why I dont get excited for steam sales now. Oh, 50% off Recent AAA Game? Haha, yeah, half off the base price, but the entire game is DLC now and each of those is still full price, and there’s a dozen of them.
AAA is just cash grab, they haven't been good or innovative games for a long, long time now. They are very good at marketing to the masses though and they have the pricing tiers laid out perfectly to extract as much money from people as they can.
They start off with their massive price tag like $70-80, plus the deluxe editions for $100-120 for any suckers who want a fucking extra skin. Then after a couple months when sales slow down, they put it on sale for like 20% off, then a couple months more, its like 40% off and so on. DLC has kind of fallen off, as they get people stuck in the battle pass and cosmetic buying loop instead (people are crazy).
If a AAA game looks interesting to you at all, you are literally best just waiting a few months or more, it's a win-win, you either buy it it's actual value or you get the reviews that its a disgusting broken mess or was completely over-hyped (it's these last two 99% of the time).
Steam sales are for getting them older games a bit cheaper, good indie games are worth their price tag multiple times over honestly so unless you are tight on money, I'd support the developer regardless of sales.
Ugh, not available in my country because of stupid laws. My steam account is old enough to vote and drink liquor. But god forbid i could see the shop page of a game which wasnt rated properly.
Just remembered all the servers for Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy that were dedicated to polite dueling. You had a big etiquette to follow if you wanted to do lightsaber battles. If you attacked someone with their lightsaber off you got banned instantly. Those servers were mostly used for chatting.
Those were basically the reason I played the game so much back in the day. The lightsaber combat was insanely good. I especially liked the ones that only allowed the Force Jump and Force Throw powers, so it was pure melee combat and not just throwing each other around or zapping a dude with lightning from across the arena.
I installed one that gives me 1000 rosaries when I press f3. I came to the conclusion that being able to buy things was more about grinding than anything else, and I didn’t enjoy it.
Technically cheating I guess but I don’t think it really makes the game any easier.
I might not be as far (just past act 1), but I haven’t felt the need to grind rosaries (yet). A bunch of times I’d be exploring for an hour and notice I have like 500+ rosaries, and then I get them made into strands till I have to spend them. I don’t think I’ve seen anything on sale for more than 800 rosaries, Maybe it’s different later in the game but at least in the beginning of the game, it doesn’t feel like a chore.
I suppose my experience may be different than others, I’m at the tail end of Act 3 and I have yet to grind for rosaries or shards. I remember people saying I’d need to do that, and I never have.
I do the shard grind but that’s because I love messing around with the tools. Luckily I can farm 500-1000 rosaries relatively quickly and that lets me buy a full stock of shards and a backup of consumables if I do 1k
Extremely scummy to not even list the price, but I shouldn’t be surprised since it appears they are going to milk whoever still has autosub on for an extra 10 bucks.
I actually found Lemmings to be a game that changed my life. I played it just before I became a professional programmer. Solving Lemmings puzzles is not exactly like programming, but it does teach you that there is a solution and if you just keep persistently trying different shit, you will eventually solve the problem. Also, it actually helps to be high as a kite all the time.
Dance Dance Revolution 3rd mix. It sounds stupid, I know, but hear me out. I really sucked at this game at first. My friends use to play every weekends at the arcade, so I really wanted to get better. So I really trained hard and became the best player in our group. People gattered around the arcade when I was playing. I was good enough for tournaments.
Now when I face something difficult, I’m confident I can overcome it if I really want to. I wasn’t like that before. Thanks Konami.
bin.pol.social
Ważne