Personally I’m excited to see what the mod landscape is going to look like in a year. As with most Bethesda games, I couldn’t care much less about the game itself outside of that key feature.
I think I got it on my third attempt. Though I haven’t actually finished it yet! Only 2/3 in and then something shiny distracted me - I’ll pick it up again soon. People described it as a soulslike, so after Elden Ring clicked for me I decided I would try the funny bug game again. Glad I did!
Having all pins present, I wouldn’t be surprised if the drive still gets detected while bending a SATA cable back juuuuuust right so its connector makes contact with the pins.
I’ve used computers for years like that, also these card edge connectors are pretty standard and can be easily replaced by anyone who can do basic soldering.
Seconded. If OP lives anywhere near a city, there’s probably an electronics repair shop within reach that would solder on a new connector for less than the cost of a new SSD.
Dude, I remember people going OFF on Returnal not offering any saves and people having to keep their consoles in rest mode for days at an end because they wouldn’t want their runs to end. I kept arguing with people on rexxit that any respectable rogue-lite/-like has a save function - STS, Hades, Dead Cells - yet they still kept arguing that implenting saves would “ruin the vision of the game” and “make it too easy”.
Guess what Housemarque did: they added a save on exit option. You can now suspend your run and finish it whenever. Not having to potentially brick your console just because you can’t save mid-game sure is a boon lol. The game sure got a lot easier with this implemented. /s
STS does allow you to cheese the game with its save system, which is why most roguelikes also delete the save file after they load it, only saving the game when you need to put a bookmark in it to come back later.
It certainly helped me during my first Slay the Spire runs, when I’d often mess up the order of the cards (the most common being applying vulnerable AFTER doing all of my attacks).
It's a problem when cheating changes people's opinions on how fun the game is. If the game forces you to use a certain mechanic that you otherwise would have ignored, that often gives you a better appreciation for the game. In the case of a roguelike, if you can cheese the save system, you're no longer required to actually get good at the game systems and can instead keep reloading until the memorize the solution, which is the entire problem the genre is out to solve.
I mean, if you're knowingly turning on cheat codes in a game, you know you're deviating from the intended experience, but if you're doing something the software lets you do, that's something the designer is trying to tune to steer you toward having a better time. Often times you can take a dominant strategy and think less of the game for it being too easy or one-note, which can and does happen when you can exploit a save system like this. I got through the first Witcher game mostly by save scumming, and I didn't think particularly highly of it, but the sequels did a much better job of introducing me to the potions, oils, and monster hunting mechanics that would have made the game easier and more solvable without save scumming. Had I known for the first game what I knew of the sequels, I might have enjoyed the game more, but that first game especially didn't force me into learning those systems.
You’re viewing games as perfect and the designers’ vision as always correct. That’s not always true. Take XCom 2. Many people may tell you that ironman mode (prevents save scumming) is the only real way to play but the game is buggy as hell. Not only do things not always work right sometimes the game just crashes. A buddy of mine has lost multiple save files because of it. The game doesn’t force you to use ironman mode so it’s not a counterargument to what you’re saying but it is illustrative of the point I’m making about games not being perfect.
Also, why do you view save scumming as the dominant strategy? In reality, many difficult and unforgiving games all but force players to use specific strategies to win. Everything you’re saying about gamers avoiding fun choices for optimum ones is not unique to save scumming. Many games already force players to do this and things like save scumming can actually allow players to try different builds that are less optimal.
It’s like someone saying the only true way to enjoy a book is by physically reading a physical copy and that audiobooks are more optimal and therefore less fun. No. Different people just want different things.
Many of the B side challenges in Celeste I played with the 90% speed accessibility option. Trying for 30 minutes to try and get a single damn strawberry was just too much for me. I still had a blast playing it.
I'm neither assuming that a game is perfect or that the designer's vision is always correct, but the designer is intending for you to experience a game a certain way, and it's often most fun that way. If certain strategies are dominant such that they invalidate large portions of the game that are there, it usually results in that game being boring. Your mileage may vary, of course, but that's how these things tend to go. The Witcher is a much more interesting game for me when you utilize potions, oils, and monster manuals, and I found the combat to be quite boring when I didn't know how to interact with those systems and instead just reloaded saves for better dice rolls. By forcing you to play a certain way, like by omitting certain save systems, they're making sure you play the way they intended, and if the game is as good as they hoped to have made it, it will result in the most people having the best time.
