any 3d Zelda games. I didn't play OOT until I was in my late 20s and it was awful (specifically controls and camera). I tried watching people Speedrun it or do the randomizer, but the sound link makes when rolling (which most did most of the time) drove me crazy. BotW seemed like something I would like on paper, but Nintendo just had to work their new controls into some shrines and I found it frustrating. Also didn't like the breaking weapons. Link Between Worlds (神様のトライフォース ２) sits in a weird place. I mostly liked it, but hated the gimmicky 3d bits on the 3DS.
goldeneye for the same reasons - felt like a step backward and I had no nostalgia for it, playing it for the first time in my 30s.
anything with the N64 controller for the same reasons. It felt so unnatural and weird.
most roguelikes (but not all). Losing to random chance is annoying. Some randomness is of course fine
dark souls and the like. Watch boss. Die. Try again. Die. To me, that's boring. I'd rather have in-world ways of learning about the boss.
pokemon. I was already in high school, working part time, and doing a lot of school stuff (band/theatre/sports) and just never got into it. I tried Pokemon go and didn't care for it (but did like Dragon Quest Walk that came out later)
Final Fantasy 7 -- hated the camera and other similar things. Story and all was fine
Most 3rd person shooters (with the exception of Just Cause). I would line up the perfect shot in Sniper Elite only to shoot the few pixels of the corner of something I couldn't see because my character's dumb body was in the way
starfox. I was already playing better games like that on Amiga and other platforms, so it felt like a step back to me
I know it’s kind of an unpopular thread, but geez, those are widely considered some of the greatest games. It seems like you’re a bit older than I was when I played most of those, and I wonder if my youth made me enjoy those games more than they deserved.
Yep. I think my age (I'm in my mid-40s) and being an adult when I played them or they came out has a lot to do with it. I think having less free time and a number of issues I deal with makes it harder to enjoy certain types of games (this is not to say young people don't face their own stresses and issues!)
I’m so glad someone else feels the same way I do about OoT. I could go on for hours about how Nintendo ruined their franchise with cheap gimmicky 3D at the time, and that damned controller.
I’m not so on board with the rest, being a massive dark souls fan myself, but diversity makes us stronger and all that, you do you.
I think any game you grew up with gets a nostalgia level assigned to it and it's easy to overlook certain flaws. For me, OoT felt like a step back, but I had been playing PC and Amiga games lot (I hated Starfox for this same reason). I'm sure I have the nostalgia glasses for some games, but I'm old enough that I think many wouldn't even know them, hah.
Exactly, lttp was perfection and we already had decent 3d with mouse and keyboard controls on PC, it was a major step back. I guess that was just Nintendo nintendoing what Nintendo nintendoes.
I remember showing Ocarina to my dad and excitedly telling him it’s the peak of gaming and nothing would ever beat it’s graphics! Think I completed the game in 26hrs non-stop without sleep.
I’ve seen it since and it’s so blocky I struggle to see how I ever liked it. So I will appreciate the memories instead. :)
The N64 controller is my favourite ever controller. Bizarre shape but I had so many hours racked up on it in my teens that it holds a special place in my heart.
Which Roguelikes do you like? I’m the same - hate them all for being overly difficult. Except original ADOM which I played constantly.
I think "rogue-lite" or something like that is a better term for what I like. I'm currently playing "Against the Storm" is one a coworker recommended recently and I'm enjoying so far. Spelunky 2 was OK. There are probably a couple other's I'm not remembering at the moment.
GTA V - I disliked the characters, story was uninteresting, and gameplay felt like a downgrade from GTA IV; graphics were the main attraction there, and that’s not enough for me
Borderlands - my fastest “nope, not for me” game I’ve played; I don’t like loot in games, and that’s basically the entire point of the game
Skyrim - found it very bland coming from Morrowind; side quests weren’t as interesting, which is pretty much the entire reason I liked Morrowind
any competitive FPS (Apex Legends, COD, etc) - I play most games once the get the story, mechanics, etc
What about loot do you not like? I don’t mind random loot to a degree, but I’m not a big fan of games where you have to wait for a drop with max stats or whatever. Give me a loot pool with randomizations if you want, but no random stats (e.g., if it has fire that always means the same amount of bonus, or whatever)
TL;DR - I’m a fan of tighter, focused experiences with a strong element of puzzle solving, and I’m generally not a fan of sandbox-y experiences.
