I mostly agree. Games of all types can co-exist and knowing this doesn't ruin enjoyment of the games that I do play.
Like Skyrim modding for example, there's so many mods that display fanservice, nudity and even intercourse. Does that ruin the game for me? Not at all. In fact, I still play it despite that knowledge. I simply choose not to use mods that I don't want to use.
Or a certain magicky wizarding game, that game can exist too without wishing death on people who want to play it. Doesn't mean I have to play it, nor does it ruin gaming for me.
Instead, the logical thing to do would be to pass on this game and find another. I fully understand that BG3 is one of the games of our lifetime, but it's not the game for me. (Of which there are many)
As someone who grew up watching my father crawl through dungeons (I think he enjoyed IWD more than BG), it's great to see Baldur's Gate at the forefront. Hopefully more of my childhood favourite RPGs will come back. I'd love to see Dungeon Siege and Neverwinter Nights brought back.
The wizarding game upsets me. I grew up with that series and it is literally a game I would have loved to play as a kid, but I don't want to support the TERF. Low-key hoping it comes to ps+ so I can get it without giving them money.
How would star wars even work in a total war game?
I can see the hero characters like jedi and such fit with how they work in the WarHammer games. Things like tanks and walkers filling the space of single and low unit count monster troops.
But would regular troopers be standing in lines of 50? I suppose it’s not a stretch of the imagination to think they could make smaller infantry units, but I have always associated the total war games with dragging out the lines of my spears and flanking cavalry rather than flicking small teams of shooters into cover positions
The Battles of Naboo and Geonosis basically play out as line battles with massive groups marching in formations at each other, not to mention most of the Tartakovsky clone wars, so I could see CA approaching it like Empire Total War with hover tanks.
Honestly, I doubt whether CA are even willing to adapt their formula enough to actually have small teams of shooters flicking into cover positions.
I'm not sure I'd trust modern CA to do Med3 justice. The new style of Total War is just a different beast from the sublime RTW/Med2 era.
Lots of little things changed, and it just 'hits different'. Probably the biggest difference is just that every single fight after the first 20 turns will be a 20 stack vs a 20 stack, and every single battle is life or death for that army. It makes the campaign much faster paced - declare war, wipe stack, capture cities for 3 turns until the AI magics up another 20 stack.
In the original Med2, since there wasn't automatic replenishment, there were often battles between smaller stacks, even in late game, as they were sent from the backline to reinforce the large armies on the front. Led to some of my greatest memories trying to keep some random crossbowmen and cavalry alive against some ambushing enemy infantry they wandered into. The need for manual reinforcement led to natural pauses in wars and gave the losing side a chance to regroup without relying on the insane AI bonuses of the modern TW games - and I do mean insane; they'll have multiple full stacks supplied from a single settlement.
The change that I always notice whenever I jump between earlier and later TW is the addition of hit points and how it really feels line it blunts a lot of impacts.
I mean, compare a heavy cavalry charge in Medieval 2 to one in Total Warhammer. A properly formed unit of Teutonic Knights is a devastating hammer blow that can shatter an enemy army since the charge bonus massively increases the chance to kill. Meanwhile, Empire Knights can get a proper rear charge against basic infantry and despite how far those rats get flung, they’ll all get back up because all the charge does is make the line go down faster.
The other big impact I find with this change is it makes the rout really annoying to deal with. In early total war, you always want some cavalry to pursue fleeing enemies since once they’re broken it won’t take much to capture or kill them and preventing those armies from regrouping really matters. Meanwhile, in modern total war, pursuing fleeing enemies never seems to result in significant damage because instead of capturing fleeing enemies you’re just making the line go down again.
While I agree with the general sentiment, Gothic 1 is basically unplayable on modern hardware. It outright crashes, and a generation of players misses out on one of the best/most pivotal western cRPGs in history.
Not to mention, graphics cards and even the worst potato are so much more powerful than our gaming rigs in 2001 that we can afford more than 32 MB of video memory for textures that don’t look like blurry smears, or perhaps, characters with actual fingers.
Both could be fixed by mods/patches - even official ones. You don’t need a remake.
Old games, just like old movies, are only relevant and great as products of their time. Gothic is dated as hell in many regards - which is perfectly ok - so a remake would either be just a glorified texture pack or wouldn’t be true to the original.
Make it playable, add new textures, higher resolution, etc. where possible, but don’t change the actual game.
Some games are so borked from a technical perspective they'd need a remake to work right, like Oblivion. That game is so technically bottlenecked by itself that even on modern hardware I fucking stutter, and I've trawled so many performance mods with fellow players in the comments just having to come to terms with the fact that no mod can fix the inherently poor optimization on an engine level.
Remakes can definitely be warranted in certain cases. Sometimes it's easier to just start over clean than try to untangle an existing mess and Frankenstein it back together. Sometimes making vast changes can produce an alternative reality of a game to be enjoyed by more or a different audience, like the Resident Evil Remakes, which are fucking excellent, or the FF7 remake, which, while contentious, is mostly only so because of purists, who do still have the original they can play (and I do believe companies should always keep the original around)
Games that would appreciate an update never receive one and games that wouldn’t receive several. That is to say, give me ps1/ps2 armored core remakes without terrible controls already. They would surely be profitable now.
There are a lot of reasons to love the Mass Effect games, but even after reading the article, my answer to the question it poses is, "Yeah, tons." The things this article cites as novel are pretty much universal to video game enemy design, and I can't think of anything that any Mass Effect game invented here.
The fuss seems to be mostly just the Japanese developers getting butthurt that people in the west got bored of their simplistic combat systems and random encounters, and came up with a term to differentiate the games that, at the time were entirely developed in Japan, that fit this style.
It’s not the Japanese part that made them disliked more. It was the style of gameplay they offered. If you played one, you played them all, basically. They are barely RPGs, taking a more linear, choiceless approach to not only character creation, but dialogue options if even offered, are generally “yes/no” responses to questions that don’t have any real impact.
It took the big developers of these games way too long to actually listen to fans’ very valid criticisms and make changes to these systems, and they still very much keep so many more traditions that the term endures.
I personally am not one for nudity in my games but BG3 is literally the dumbest hill to die on. If anyone actually is, I didn't see any examples. Reason being, the first thing that happens when you start the game is that it asks if you want to turn it off.
dualshockers.com
Gorące