I was hoping for an actual release date rather than just vaguely mentioning the year. They did say a year twice before IIRC and it still got delayed, an actual release date would feel more real.
Honestly I haven’t seen the video but it looks like something I was wondering about recently so let me explain.
We’re more and more confused as to how mainstream games look like, as if gameplay was not a consideration at all. One could argue that this is due to lack of direction and trying to satisfy as many market needs as possible.
At the same time I also think that there could be an issue where there is no constructive feedback in the discussion because all of the reviews were either paid for (with a game copy and maybe some other goodies too) or have an interest in creating an outrage (culture wars or being negative all the time). There’s no middle ground so everyone works in the dark. Honest reviewers are rare and you need to find someone matching your taste which is beyond most people so it’s kind of irrelevant for how things look in general.
This meshes pretty well with my feelings of thing. On the whole, TotK is more refined more of the same. I’ve enjoyed seeing how the world and characters have moved on, I enjoyed the side quests, and I enjoyed that feeling early on of the depths being new, mysterious, and dangerous.
One of the things I decided early on was that I didn’t like the Lego Technic stuff, and I committed to using it as little as possible. Especially for speeding up travel. I’m an old, and my internal Hyrule is deeply and strictly… medieval? Mythical? Legendary? Electric drones just don’t fit into my schema for Zelda, even though the developers gave been slipping more and more magitech into the setting for going on 20 years now. I feel that this has given me more of a sense of the game as a meal, to use your analogy, but it’s definitely an indulgent one.
I wasn’t looking for more BotW. I was just looking for more Link, Zelda, and Ganon. I got what I wanted, and I genuinely don’t understand the ire the game has drawn, other than, maybe, a lot of people getting what they wanted, discovering they were wrong about what they wanted, and being unwilling to accept that.
I didn’t care much for botw. I still cleared it and had fun. It’s just the item durability system frustrated me. Everything felt cheap and not rewarding as a result.
durability systems in non crafting games suck all of the joy out for me. I get weirdly anxious about “optimizing” my weapons and end up only using bad weapons and making the game needlessly hard on myself.
This is probably seen through rose tinted glasses, but Halo 3 had the best multi-player experience I think. It has community created maps, game modes, and an a way for anybody with a account to share what they made. From pictures to custom forge maps. I have nothing but fond memories of the experience. So it makes sense to me at least that some people wouldn’t stop playing until Microsoft or Bungie or whoever made them.
This is definitely an objective opinion based on facts and universal experiences: the best multiplayer experience was Halo 1, when we ran ethernet cables between our dorm rooms. I’d wake up to someone slamming on my door telling me to turn my Xbox on, and I’d jump right into a death match.
My life went down in Containment doing 1v1 splitscreem pvp with my friend.
I will never let anyone say Halo 2 was worse than any other entry.
It’s either Reach, CE or 2 (in the chronological order).
Halo 3 released on better hardware, so they included huge multiplayer maps like Sandtrap, but they hadn’t yet realised that huge maps require faster traversal. As a result, your Spartan moves around like a sack of wet potatoes.
Halo 2 has the best slow multiplayer because of the tighter maps, and Halo 5 has the best fast multiplayer because of the traversal tools.
Yep! And it’s really surprising to me that so many people are OK with that sort of defective-by-design anti-feature. It’s a single player game, why would it have any dependence on networks or servers of any sort?
Not to say that I’m against digital distribution altogether, I think that’s a perfectly valid preference w/ pros and cons.
But if you are going to sell the video game on a disc? Shipping a whole playable game seems like a pretty low bar to meet. Most games (that get a physical release) in [current year], for every year that exists so far, don’t have a problem managing to do this.
My basic requirements is that it’s a good game from a respectable company.
And even if it is a good game by reviewer standards, Ubisoft has been an awful studio to the game industry for the past decade. From sexual harassment lawsuits to investing in web3, shutting down servers that causes single player games to lose features, having their own storefront, being creatively bankrupt with their releases, nickel and diming their product…
A lot of strategy games fit this bill to me. Mainly the Paradox ones like Europa Universalis or Crusader Kings. I’d much rather play the most recent version (EU4 and CK3). However, it’s interesting that I feel the exact opposite about the Total War and Civilization Series, where I’ll prefer the original Rome Total War and Shogun 2 Total War over many of the more-recent games, as well as Civ V over VI and VII (though I haven’t played VII yet, to be fair).
The Football Manager series also comes to mind. There’s little tweaks and improvements each year (this year being an exception where they are redesigning the entire engine) so I prefer playing the most recent one (even if I still boot up a few of the older games for some nostalgia every now and then).
For me games from the NES era can tough to enjoy for more than a short period of time. They just tend to feel punitively difficult in a way that is not very fun. I’d much prefer a Mario from SNES onward any day for example.
The same player isn’t going to perform identically every session, and accounting for every possible weapon or character/class they might play, potential synergies with teammates, or potential advantages/disadvantages in matchups against any given opponents…
It all makes for a literally infinite number of variables, all of which must be accounted for.
The correct way to get interesting matches, imo, is to make it semi-random, and not try to have all the players on both teams be exactly the same skill level. Rather, put players on both teams from a range of estimated skill levels. This way both teams have weaker links for the other team to potentially exploit, and both teams have strong players which will try to stop that.
Instead, the system should just enforce common sense stuff, like not pitting someone who is literally playing for the very first time, against a team with someone who is 2000 hours in, and hence might straight up deny the new guy a chance to play at all.
I should know. I literally wrote THE team balancer for titanfall 2 community servers. For a time it even used the Tone online database of player stats, to know how to balance players that had never played on a given server before.
I was genuinely shocked how good the resulting games were. All I did was take the completely random players that decide to join a server, and simply figured out a slightly smarter way than other balancer scripts at the time, to divide them into two teams that are close enough to equal.
Everybody talking about Scooty “beating” the game but nobody is talking about the story. There is a story. You are building a missile silo with bricks. The lines aren’t disappearing, the camera is scrolling up. It was the Cold War. It makes sense.
No it was obviously a new gulag that you built around yourself! I do have documentation on this, but it’s mainly geometric symbols and scribblings about higher dimensions. My mom says it’s schizo, but she just doesn’t see the patterns!
If they have a keyboard and are into turn-based role playing games then I can recommend Caves of Qud. It has a bit of a learning curve but once you get the hang of it starts to open up and it’s just incredible!
bin.pol.social
Ważne