Yes! I almost always change a few of the buttons when I get the chance. Extra points if the game is nice enough to let you know when your changes conflict with other presets.
A lot of PC games let you change mouse and keyboard bindings, but not controller bindings, because they have “keyboard and mouse mode” or “console mode” if the controller is used.
I’ve got no problem with having a sensible set of defaults, but if I get a controller with more buttons, unless this is a competitive multiplayer game that needs a level playing field, I’d like to be able to take advantage of them.
Yeah, but if that’s the only way a game developer implements it, they’re tying themselves to Steam. I mean, if I were a game developer, I wouldn’t want to do that, as it’s a lot of lock-in.
I think that Valve’s service is a pretty good one, but they’re taking a 30% cut for doing a number of things for game developers. If they become the only game in town, it’s possible that they might start taking more than 30% and those developers are going to be kind of stuck with that.
It’s common across games, so it doesn’t make sense for game devs to reimplement the wheel, but I’d think that putting as much as possible in the game engine would be a reasonable place.
Not being able to bind the controller on PC is even more insane to me. Why can I change my entire keyboard layout but not change the controller AT ALL?
I’ve been playing it, through less than legal means, and honestly to me it feels like a proper sequel to super Mario world. Granted I’m still relatively early in the game, and super Mario world is my all-time favorite Mario game with 3 shortly behind it, but it feels every bit is fun as those games so far. I’m absolutely going to pick it up when it releases.
That’s good to hear. World and 3 are also my #1 and #2 Mario games (sometimes 3 is #1, sometimes World is) and if this is as good as those, I’m really looking forward to it. Never could get into the NSMB stuff, for some reason. They’re OK, but just didn’t scratch that World itch.
This is going to sound weird I prefer it to the laughing, makes it feel like they’re actually finishing their sentences rather than being cut off by people laughing at random words and seemingly cutting them off. I don’t know about most people but I find seemingly random laughter at benign things to be unpleasant and annoying.
Though maybe in the future as media manipulation with Machine learning gets better maybe we’ll have a way to chop out the gaps seamlessly as if it never happened for the people that find the gaps more bothersome.
By far the most unpleasant thing I find with current implementations is the fact that most aren’t seamless and they leave a lot behind when they can’t mute the whole scene such as when it’s mixed with dialogue or background audio.
Warframe explains very little of its systems, and what it explains is generally poorly done. Upgrading and optimizing your abilities, acquiring proper mods and frames, how the levelling system actually works, generally anything that isn’t “shoot at enemy until it dies” needs to be taught by another player or read upon.
Came here to say this. The new player experience is an awesome upgrade in terms of getting people into the world and narrative, but you're still thrown into an ocean of systems and content without a map. If you're not following a guide or piecing things together from the wiki it's very easy to get totally overwhelmed.
this is probably the best answer imo. This does sound like genuine addiction, and OP’s best bet might just be to work with a therapist on breaking the loop that makes gaming such a honey trap for them.
I’ve been thinking about the disappearance of God games. I think they didn’t disappear, but they evolved so much that we don’t recognize them anymore.
I feel some moved into the direction that we now call “simulators”, like RimWorld, the Sims, Two Point Hospital, and more. In my mind, the big difference between the God games of old and those new games is that in the older games your role as the player was explicitly defined, where in the new games it’s not. In the old games, you were “playing the role of a god in that realm”. The new games don’t bother to tell you “who” you are in this setting. You’re just the player, get on with it, play the game.
I feel like other God games moved in the direction of top down colony builders, like Against the Storm or Frostpunk. And again, I think the big difference between those games and something like Populous is that your role as the player doesn’t have an explicit name in the game world. You’re not a “God”. But most of the rest of the trappings are there, I think.
But when I think of a God game I really mean a game where you literally play as a god and can do god stuff.
In all of your examples the player either controls what each character does or just whoever is is command of the colony. You can’t do miracles and supernatural stuff at the click of a button, you don’t control nature itself, your character is a human like anyone else.
Still fairly old, but newer than B&W: From Dust . Replace trainable animals with fluid physics and light hearted songs with didgeridoos, and it’s kind of similar.
I’m absolutely baffled as to why more than one game I’ve ever played had fishing in it.
I love the X series (despite the unfortunate name), but the literal real-time days you spend waiting for money to appear in your account are still more engaging than any fishing minigame ever.
I agree with fishing mini games, it’s almost never anything like actual fishing, but some sort of weird experience that requires a combination of precise timing, button mashing or both.
That being said I think it’s insane to me that Nintendo crammed a fishing mini game in basically every Zelda game except for BotW and TotK, the two games where it would actually make sense. I just wanna chill and throw out a line. It’s every other zelda game where I just did the minimum amount required to get a bottle or whatever I needed.
I don’t mind the fishing mini game in Breath of Fire 3. You can see all the fish and it’s just a matter of skill not patience. That said, it’s optional (the only fish you need, I believe you can buy) and trying to 100% it is a chore I’d rather not do again.
I’m almost certain the only reason Concord has players is because of social media incessantly talking about it. The only reason I know of the game is because of social media.
They’ll keep this in rotation like starfield why make an effort to highlight actually good games when you can give AAA companies the exposure instead. After all they have lots of money.
Underhero is a RPG. There is (bad) 2D platforming and an interesting blend between turn based and real time battles with decent amount of player expression, but I find most interesting the writing and scenarios you will find yourself in during the game. You play as an Underling after the Hero has an unfortunate accident after all, and while technically a silent protagonist, all entries in the journal/hint system/to-do list are just brimming with personality.