Here's another example. Batman: Arkham combat is an amazing replication of what Batman is in video game form. It's one man taking on dozens of others, usually more lethally armed than he is, with some athleticism and a bunch of gadgets. You're incentivized via the scoring/XP system to never button mash, use every move in your arsenal at least once, never get hit, and to take out every enemy in the room in a single flowing combo. However, it didn't steer most players into playing that way very effectively (at least on normal difficulty), and many leave the combat system disappointed that they can beat it just by attacking with X and countering with Y.
No, not sure if other industries do this, but buying a game in a weak currency usually turns out cheaper (by alot) because Devs will usually offer the game for a lower price in the weaker economy
So OP wrote a misleading description when saying the increase was from $12 to $14?
I don’t play RuneScape and I’m just going off of their description, which is inconsistent and the derogatory “just read lol” has so far shown to be wrong.
I feel like I’m missing something completely - maybe I do need to learn how to read. The only thing I’m seeing on the jagex page is new prices for a handful of currencies under “pricing table”, SEK is not one of them.
There’s no mention of past prices at all? Is there another link I’m not seeing?
EDIT: I think my main point is that as far as I can tell, you need to be an active member of the RuneScape community to know what the prices actually increased from, so “learn to read” wasn’t very helpful to casual passerbys, and OPs post could have some more clarity and examples of increased prices for those not already in the know. It was especially confusing that the only example they provided wasn’t an example of the 50% increase mentioned in the title.
This is a general games community so I think it’s fair to ask for some more context and leniency for such a niche game. If you want folks to care, don’t make it hard for them to do so.
I don’t think I care enough about drama in a niche game to do a deep dive on all of the reddit comments to learn about something…
It would be helpful if you or OP could provide links, or at least quote things. Most passerbys simply have better things to do than to find better context of what OP is saying about a game from 20 years ago. I think it’s only natural for people to be confused when OP didn’t provide enough context, or the only way to get context is to apparently read an entire Reddit threads worth of comments.
Choose one. I told you where I found the specific prices. I mentioned which currency was particularly egregious so you could find the price yourself independently but you didn’t care to.
I think a compelling statement should be made with citations if it’s not a well known fact, especially when provided to a general community.
I don’t care enough about niche old game drama to chase down the facts myself if it involves going through the comments of an entire Reddit mega thread.
Does that resolve your proposed cognitive dissonance?
The person gave you a percentage range of the increase and that it applies to different currencies. You have been given the opportunity to find more info if that’s insufficient. If you don’t care enough, that’s on you. I don’t play this game and don’t care to read any more comments from you about this silly topic.
You were given enough information about something you said you don’t care about. I told you I don’t care to read any more comments from you, yet you persist. Weird.
Why does this billion dollar company not do exaxtly what I expect them to😡 They made great games because those are the ones I like and now they make shitty games because I dont like them.
I percieve them as different to your run of the mill EA or Ubisoft, so I expect more from them. That’s on me I guess. I’m not angry though, just disappointed.
Artifact has good scores from critics, as does CS2, nothing from Zombies. Not sure one game from 20 years ago says much when it’s just 1.6 with bots. The game isn’t bad, people just expected more than that.
Because, as I said, it is the same game with bots on top. The game isn’t suddenly bad because of that, so look at reviews of 1.6 instead of cherry picking convenient information. Artifact was review bombed, which I also mentioned.
Again (third time), it was review bombed. Steam reviews, if you actually look at them, are generally positive, except for people who “played” it for 0.1 - 0.3 hours, or over 100 and jokingly clicked to not recommend. CS was 1.6, and thus obviously not a bad game.
I kind of quit Overwatch after they sucked the soul out of it and called it a sequel. It’s not entirely a replacement, but as a fun shooter to play with friends/ family, I’ve mostly moved to playing Deep Rock Galactic. In some ways it scratches the itch: various classes/ roles, weapons, abilities, cooperation and teamwork to accomplish objectives, clicking heads and making things die, and purely cosmetic skins. It doesn’t quite have the satisfaction of a good back and forth grudge match (on account of being a PvE game), but the community is super chill, the game design about as far from predatory as you can get (while there are a handful of exclusive fomo items, it’s mostly just annual anniversary hats, or gifts to commemorate steam award nominations and such, there’s no collection interface to mock you or rub it in for not having them), and the devs are just all around great. Bonus points for being able to spin up or join missions pretty much whenever.
Same, friends and me went to DRG instead. While of course it gets rote after a whole the procedural generation helps, and it’s the chill background game to play while voice chatting that Overwatch 1 was in its early days before its balance shifted to high-end competition.
