It would help to know specific games, as many games of that era require extra fan made patches to run on modern systems. You could buy them again from GOG with these already packaged with it, but depending on the game, there is probably a free option available to you if you have the original discs.
Kingdom Hearts main menu theme. It’s absolutely a nostalgia hit for me. That game was one of my “get-away” games while in a rough situation. Hearing that music always makes me feel a little safer, like I’m just one step away from a completely different life.
The end of bl2’s Tiny Tina’s assault on dragons keep where she admits she knows Roland is dead, and gives his statue a big hug. A rare moment in those games
Crash Bandicoot, Jak and Daxter series, Ratcher and Clank series mostly. Most people usually associate childhood with Nintendo games but they’re super rare in my country, I only ever got around to playing series like Zelda and Mario in the mid-2010s. For what it’s worth the playstation 2 really was the console to have at the time, the games were amazing. Pretty sad Sony is reluctant to make good ports of them for the new generation.
Oh, and everyone I knew had House of the Dead 2 on the computer. Now that’s a classic.
The game does not explain any of this. I went to watch a tutorial online to try and wrap my head around all of this. The first tutorial just assumed you knew a bunch of stuff already. The second one I found was great but it was 1.5 hours long. There is no in-game tutorial I could find.
Why do you need to know? Just pick one and go with it!
Deep Rock Galactic
I haven’t played much but, it’s not complicated? There’s a main lobby where you select a quest, then you go on it. It generally involved following a path and gathering/dropping off stuff with some fighting in between.
Overwatch
This one is just anticipating other people’s movement on a map, which can be chaotic but I don’t really think it’s complicated? Honestly if you’re having issues just play Paladins instead I would stick by 1 or 2 teammates and just focus on staying with them no matter what. Over time you’ll learn what works and doesn’t work.
I’m a casual gamer and I used to play Overwatch. There’s always the practice range or training room, I forget what it’s called. But what really got me learning all the characters was playing Mystery Heroes over and over.
As with any competitive game, in overwatch you are expected by other players to understand complex strategies that have evolved over time, which can be stressful for a newcomer.
It doesn’t help that many players who don’t understand the Meta aren’t afraid to chime in. Standing in front of you holding up my shield isn’t my job, learn how to use cover fool.
Rocket League has a really great ranking system that ensures that I’m always playing with members of a similar skill level, but also always challenging myself to move up the ranks.
I really wanted to like BattleBit but couldn’t be bothered to grind to get the better weapons while constantly being slaughtered by much more experienced players with much better equipment.
If you want a calm group of people to play with, DM me and we can trade Steam information (assuming you use that platform) - we typically need a 4th player anyway
Obviously if you don't enjoy it then that's 100% valid, but at least in terms of understanding what to do it's totally okay to play DRG without understanding anything beyond "shoot bugs and do whatever thing mission control most recently asked you to do". There's no need to play at a higher hazard if you don't yet know or just don't care to know about how to set up your weapons for maximum effectiveness or how to counter each type of bug and so on. Just play at whatever hazard you find fun and try things out until you find what you enjoy. There's no class or weapon that is non-functional without some other component. No wrong choices, so to speak. They're all just degrees of better and worse at any given job, and if you try something out on a mission and it doesn't work then the absolute worst possible penalty is just that you fail that mission and only get a little bit of xp and cash instead of a bigger amount.
You can't plagiarize mechanics because you cannot copyright mechanics... And you don't want to live in a world where you can. Imagine if the first company to make a first person shooter game copyrighted it... Or if Nintendo owned the rights to all 2d side scrolling games... Gaming would have never grown to what it is today.
Hell, even board games would have been crippled by this kind of copyright.
Do you have steam? Click on a tag (preferably a more descriptive one, but multiple can be selected on the next screen) of a game you enjoy, but think the soul has been lost from, sort by user review, find something you haven’t heard of before, enjoy the next entry in your preferred genre!
Alternatively go to the games store screen, at the bottom, after “more from this developer” is “users who enjoyed this game also enjoy”
Steam makes it very easy to expand your library, like it’s their business or something.
Edit to add Missing the point of let’s get some community involvement in here rather than turning to our benevolent monopolistic overlords.
Optimization is extremely complex and the game engine, while factoring into the equation, doesn’t determine if something is optimized or not inherently.
Yes, this is all a horrible post, game engines can’t really be compared directly. There is no one size fits all.
EA thought that and tried to apply Frostbite to their entire catalogue. What worked amazingly for Battlefield/Battlefront was a disaster for Dragon Age: Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, and let’s not forget Anthem. Engine was optimized for small maps and quick gameplay, but was horrible for large open worlds and RPG elements.