Some of my favorite games are Zelda, Ys, or Half Life. Loot in those games is typically an intentional part of the progression, and the gameplay feels like an action-y puzzle. Resources have a specific purpose, and wasting them has consequences.
Using a slightly different weapon, item, cosmetic, etc doesn’t excite me at all, I am mostly there for the story and gameplay. To me, shopping feels like poor game design and essentially covering for the player missing something important. So games with extensive store/inventory mechanics feel poorly designed, on average.
There’s one big exception here: if the economy of the game is integral to the core loop. For example, I love Recettear, which makes loot and inventory management a core mechanic in an interesting way. I’m also working on my own game with a player-driven economy (e.g. if you sell a lot of something, you get less for each additional one, it’s cheaper for AI/other players to buy, and NPCs will slowly distribute the items around the game world).
On those same lines, I generally don’t like things with crafting, enchanting, etc, unless it’s an interesting, core gameplay mechanic. I’m very goal oriented, so the journey is less important than the destination, so I like constant “mini-destinations” (boss fights, puzzles, etc). I almost never replay games, unless there’s a different set of challenges to explore (e.g. I loved each of the three characters in Ys Origin, but won’t bother playing Morrowind twice).
Yeah, I’m not a fan of loot that offers incremental benefit, but I do enjoy loot that offers a meaningfully different way to engage with the game (be that a new ability in a metroidvania or some new weapon in a soulslike)
Yup, I love the ability-based progression in Zelda, older Ys, Metroidvanias like Ori and Hollow Knight, etc.
I don’t like loot for the sake of loot. For example, Borderlands prides itself on having 16-17M weapons (they’re procedurally generated). That’s not interesting to me, that’s tedious. I much prefer the Half-Life approach (14 in original, 10 in Half Life 2), where each weapon fills a niche and you pick based on what you need.
A lot of people love loot in games, such as in MMORPGs, Bethesda-style RPGs, and Diablo-style RPGs. The latter is the most frustrating because many people mean Diablo-style when they say “ARPG,” whereas I mean Zelda/Ys-style.
I’ve never been a fan of the direction the Fallout series took after Fallout 2. FO Tactics and BoS aside, Bethesda’s handling of Fallout 3 and onwards really didn’t resonate with me.
As someone who enjoyed the story and RPG aspects of the earlier games, the shift to fast-paced shooter mechanics was off-putting.
Back in the day, getting my ass handed to me in Quake III, Half-Life, and Unreal Tournament wasn’t exactly a barrel of laughs, just something to endure. Discovering turn-based combat where I could strategize and plan my moves, rather than relying on quick reflexes, made me actually enjoy gaming. The shift away from that gameplay style made the series lose its appeal for me.
I think there are two age groups of Fallout players. Those who started with the original games, and those who started with Fallut 3.
I’m young enough to have started with 3. I did go back and play the original two, and I absolutely see what you mean. New Vegas was somewhat better, despite still being a shooter, probably owing to the fact that it was written and designed by the remnants of the people who worked at Interplay when they made Fallout.
Haven’t played it. I tried 3, and played through 4. But from what I’ve seen anything released from 2004 onwards is purely action role playing.
Researching my original comment (yes, I’m a professional overthinker) I stumbled upon the wasteland series. It seems that the original fallout was based on this series, and that it still has proper turn based combat.
I honestly don’t get what people love so much about that game, the combat is simple and kinda sloppy, boss and enemy variety is non-existent and traversal is a joke.
I get that the story is good but it’s not so good that I can look past everything else, it even has a few big issues like the amount of times the game throws a dumb obstacle in your way to justify some fetch quest like the black mist.
Maybe the change of style helped? IDK I remember I enjoyed it a lot, but yeah, the enemy variation was its greatest fault, I hope they fixed this with the sequel, that I haven’t played.
