Oblivion is at least playable for newer gamers. It’s not a good experience, but it is manageable.
Morrowind, for all its immense benefits, makes everyone who entered the game scene after 2010 scream in terror. I personally never left Balmora, because it’s just a terrible experience by modern standards (graphics, character animation, controls, battle mechanics…), which is a great shame because the game seems to be great otherwise.
TES I and II, while deserving recognition, are very Doom-like in terms of gameplay, and I don’t believe an adequate remake could be made, because they are so different they can’t adequately be turned into a modern experience.
So, I guess for me all hopes are for Skywind, so I could finally walk the streets of Vivec without the need to fork my eyes.
I’d love to see anything Morrowind‑related from Bethesda. Anything at all. The province of Morrowind, with its weird culture, architecture, and landscapes, is always quite an experience. To me, it’s the most interesting setting in the whole TES series
Oblivion is far less playable for new players, y’all just have nostalgia blinders / mods in mind
The levelling system breaks Oblivion, violently. Nothing that awful is in Morrowind, even the “I can’t hit anything with a dagger because I’m too stupid to read” doesn’t come close
Nah, I started with Skyrim, and I played Oblivion without mods. It’s not great, problematic in many places, but it is playable if you want to discover the story.
I can’t hit anything with a dagger because I’m too stupid to read” doesn’t come close
This happens 3 seconds into the game, and very few modern gamers will ever RTFM. It’s far more likely to be a hard wall to a newcomer. I wouldn’t blame them, either. Invisible stamina-based dice rolls was certainly a choice.
Oblivion’s system took time to break down - long enough to actually get players invested, at least.
I don’t think so, it’s the name of the town where it takes place. I’d argue that it’s no better or worse than resident evil, stardew valley, or world of Warcraft.
It’s the name of a fictitious town in Maine, where things are deeply wrong. People who are subjected to the town end up accounting for their worst impulses via physical manifestations of terrible things. Interestingly enough, most of the time it’s incredibly bright in Silent Hill, easy to see the individually-exclusive monsters coming… were it not for the overwhelming fog with a character of its own.
I agree, the last genuinely pretty game was Emerald, imo. Diamond and beyond is where 3D assets started weakening the art direction, imo. Either keep the beautiful pixel art, or do proper cel shaded graphics, like windwaker. Personally, I’d stick with pixel art for the strongest possible art direction.
That would be more valid here if Pokémon were focused on being fun. As a lifelong fan, modern Pokémon games are typically both ugly and not terribly fun. They make decent “turn off your brain” games, but the quality of game did not go up with the decrease in graphics.
Yeah that’s fair. I haven’t cared about Pokemon since the remakes of Sapphire and Ruby during which I didn’t lose a single battle. It was a cool nostalgia trip but since there was absolutely no strategy necessary I never ever wanted to go back since there’s not enough reward for the time sink; it’s just not fun imo.
While it wasn’t necessarily pretty and had its share of glitches, I quite enjoyed Arceus. It was a nice break from the standard patterns it’s fallen into.
Course I say that as someone who also enjoyed Sword and Shield after a skipping a few prior.
Graphics definitely aren’t everything, but they could stop it With the half finished games with glitches.
Arceus was a fun break from the norm, and was even more fun once I played it on redacted to remove some of the performance issues my Switch had with it. I’m looking forward to Z-A exclusively because the impression Arceus made (well, and
Spoilermega evolutions
)
I’ve been playing a randomized (and slightly higher level enemy Pokémon) run of Shield after beating it once originally and being quite disappointed, and I’ve enjoyed that pretty thoroughly as well. The return of follower Pokémon in the DLC is something I’ve been asking for since HG/SS.
So, still atmospheric and beautiful, but low poly enough that artists don’t have to spend so much time creating detail. Sort of like an impressionistic painting.