The reason Unreal requires such heavy hardware is because they’re trying to be a one tool fits all, but that requires making sacrifices.
OP’s entire post here is incredibly naive. It’s apples to oranges.
Story mode / Infinite lives / invincibility modes.
Difficulty should not be a barrier for entry. I like how Insomniac games like Ratchet and Clank, and to a lesser extent Spiderman, offer a really easy mode for those who just want to blast away or swing around New York.
One of the worst arguments I had online was me saying that’s great in single player but not unilaterally in multiplayer, and people got mad. I still think about it sometimes.
But generally yeah, agreed. Caves of Qud added a roleplay mode so dying sends you back to town instead of forcing a new game, and it’s real nice even if it’s not the traditional rogue like.
I think that part of the problem in the case of Caves of Qud is that traditionally, the roguelike genre was aimed at having relatively-quick runs. So losing a run isn’t such a big deal. Your current character is expendable. But many roguelike games – like Caves of Qud – have, as they’ve gotten ever-bigger and gotten ever-more-extensive late games, had much, much longer runs. Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead can have a character easily last for weeks or even months of real time. If you sink that much time into a character, having them die becomes, I think, less-palatable to most players. So there’s an incentive to shift towards the RPG model of “death is not permanent; it just throws you back to the last save”.
Just as some roguelikes have had longer runs, some games in the genre have intentionally headed in the direction of shorter runs – the “coffee break roguelike”. The problem there is that roguelikes have also historically had a lot of interacting game mechanics in building out a character, and if you put a ten-minute cap or so on a run, that sharply limits the degree of complexity that can come up over any given run for a character.
I bought FFXVI on launch day and decided to go the story difficulty. Best decision ever, and such an interesting way to do it. You basically get these special rings that make aspects of the game easier, like dodging and attack timing. You can always unequip them if you want to try the game with harder mechanics. The rings also take accessory slots, which you only have 3 of, so you have have to consider things like “Do I want this agility boost? Or my time-stop dodges?” Interesting to trade out game nerfs for stats or other effects.
But yeah. Story modes are great. I played Horizon on easy. Had a blast and didn’t get frustrated.
Gyroscope controls. Especially for first-person shooters and other first-person games. I used to be a diehard mouse and keyboard player when it came to FPSes until I played Quake 1 on the Switch with gyro controls turned on. Now I’m trying to find ways to be able to play every FPS in my collection on a TV with gyro aim because it just feels so much better.
Everyone I know that’s gotten good with it swears up and down about it but 10 or so hours with Splatoon 2 and I felt like I didn’t get ANY better with it
This is from someone who’s pretty damn good at fps games, usually top 3 on the scoreboard no matter what game it is, so I’m not just bad at the games themselves
Splatoon doesn't give you as much control over it as a Steam controller does. It's only the Y axis, and it's always on. It's much better when you can hold a grip button to toggle it. Then you can use the right track pad or analog stick for big movements and the gyro for fine tuned precision while holding a grip button.
That sounds like exactly what my issue was with learning: it always being on, any teeny hand movement ever would fuck with the camera, the steam controller sounds much closer to what my mind expected from gyro
With that in mind I just might have to try it out, though now I’m scared of getting good with it and needing to hack gyro into games to play, much like getting good with MKB killed me playing FPS on controller lol
I'll tell you that my friend sat me in front of Returnal on PS5, and that game felt unplayable without either M+KB or gyro, even though plenty of people managed just fine. There's even a gryo feature in the PS5 pad! They just didn't enable it for the game. On PC, you can use it on Steam controller whether the dev enabled it or not.
Hell yeah. I didn’t put this in my post because I didn’t want it to turn into a debate about the validity and viability of gyro controls (it is, if you don’t think so, you’re just wrong). So thanks for putting it.
One of my favorite steam deck features is being able to use gyro controls for any game. It’s not always as smooth as the Switch, but it works pretty well to add a bit of additional fine-grained control to the course-grained control of the R-stick.
Doom on the switch was amazing for this. I tried to play Doom eternal on the ps4, afterwards, and it was just such a disappointment because it didn’t have gyro.
My problem with analog sticks in FPSes isn’t fine-grained control – most games have zoom, and auto-aim has done a lot to mitigate lack of acuracy. My problem is coarse-grained control – that is, it takes ages in an FPS to turn around at maximum turn speed, whereas a mouse player can rapidly snap around if they are, say, attacked from the side or behind.
I’ve seen some people talk about hacking together some mechanism to try to deal with this using the Steam Controller and Steam Input – I think that it might have been something like a double-tap-to-rapidly-turn, but my impression is that whatever was going on there was more-elaborate than just the combination of an analog stick and a gyro for fine movement.