I don’t dislike it, it’s brilliant, the epitome of SupergiantGames’ beautiful craft, but I just can’t play Hades, it released after I had already burnt out on Dead Cells, Curse of the Dead Gods, Grime, Enter the Gungeon, Blasphemous, Gunfire Reborn, and whatnot, I can’t bring myself to play it because I had already explored the genre so many times…
I haven’t actually noticed this happening before now. My immediate reaction is if it is changes driven by the original creators I’d feel quite positive about it. Love to see personal growth. When driven by the studio though, I’m a bit more skeptical.
Either way, this is why modding should be protected. Let folks play historical/modern/hyper-weird versions of the game they love.
When driven by the studio though, I’m a bit more skeptical.
This is a really good point. When it’s in the hands of the creators, you’re still dealing with people who know what they were creating.
A lot of the stuff that people complain about are hamfisted attempts by corporate flunkies to make the game “appeal to a wider audience” as opposed to actually caring about removing unnecessary or offensive material in a constructive way that doesn’t lessen the original impact of the piece of media.
Corporations never decided that women, black people, latinos, and LGBT were humans with inherent value to them simply from existing, but rather, they decided that “Oh shit, we’re leaving money on the table by not marketing to these groups or hiring them.” It’s all about dollar-signs. It’s why corporations will fly the Pride Flag in June on Twitter… Just not on their Saudi Arabia Twitter corporate account. The corporates don’t care about the issues, they just care about getting your labor and your money, in other words, extracting value from you.
And attempts to extract value from you are where hamfisted attempts at making pieces of media “more appealing to everyone” by trying to shove as much strained “diversity” (the corporate kind, not the real kind) in there as possible in hopes to increase sales.
…on the other hand though, some of the original creators simply never grew up and are just obstinately wanting to continue to offend people for no good reason other than getting off on triggering other people. Like I’d have more hope from a remake from Neil Druckmann over John Romero, for example.
I was excited to play the remake of my all time favourite game Mafia 1, but it only lasted for about 20 minutes. They put utterly pointless additions in and the AI was somehow way dumber despite being 20 years newer.
I think I read about that remake. Did they also change the soundtrack or am I tripping? I loved Mafia 1 back in the day, and the Django Reinhardt songs in the original were iconic.
This is exactly the game that came to my mind when reading title. I loved old Mafia, but the remake? It’s not a bad game, but it lost like 90% of atmosphere original had. Like those cop chases that are utter joke that doesn’t belong to the game.
I never understood this one. All of those platforms, be it steam, epic,. Ubisofts defunct thing or EAs even more defunct thing, are embedded browsers with a more or less obnoxious skin we all use almost exclusively to click "buy now". All of them are overloaded with crappy, half-baked "features" nobody gives a flying toss about.
So why the heck do so many people spend the limited energy they have available to live their lives on "boycotts" and endless rants about how a game not on steam is basically unplayable for some reason.
If this game would bring you joy (which I doubt since it's Ubisoft we are talking about, but that's another matter), why deny yourself that joy because the launcher you interact with for literally less than a minute is shittier than your usual one?
If the launcher itself was of any importance to you, you'd use playnite or something and just be done with it all.
Don't whip this up to some exclusivity debate. It's not. Imagine if this was some tangible product. Would you really not buy the thing you'd really like to have just because it's sold at a store where the shelves are crap? Because that's essentially what you're doing.
This “debate” has been going on for ages now. They don’t actually mind exclusivity. They’re just mad it’s not on the launcher they use. None of them care when it’s exclusively on Steam.
Why the fuck should I care about the damn launcher?
DRM-heavy launchers have a history of spying on PC user activity, and of leading to malware infections. All well-known launchers, today, are DRM-heavy. (I would love tips on exceptions to this!)
DRM tries to control your PC remotely. There isn’t, and never will be, a safe way to do that without increasing the risks of outside malware attacks succeeding against you and your PC. In most cases, the risk increase is quite high.
