Sony’s not doing great right now either. They’re either matching or several million units behind where they were with the PS4 at the same point in the console generation; given that their closest competition has been decimated, that’s not great for them. They don’t make games as quickly as they used to, which means they don’t make as many as they used to, and their margins are slimmer on their successes while the failures like Concord and PSVR2 hurt more. Both of those consoles are rapidly headed toward a future that only looks like personal computers for high-end gaming. Nintendo is at least mostly immune to this for at least the Switch 2 generation.
That’s comparing Pro to Pro. I meant all PS5s were trailing behind all PS4s by several million units at the same point in time as of a few months ago. Allegedly, after that report was published, Sony had their best PlayStation quarter ever, but I don’t remember if they disclosed which metric they were measuring that in, and there’s a good chance their best quarter ever still didn’t make up that deficit.
Tell that to PC’s growth and consoles’ decline. Plus the new Xboxes mentioned in this very article are seeking to be exactly that, much like what the Steam Deck does today. It will play PC games but will be called an Xbox.
Why is there even a console war in the first place? Who really cares these days? Just get what you want.
Me? I’m lazy and don’t want to put the effort into building a PC or worrying about optimization, viruses, etc. So I just get a gaming box to plug in and play.
It is not completely struck down, as Ross points out on his channel. There is still value in signing if you live in the UK, especially as they once again did not understand the petition.
Every government does. I can’t think of a single law that exists because people signed a petition and not because there was massive social unrest surrounding the issue.
Imagine making a typo in your summary that exchanges the United Kingdom for the United States, creating a literal hallucination of what the UK government response says lol
Yeah, the line between AAA and Indy games is kinda blurred at this point. Especially because quality has split into production quality and gameplay quality and higher production quality seems to be getting more accessible to smaller dev teams.
Like I’ve been playing Enshrouded and have been enjoying it. It’s a large game (like I think the map is comparable to a WoW continent with fewer total regions but each region is larger… I think it’s a bit bigger than breath of the wild) but I have no idea if it would fall into the AAA box or not. Nothing about the game screams “Indy” or “small development team” other than the game being (IMO) really well done and not feeling like a product of a ??? step between “start making game” and “profit” like so many AAA games have felt like with all their season passes and MTX.
Ultimately, “good game” vs “bad game” is more important than “AAA” vs “Indy” (or whatever other categories), which is why I first asked about it. My bias has gotten to the point where I’ll ignore a lot of the games that look like they are AAA games tuned for engagement and profit rather than necessarily being fun, but I could be missing out.
I think Dragon’s Dogma 2 is great for newcomers to the series, but I can understand if a fan of the original was disappointed that it’s basically just the first game again.
[Funko Fusion] game feels like an off-brand LEGO game in all the worst ways
I have a bias here because I’ve never understood the appeal of model collecting in general, and of dead-eyed, amorphous Funko Pops in particular, but I am shocked that a cash grab on the back of emotionless, artistically-bereft figurines wasn’t a smash hit.
I was quite satisfied with Alone in the Dark. It could have used some polish, but it was delivering more Resident Evil 1 style gameplay in a way that even the Resident Evil series refuses to do.
Broken roads.
Deathbound.
Open roads.
Star wars outlaws.
South Park: snow day.
Funko fusion.
Left horizon adventures.
Alone in the dark.
Skull and bones.
Concord.
Look at it this way, Disappointing =/= Bad. One of my biggest disappointments is Metal Gear Solid V and I love that game, but I know that my expectations were not met.
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.
dualshockers.com
Najnowsze