I swear I first saw this game in list of “Paper Mario-likes”, but I can’t find a single video with that topic that mentions it, and now I realize that it only has like 600 reviews on steam.
Yep, it sounds pretty much exactly like what people expected.
Honestly, I’m on a bit of a Star Wars kick lately and it’s been long enough since I’ve played an Ubisoft open world to find some enjoyment, so I might pick this up. But it certainly doesn’t sound like it’s going to blow me away.
I love the world of Star Wars more so than the stories lately aside from Andor so I’ll be giving this a go through their sub service. 18 bucks to knock this out and Prince Of Persia in a month, two games I’ll never touch again after completion, is quite a deal imo.
Lmao, are you kidding me? In his review, he paints the picture of missing climbing Far Cry radio towers and finding a thousand pointless little POI and stupid number challenges.
That is by far the most tiresome aspect of the Ubisoft open world formula…
He… didn’t? Far Cry was not mentioned at all and he had this to say about radio towers:
You may be delighted to hear there are no towers to scale to push back Outlaws’ fog of war here: these open world areas - really a collection of entirely distinct biomes, separated by hyper space or fast travel - reveal themselves fully on arrival.
Maybe you were thinking of this in the conclusion, but I don’t think these observations are incorrect:
It speaks back to Outlaws’ issues with stripping away the bulk of the Ubisoft formula and finding so little underneath - or more broadly, a general misunderstanding of what you ought to be stripping away here and why. The Ubisoft open world functions so well because of how this clutter weaves itself together so intoxicatingly that you can’t help but flow from one to the next, from looting to crafting to combat to gear to unlocking another area of the world and more. The heist flick works because of its characters - their complexity, obsession or greed - as much as it does the sheer fun of actually doing a heist.
Star Wars Outlaws, by comparison, feels like it’s blagging it - much as Kay can, when regularly caught out by some far more worldly syndicate boss. The result is a series of quite painful comparisons: it lacks the branching, open stealth of an Arkham game, the systemic options of a Dishonored or the incisive, relentlessly satisfying speed of picking enemies off in Assassin’s Creed. It lacks the linear polish and charisma of Uncharted. Lacks the animation flow to its yellow-ledge platforming next to a Horizon, or the sheer joy of taking platforming and making it into an actual game in itself, as in Star Wars Jedi.
I always ignore anyone who uses phrases like “waste of time”. Too many people don’t have an in between anymore and games are either a 10/10 or “unplayable garbage”, like come on now, just cause a game is a 7 it doesn’t mean it’s trash.
What does “7” even mean? I enjoyed every aspect of it precisely 70 percent? Seven out of ten criteria were perfect but the remaining three failed? I had seven great hours for every three terrible ones? Boiling down the experience of playing a game to a number is like giving someone your telephone number via the medium of interpretative dance.
As a woman, I look at “Body Type A or Body Type B” and think “Well, I’m a woman, not a Body Type B, and isn’t it kinda misogynistic that the secondary option is the female one? Like A+ for Men, B- for Women?”
This really pissed me off, I have to say. Why are you calling the “secondary” option “the female one”? To me that seems a bit presumptuous.
If I have body type B with he/him pronouns, are you saying something about my body? Is it too “feminine” for you?
Honestly, you seem to be looking for something to complain about. The developers have taken an extra step to try to be accommodating and inclusive and your complaining about the order the choices are listed in… Smh
yikes, OP wasn’t calling this secondary any more than Simone de Beauvoir was when she published The Second Sex… it’s an actual problem that deserves recognition, and shitting on someone for recognizing it? you’re the one reinforcing the problem now!!
OP was merely gesturing at another instance of patriarchal culture treating the feminine as secondary by putting it second. not a controversial revelation tbh quite trite really
I’m not saying that women are inferior or that anyone with tits is a woman… I’m saying that by labeling the feminine option as the “B-Grade” option instead of just the “Feminine” option there is an uncomfortably misogynistic implication that needs addressing.
As you can see from OP’s response to you, my primary issue is that OP is still calling the option the “female” or “feminine” one. The developers specifically removed those labels to be inclusive and OP is adding them back. The complaint about the order was the secondary issue.
Oh come on, now you’re just feigning ignorance. The body types correspond to both modes of human sexual dimorphic presentations. Just because you take away the names doesn’t mean the dimorphic traits are absent. It IS a sexually dimorphic character creation system. So within that, let’s look at who gets to be the default and who gets to be the “second sex” (highly recommend reading de Beauvoir, again). OP is taking issue with not just the veiled binary but also the hierarchy within it.
Let me put it this way. Imagine if the body types were no longer sexually dimorphic but had varied skin tones. And despite the fact that we know skin tones present in a variety of ways, they only offered light peach skin tones and dark skin tones. And they made the secondary one the darker skin tone. Maybe you or I would have a problem with it, maybe we wouldn’t. But could you understand why someone might take issue with that? It’s a fair objection to make, whether we can conceive of a solution or not.
And hey I think OP’s solution would apply pretty well here: let us create characters with a variety of presentations! Or maybe just take away the “light” and “dark” options? A lot of people in this thread responded with great rationale from game dev standpoints, and that stuff is valid. I can see why devs do things the way they do. But I can also see why OP doesn’t like it.
bin.pol.social
Ważne