Flavio: "The guys from GOG are great, and they contacted me directly once to talk about Heroic, and they totally support the project and what we are doing, especially on Linux. I would say we have a really good relationship with them."
Paweł: "Adding to what Flavio said, we currently have the affiliate deal with GOG, so any purchases made using our link support the project financially."
Huh. I didn't know this. This seems like a big deal. Makes me even more willing to consider Heroic's GOG support semi-official, considering they support autopatching and cloud saves under GOG. It really feels close-to-native, especially given how sluggish Galaxy can be on Windows for large libraries.
You won’t know until you try it. Don’t pay attention to what others say. I made this mistake countless times with games then when I eventually played them, I loved them. Give it a go. If you don’t like it, refund it.
The people who are first to review are those that strobgly dislike it and closed it early (or with some point to make). Everybody that strongly likes it is busy enjoying it and won’t review until they take a break or are done.
Give it time and see the reviews in a couple days.
I’m like this with Genshin. I’ve played it for almost 2k hours, love the exploration gameplay, environment graphics and music, but the monetisation system is extremely predatory, and the character designs and writing are bullshit, so overall I still wouldn’t recommend it to others, or only with heavy caveats. But it really scratches my exploration itch, so I’ll keep playing it myself 🤷
Usually happens when a game was good initially, but then publishers get greedy and push RMT/pay-to-win/freemium features to please investors.
Maybe not a great example, but I played Eve Online for many years, and while the game is actually very playable with RMT (it feels fucking great to destroy somebody’s virtual property they paid 20$ to acquire), it kinda got out of hand and diminished the thousands of hours I put into the game.
I read one recently that complained the devs didn’t listen to them about this one extremely specific sounding request, and therefore cannot recommend it.
The review was at like 1400 hours, and they played 1900 hours.
Which means for another 500 hours, they continued.
I think i already commented on this somewhere else, but a lot of bethesda games are like that for me. The vanilla game is kind of shit, but with a lot of mods it can kind of be hammered into something I enjoy. it’s still kind of bad, but sometimes you just want to eat junk food. I wouldn’t recommend someone go to McDonalds, but sometimes it’s just right there and it’s easy.
Bloom and Rage is a perfect example of this. It’s a complete horrible garbage mess of soulless characters, terrible voice acting, horrible sound mixing, and a trash story and somehow it’s very positive. There are some negative, sane comments. I loved Life is Strange 1, but hooo boy is Bloom and Rage bad. It’s about a band and the music is not even music. It’s very funny, though.
It depends. I like Open World games that feel like there’s a purpose to them being Open World.
Like the Elder Scrolls. The point is for you to feel like you’re living in Tamriel. There’s a point to it being Open World.
Or Far Cry (which I admittedly haven’t played), where you’re supposed to be lost in some place, deep in a place that is hostile to you.
And I might get crucified for this, but I honestly feel like the first Breath of the Wild game had no real reason to be Open World. The second one? Yeah, they figured it out. But the first one feels like it was OW just to be OW.
Tl;Dr, the game has to have a reason to be OW. Otherwise they’re just aiming for quantity of content and poitnlessly hurting the quality.
I hit a wall recently with Star Wars Outlaws. The open world is cool until you realize that every enemy base has two or three possible entry points, complete with yellow-painted paths. There’s no room for creative infiltration - either you do it Ubisoft’s way, or it isn’t possible in the game. The NPCs in the open world just drive around aimlessly. It doesn’t feel like anyone in the world is trying to achieve anything besides you. It makes me realize how far we have come with modern open world games like the recent Zelda games. Without room for emergent gameplay, an open world feels like little more than a framing device for a game that is actually linear.
if there’s a “funny” react option there should ALSO be a ‘display negative, but be positive’ option because joke reviews harm the view of amazing games SO MUCH
fnaf1 has 96% positive reviews where nearly half of the negative ones are just shitposts
I think it is a good horror game, at least for the first playthrough. (Though most horror games aren’t good for replayability)
You directly control your fate and the first two nights you hardly have to do anything which lead to you micro analyzing everything, terrifying yourself even if there’s not a real threat, which means in the later nights when there ARE threats it actually terrifies the shit out of you. Add the “holy FUCK” feeling of foxy running made my soul fall out of my socks.
that being said though replayability is mid and when the whole series is just the same game over and over but different it loses its charm. Also the community is really insane which is the reason I didn’t play it until wayyy after the hype died down.
I think this is the problem gooner games have run into.
Like the Neptunia games. They are not great games at all by any measure. But the only people that would publically post reviews of them are likely going to review them positively.
An old style game would be perfect for mobile. Not too graphically intensive so battery won’t drain as fast as Pokémon Go and should run on even budget phones.
It’s too bad steam doesn’t have a “mixed” review option.
Like Fallout4. It’s terrible. Bad story. bad gameplay. Buggy. But I still sometimes mod it the fuck up and play anyway, because I want a kind of stupid stealth shooter or to stomp around in power armor. So I don’t really recommend it, but you could do worse.
IMO this is a good thing. With a “mixed” option, it’s hard to know where the borders are for each person. Say you rate a game on a scale of 0-100 - is “mixed” 30-70, or 25-75, or 20-80, or anything else?
AFAIK with surveys etc. there’s also a bias towards the “middle” option. By not giving one, you force people to think harder about their opinion, which in turn makes the rating more useful.
I wish it used a 5 star system instead of binary yes/no. I don’t like that “yeah, it’s a decent game” and “holy shit this game will change how you see games going forward” get weighed the same. A game that everyone kinda likes will have a similar rating to a game everyone loves.
Would also be nice if they had a “shows promise but it isn’t quite there yet”. Or a way of using ratings to encourage devs to address issues, and maybe a mechanism where certain issues can be tied to a review and then the dev can mark the issue as “addressed” to make those reviews expire with a notice to the user that the game might be much better for them now. It sucks to see a game with a bunch of negative reviews addressing an issue that was since fixed.
I want a real 3rd person open world coop Pokémon game, instead of Nintendo attacking indie devs that are eating their 30 year old lunch Nintendo never felt like eating.
bin.pol.social
Gorące