Game launchers provide a trade-off between:
ease of installation and networking Vs
risk of malware infections
Each additional launcher brings a lot more risk, and slightly less convenience.
If it was just about the convenience, I agree - who cares.
Many of us have lost entire digital game catalogs, or had to rebuild our gaming rig, or both, due to a remotely hacked game installer/service/launcher. So many of us are incredibly bullish against adding one more installer/service/launcher to our gaming rig.
So then…you’re just admitting that you’re fine with exclusivity once Steam is where it’s exclusive to.
Nobody’s forcing any developers to be on any platform, and let’s not pretend you actually care about a platform offering a deal to devs for exclusivity. Those same devs are free to say no. But in that same line, Steam gets exclusive games for free. You’re fine with Valve exclusivity that doesn’t pay the devs but hate anyone else getting exclusivity although it does pay them? Interesting.
Lol. That’s a lot of words you’re putting in my mouth.
Steam offers no incentives for exclusivity. Others do. Devs choose to launch on steam and there’s nothing stopping them from launching elsewhere. Look at palworld: gamepass and steam and you know they got paid for gamepass.
Devs use steam because it’s where the people are. Steam has done nothing to try to be anticompetitive to other stores. Unlike said stores.
I put nothing in your mouth. Actually, quote the words I’m putting in your mouth and explain how. I merely showed the reality of words you typed. If Palworld was available exclusively on Steam would you care? If any other game you care about and wanted to play was exclusively on Steam, would there be a post or comment complaining about it?
Offering financial incentives isn’t the forcing anyone. You’re fine with Steam getting exclusives, so this has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of exclusives. Devs aren’t forced to take any incentives if they don’t want it.
But now that you mentioned it:
Devs use steam because it’s where the people are.
This is an incentive. Steam doesn’t offer money because they have pretty much a monopoly. And you guys will only buy from Steam, reinforcing it. You know you all of these stores are essentially just where you buy it right? I don’t even use EGS to launch games. It’s not some “you only get to pick one” kinda bullshit.
Look at palworld: gamepass and steam and you know they got paid for gamepass.
Yeah, because Game Pass isn’t looking to take on Steam. Game pass is a subscription service.
If Palworld was available exclusively on Steam would you care?
No, because that would be the dev’s choice. It’s also the dev’s choice to take a bribe from Epic and such, but Valve does nothing extra to encourage exclusivity.
If any other game you care about and wanted to play was exclusively on Steam, would there be a post or comment complaining about it?
People have and still do complain when games aren’t on GoG. Not as much anymore but it happened.
Offering financial incentives isn’t the forcing anyone
OK, we’re done. You don’t understand or acknowledge financial coercion so this is going nowhere. Byyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyye.
'tis a shame you couldn’t say what words I’d put in your mouth.
No, because that would be the dev’s choice.
That “because” isn’t actually telling the reason. You’d be fine with it, because it’s on Steam. Any kind of exclusivity is also the devs choice, and you obviously have a problem when they choose to be exclusive to a platform you don’t use.
but Valve does nothing extra to encourage exclusivity.
Apart from having the most market share, that you yourself already admitted.
People have and still do complain when games aren’t on GoG.
I never asked about anybody else. I asked about you. Or should I take it you never complained when games aren’t also on GoG?
OK, we’re done. You don’t understand or acknowledge financial coercion so this is going nowhere. Byyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyye.
Oh, damn, imagine thinking that once there’s money on the table they must take it, and then at the same time, not understanding the value of a near monopoly. Steam is literally leveraging the large amount of people that will buy the game if it’s on Steam. I even acknowledged it. Me saying that they don’t have to take it is quite literally acknowledging it. But ok, byyyyyyyyyyyyyye.
"prefering" steam is completely understandable. Boycotting a game and being disappointed and angry because it's not on steam isn't. To me at least. Regarding steam link: if you have an Nvidia graphics card, check out Moonlight!
Steam link doesn’t work for external games added into your steam library? I’m new to steam in general, but it seems weird that they’d let you add a game and not use them with link.
Steam link doesn’t work for external games added into your steam library?