A new Mario game blew the critics away? Who could have predicted this?
sarcasm aside, i’ve been sort of skeptical of scores on reviews of Mario games ever since the New Super Mario Bros series. Critics seem to be physically incapable of giving a Mario game a low score, as best immortalized by this videogamedunkey video.
totally. I’m sure that if you’re a reviewer reviewing the 3rd New Super Mario Bros game, and you come out of it feeling like the game was pretty mid, it can feel scary to post a review with the lowest score. It’s easy with something like an Ubisoft game, where the quality of their games has been in question for years now. But with a Mario game? We all know the internet is full of assholes that will tear you apart for giving a bad score to bad game from a beloved franchise.
I swear i watch more videos than just dunkey, but this recent vid of his actually captured this other side of the coin pretty well.
It's not even a Nintendo Curve (They might have a stronger curve), but the vast majority of the time these large review sites are all in the pockets of publishers (event invites, interviews, exclusive first looks, review copies etc) and in order to keep that gravy train going so their review company doesn't fold means to not bite the hand that feeds too much, even if you have to lie.
Eh, I don’t (Edit: corrected) think the big review sites can survive if they get blacklisted by one or a few publishers. It has happened in the past already. There are so many games getting released, that missing one game or even a whole publisher probably doesn’t really affect them. Same for the publishers, they get more eyes on the game, for pretty cheap probably, so it’s also advantageous to them as well.
From what I’ve heard over the years, the marketing departments on both sides know this as well, so most don’t take a bad review personally.
It’s the small, one or two-man channels that are probably more prone to lying about a game. If JohnNintendoFan69 on Youtube manages to get some early copies for upcoming games (or a sponsorship, whatever), they want to ride that wave for as long as possible, if their livelihoods depend on these things.
Eh, I don’t think the big review sites can survive if they get blacklisted by one or a few publishers.
Then those review sites shouldn't exist. It directly conflicts with their entire business model of "reviewing products objectively" when they can't review products objectively without fear of the hand that feeds getting mad at them for saying the truth
A review site that lies isn't a review site. It's advertising
I agree, which is why I think creating companies around subjective reviews by boiling things down to a score that people are expected to take objectively as a measure of a product's worth is entirely asinine and silly. ESPECIALLY when the general triat of capitalism allows these review companies to have their bias and subjections swayed by not wanting to bite the hand that feeds their comapny's existence
ESPECIALLY when the general triat of capitalism allows these review companies to have their bias and subjections swayed by not wanting to bite the hand that feeds their comapny’s existence
And my argument is, that a site like IGN, Gamespot, whatever, doesn’t care if they don’t get the latest Ubisoft game prior to release anymore. There are so many games coming out, that they are picking and choosing anyway. One less game on the pile, big whoop.
I mean, Kotaku apparently has been blacklisted by Sony, Bethesda, Ubisoft, and Nintendo at some points (not all at the same time), and they still exist.
Also, with how many freelancers run reviews for all of them, you’d have heard something credible over the years, that scores get artificially inflated to keep the publishers happy, but the only thing I remember is the Kane & Lynch thing at Gamespot, which lead to Jeff Gerstmann getting fired, because he didn’t change his score.
Review scores and review sites are dumb
You could argue that scores are outdated, because too many people just look at the number and don’t read the review and how this rating came to be. However, sites dedicated to reviewing games, still have a place out there.
For me I just don't get how anyone can realistically extrapolate a game's score to anything about the game itself. Reviews are fine, and people providng their own experience and interpretations of and pros/cons is fine, but then boiling that perosnal subjective into an interpretive score that somehow is supposed to convey they same information just makes no sense.
I do agree that most people just see a score and don't bother to look further past that, it's very annoying to see comment sections just talk about the score itself and how it might be "right" or "wrong".
That's the part I don't get, when people think that someone giving CoD a 6/10 is "wrong" because another reviewer gave it a 9/10. Like, seriously, who cares what the score is. I don't play games because the score is high, I play games because they sound interesting to me. I don't care that some website gave Death Stranding a 4/10 because they didn't "get it". I still liked the game and their review doesn't tranish that in any way, neither of us is right or wrong because not every game is made for everyone and people's own subjective tastes and stuff will obviously affect the kinds of games they like.
I just overall think people care WAY too much about some arbitary scores that ultimately don't mean shit. IGN giving a game I didn't like a high score doesn't mean I was "wrong" about the game, but too many people want to just use scores to argue with other people. Like bro, just go play the games that interest you, stop caring about scores
Scores are just too engrained in this whole review thing at this point, not even just in video games. There was a small movement a few years ago to get away from scores, but not enough big publications joined in, so it didn’t catch on.
just go play the games that interest you, stop caring about scores
Sometimes it’s not that easy, mainly if you can’t just afford every game that catches your eye.