To be honest though for most AAA games I think its animations and highly choreographed gameplay sequences that are bottlenecking development more than the art is. Look at games like cyberpunk and fallout 76: they largely didn’t have unfinished art assets (in fact the art assets in both those games, particularly the environments, look quite good). Instead they had broken animations and gameplay systems. I guess art style does play a roll in that though, as a more realistic model kinda demands more realistic animations to avoid looking weird.
“devs too focused on making a game pretty instead of fun” is talking about making the art photorealistic with fancy hair engines and such, when doing so doesn’t add meaningfully to the experience and only serves to needlessly complicate development and inflate the cost.
We can tell that making all these 3D models and animations is a problem for the devs because they’ve said so repeatedly. They’ve even said they can’t have every Pokemon in the same game as a result. Instead of the lovely pixel art of FRLG we have a mish-mash of dead-eyed, poorly-animated cartoons with PSP-quality “realistic” terrain that grate against each other. And for what? Why do 3D when you can only do 3D so poorly?
Games don’t need to be graphically ground breaking to be fun but the art should at least not be repulsive and/or incoherent as fuck like modern Pokemon games.
TBH I used to be a huge Monster Hunter fan, pre-ordered MH: World but it was such a huge disappointment that I will never purchase any capcom game ever again.
Anybody surprised about the state of wilds hasn’t been paying attention.
Yeah that game was unplayable for me. I rebind my keys, but there were functions hard bound to keys, probably from like debugging or something, so pressing them would execute two functions. Specifically it was camera rotation. That was disorientating as hell.
For one of my friends it kept crashing, and since you can’t save during the intro he had to play it 3 times or so.
MH: World is the only MH game I tried, out of curiosity. It ended up on my library at some point as a PS+ game. Got through the initial “story” thing, if you can call it that. The tutorial. Getting to the camp. The mandatory chat with 10 different people. Did the first real “hunt”.
It seemed to mind bogglingly boring, that after that mission, I just uninstalled the game.
Wilds looks amazing. Which makes me wonder if the games are sufficiently different that it might be worth give it a chance.
That suits me, I just dumped everything I had into renewing my online subscription. Half off.
It feels like this is the only way Nintendo feels comfortable going from a currency system on the Switch to the exact same thing on the Switch 2. Nary the twain shall meet.
They just don’t want to be hounded by anyone about transferring gold from one system to the other.
They just don’t want to be hounded by anyone about transferring gold from one system to the other.
Why do you need to transfer from one system to another? From my understanding (the last Nintendo device I owned was the OG gameboy) the gold points are roughly comparable to steam points. Why would it matter whether you have a Switch 1 or Switch 2?
Gold points are earned by buying select Switch games and hardware. You use it to buy stuff online related to the Switch. Nintendo wants to reset everyone’s progress for the Switch 2. If you want to use gold to buy Switch 2 stuff it has to be gold earned buying Switch 2 stuff.
Greedy? Yes. But then again, it’s a rewards program they don’t even have to offer in the first place.
I was gonna make a joke about Nintendo, but I’m pretty sure they actually sued someone for publicly hosting 30 year old copies of the Nintendo Power magazine.
I’d be ashamed too, losing to astro bot. What I’ve heard from the Platformer community is that while the game is good, it’s very short and lacks in the amount of unique areas (and enemies?) and as such is more or less blitz and glamour. Like, props to sony for producing jump and runs, but still…
I just finished Astro Bot and it is a very good game. However, it is very derivative of Mario to the point where it is very clearly a Mario game, except you are collecting PlayStation member-berries instead of stars or whatever.
I loved it, but I have a hard time justifying it as GotY. IMO it should have gone to Wukong or Balatro.
This approach is so common in RPGs it’s like dwarves with Scottish accents; a better question to ask would be whether there’s an RPG that doesn’t do it - one that hurries you up instead?
I mean…Dark Souls is the obvious answer, but that’s almost a different subgenre of RPG. Dark Souls does have side quests, but they are obscure and often incidental to the main quest. They also skirt this problem by having “time” be a loose concept in the lore - in every game, the world is in the process of slowly ending, in a literal way that fucks up the flow of time.
eurogamer.net
Ważne