It doesn’t quite have the satisfaction of a good back and forth grudge match (on account of being a PvE game),
Heh… It’s not designed for it, but I’ve had some pretty grudge-like experiences joining public games, as some teammates turned out to be hostile.
To be clear, I don’t recommend that experience. It’s not fun to be antagonized with deliberate friendly fire throughout a mission, bullied by a group when you eventually shoot back, and left for dead when the ship leaves. (It’s easily avoidable by playing with friends, of course.)
My recommendation for this will always be Cyberpunk 2077. There are SO many secrets and sub-plots to discover in the game, and every single one of them feels like an intricate, deliberate piece to the overall puzzle that makes up Night City.
To experience everything requires multiple playthroughs, which I normally dislike in long, narrative-driven games because I lack the attention span needed when it comes to repeating things in games. But CP2077 offers so many new ways to tackle every situation, and it's one of the few games I've played where it truly feels like a new experience on the second and all subsequent playthroughs. The writing and acting are spectacular, and going back and picking different options for various encounters will yield very different, yet authentic results.
I've 100%'d it and still went back and did at least 3 full playthroughs after. I can't sing this game's praises enough.
A lot of people will still parrot the launch criticisms at you and refuse to acknowledge that they pretty well fixed it. The devs overpromised and underdelivered, even now its not quite what they promised. But if they had dropped what the game is now on release it would be pretty universally regarded as one of the best games of all time.
I’m glad to hear this. Bought it at launch, on PS4, which I understand had some of the worst problems. Maybe one of the most disappointing games I ever got after all the htype. Gave up after maybe two hours because of all the bugs.
I now have a PS4-Pro, and keep wondering if its finally time to give this game another go.
If the world exploration and character interactions in RDR2 are scratching your itch, then 2077 will definitely have you covered there; Night City is huge and has a lot of hidden spots and characters to find. I'd say that the combat is generally a bit more hectic in 2077, but not overwhelming. You can also freely adjust the difficulty whenever you want, so if you're not interested in mastering the buildcrafting aspects (since it leans more heavily into RPG aspects than RDR2) and just wanna get the story, that's also an option.
While it's definitely not required to have an amazing experience, I'd strongly recommend also picking up the Phantom Liberty expansion if you decide to give 2077 a shot. It adds a lot of additional content, including some new endings. And Idris Elba is fucking fantastic in it. He brings a very similar energy to Keanu, where you can tell that he really loves his character and the story he gets to tell. It honestly sets a ridiculously high bar for video game acting in general.
You can always refund it. Even if you’ve gone over the 2 hours for an auto-accept refund, if you explain the issues in the ticket Steam will always accept it in my experience.
Even got a refund for a game after 20 hours of game time due to them adding aggressive client-side anti-cheat.
The reason why everyone doesn’t do it is because it requires significant capital to be able to support a dev team through production for a number of years.
Not to mention they will still have to deal with publishers potentially fucking them over, as shown with the Helldivers 2 PSN fiasco.
Exactly. In fact, there are so many indie Devs that it’s nigh-impossible to break through the massive numbers of them. Occasionally there are breakthroughs like Stardew Valley, Hades, Vampires, etc.
On the other hand, you partner with a company like Microsoft or Sony and you’re basically guaranteed success. They put up all the capital to make sure you make it to release (albeit probably a rushed, half-baked one that you just fix later because why not). Even if your game blows ass and is completely broken, full of DRM, microtransactions and ads, gamers still buy that shit up.
When Google fired all of those staffers last year there was a report that there was a huge bump in startups being formed. That’s where actual innovation happens, not at large companies but the small startups. I see that happening now too. They’ll eventually get bought up, but the cycle will repeat.
Just be careful not to idealize the past as some golden age of gaming. During the SNES era, worthwhile titles were few and far between on top of spotty regional availability on account of profitability (supposedly). The bar to entry for gamedevs was huge: the dev tools were obtuse and the distribution methods were shit and centralized (toy stores, computer stores, magazines). The offer was also ridiculously sanitized, at least on consoles.
It’s great that we can still enjoy the good games of the past, but I absolutely love what indies come up with nowadays. There are so many and they’re so creative! ❤️ Some talented big studio devs even manage to release something nice once in a while despite the organizational structure they work in. I never want to go back to gaming in the 90’s. Furthermore, I’m of the opinion that there are many past titles being hailed as classics solely based on some unconscious nostalgia for youth (I’m looking at you GOG).
Its just like with idealizing music eras. People remember the stand outs and forget the bad and mediocre stuff so it seems like everything was better in whatever time.
bin.pol.social
Ważne