Sometimes it’s not that easy, mainly if you can’t just afford every game that catches your eye.
I'm not sure how a review score will change that. The entire point of my discussion is that anyone who extrapolates a subjective review score as some objective quality measure is just wasting money.
It's better to play a game that interests you than play a game because it's scored high. "Scoring high" isn't a metric of what makes a game fun.
What I mean is even if a game looks interesting, but then I see it’s mixed on Steam or has a bunch of 5/10 reviews, I’d probably give that a pass. There might be a chance it’s some hidden gem or totally up my alley, but why risk it? I’d rather play it safe, and give the 9/10 game a chance, even if the premise isn’t that compelling.
Once you are able to just not care about the money, this can definitely shift. If it turns out that interesting game sucks to play, doesn’t matter, just buy something else.
What I mean is even if a game looks interesting, but then I see it’s mixed on Steam or has a bunch of 5/10 reviews, I’d probably give that a pass.
I don't see how letting other people's opinions on something you think looks interesting should matter. I play games for me, so I don't care if someone thinks something is a 1/10. If it seems interesting to me I'm going to play it, because that's what matters. Some of my absolutel favorite games are panned by reviewers and critics alike, and most of the games I can't stand are highly reviewed yearly rehashes. Scores meaning nothing.
There might be a chance it’s some hidden gem or totally up my alley, but why risk it? I’d rather play it safe, and give the 9/10 game a chance, even if the premise isn’t that compelling.
Because you're risking it with either purchase regardless, so why not pick the one that actually sounds interesting to you? Letting review scores bias your decision making on an entirely subjective medium of art expression completely takes the point out of art.
Once a generation you might get a Death Stranding 2 or something, and really enjoy it, but other times you’re stuck with the original Lords of the Fallen, because you like Souls-likes, and that’s your only game this month or quarter.
And yes, of course, just because a game is rated highly doesn’t mean you’ll enjoy it. Still, unless you have really specific tastes, the chance that you’re going to enjoy a highly rated game, compared to a mediocre one, is much higher, in my opinion, doesn’t matter if something looks interesting.
I’m also talking about a hypothetical, mainstream consumer here, because those are the ones that a review score is for.
A hypothetical mainstream consumer is the least educated person on the topic and is exactly the kind of person that gets swindled constantly by review scores. They're the ones that need to hear more than ever that following review scores as some objective truth is stupid.
Once a generation you might get a Death Stranding 2 or something, and really enjoy it, but other times you’re stuck with the original Lords of the Fallen, because you like Souls-likes, and that’s your only game this month or quarter.
And sometimes the original Lords of the Fallen is exactly what you want to play, even if everyone else says it's bad. That's entirely my point. General consensus of "good" and "bad" means nothing. Equating popularity and quality is dumb
Since I don’t agree with your initial premise, that review scores are faked or kept high to please the publishers, I also don’t agree that people are being lied to or swindled by them.
And sometimes the original Lords of the Fallen is exactly what you want to play, even if everyone else says it’s bad. That’s entirely my point. General consensus of “good” and “bad” means nothing. Equating popularity and quality is dumb
In a perfect world, where everyone has infinite time and money, sure, just do whatever. However, this world doesn’t exist, so most people probably want to avoid wasting their time or money. That’s why reviews exist.
I also think, most of the time you can equate popularity and quality to some extent. Not that the most popular are the best, but they’re usually at a decently high level. There are always going to be exceptions, of course, and not everyone will like everything.
I have heard (and I forget the source) that it is advantageous for reviewers to give a new game a good score, otherwise they might not be invited to review early-access games in the future. With that in mind, the best reviews might come after launch.
yeah this is an unfortunate part of the modern game review landscape. Probably the reason why many people just watch their favorite influencers for game opinions instead.
Pretty sure this happens a lot with the Madden franchise and their competitors. All of them are terrible American football simulation games, but if you want a free and early copy for your channel, better be nice to them, I guess.
I actually totally sympathize with that critic from your clip and don’t think there’s anything dishonest or otherwise cognitively dissonant about that review. There’s nothing I can spend more time complaining about than something I really enjoy because I naturally fixate on things that stand out about a given experience and the flaws are what stands out in something that’s overall very good.
I would never in a million years rate that particular game a 9.1/10 but that’s just me and the critic valuing different aspects of design different amounts.
thank you for your take! you make a valid point. Also dunkey clearly edited that down to every critical thing he said about the game and none of the positive things. The point stands that I have trouble trusting review scores on Mario games, and this is me speaking as someone that loves Mario games and is hyped for Wonder.
bin.pol.social
Ważne