Yes it does. I dunno about the hardware unit, but the android app alone works with everything you have on Steam; even the non-Steam games. Just fired up The Outer Worlds Spacer Choice edition given away on EGS some weeks back added to Steam as a non-Steam game through Steam Link on my phone.
It even straight up streams your desktop, so you can launch games not even running through Steam.
I'm on Linux and Valve and Itch are the only ones with first class Linux support. Everyone else you have to dick around with running their launchers through wine or lose features.
I don't mind that epic, etc. exist; I mind the exclusives. When Epic first launched, they didn't have payment processors in a number of countries so there was literally no way to legally play the games for people; that's super shitty.
well also you might wanna look into pirating their titles (even if you do 'own' them), as they have made it clear they dont want you to have any control over the games you buy, like access to them in the future. So say the epic steam thing goes belly up, epic closes, ubi will not see a reason to give you access on their service or steam if they move their games there.
Ja mam. Nie używałbym go jako telefonu codziennego użytku.
Generalne dzwonienie, SMSowanie itp działa.
Nie zaufałbym, że ustawiając budzik na 7 rano ten budzik naprawdę zadzwoni.
Aparat z przodu działa źle. Ten z tyłu kojarzy się bardziej z komórkami z ~2010 niż produktem współczesnym.
Soft jest bardzo często zwyczajnie niedopracowany.
Phosh działa powoli. GTK nie przejmuje się zbytnio wolniejszymi urządzeniami i to widać, chociaż GTK4 trochę się pod tym względem poprawił,
Plasma jest spoko, ale jest dość dużo ostrych krawędzi,
Najlepiej chyba sprawował się SXMO, ale czy podejście w stylu pisania SMSów w VIMie jest dla Ciebie akceptowalne to już Twoja decyzja. Jest lepiej niż brzmi (przykładowo, VIM ma małe uruchamiane gestem menu z najczęstszymi komendami, więc nie trzeba latać po klawiaturze i szukać <ESC>, :wq i <ENTER>, tylko się to w miarę komfortowo wyciąga z menu).
Szokująco dobrze sprawowało się Ubuntu Touch, ale ono również na PinePhone było niedopracowane. Nie pamiętam aktualnie, co tam nie działało, ale długo nie wytrzymałem.
Sprzętowe wykonanie jest takie, że raczej trzymam ten telefon w szufladzie a nie chodzę z nim w kieszeni. Mi się nic jeszcze nie stało, ale słyszałem od znajomych o poodklejanych wyświetlaczach itp.
Ogólnie uwielbiam ten telefon, i ani chwili nie żałuję, że go kupiłem. Ale traktuję go bardziej jako płytkę deweloperską w kształcie telefonu niż zamiennik Androida.
Moim zdaniem problem leży głównie w niedorobionym sofcie. Jak to się unormuje (a postęp jest, z roku na rok widzę, że wygląda to naprawdę coraz lepiej), to będzie całkiem fajnie.
Czekam, czekam… od czasów OpenMoko. Ale też każdy kolejny taki projekt zwiększa szansę, że faktycznie powstanie konsumenckie urządzenie, nad którym kontrolę będą miały osoby, w których rękach się znajdzie…
Pamiętam OpenMoko, i mam wrażenie, że tym razem nabrało to trochę więcej rozpędu - również dzięki projektom takim, jak Droidian czy postmarketOS, które usuwają konieczność posiadania typowego linuksiarskiego telefonu, a dodają kompatybilność z ogromem gruzu, który wiele osób ma w szufladach.
Wiadomo, nie jest to tak fajne jak wsparcie dla urządzenia w mainline kernela, ale jak się nie ma, co się lubi…
It was such a great adaptation of stealth-action, but people didn’t like that it had “Metal Gear” in the name. I absolutely adored the card collecting and deck-building, and the very deep, seemingly-emergent combos you could pull off.
Lmao someone in the comments said they were sold a used one (at brand new price) straight from the manufacturer.
Then someone replied to them saying basically, “that’s on you from ordering from the manufacturer instead of a trusted store like Amazon. I had no problems with them.”
bin.pol.social
Ważne