The game was advertised as having 40 new levels, which at first glance is sounds engaging and interesting, until you find out most of those levels are programmer/beta/alpha stages. It’s not entirely new content, but rather going through iterations until you arrive at the level as it is today. While interesting, it does feel disingenuous to advertise this as a new level. When I hear braid has a new level, I think “There’s one more puzzle piece”, but that’s not the case. You are not rewarded with anything in game, but instead receive some occasionally insightful commentary. In total, there are around 14 actual, new puzzles.
I looked on the Steam page and didn’t see that, but I thought I remembered it from launch. Perhaps I was just tired and missed it, but I think they didn’t do a good enough job calling it out.
If you liked the puzzle design style of the Witness, check out Taiji. It uses a similar open-ended structure that leaves puzzle rules for you to discover on your own.
A good game will stand on its own merits. It will be complete and self-contained at launch. And any DLC released later will have been planned from the very start.
Endless updates is just another word for cosmetic micro-transactions and an excuse to make you keep the game online all the time.
Meanwhile Terraria: “So we are releasing this last final update, but you can expect bugfixes for the next two years, and a last last final, followed by finally last last final updates in the following two quarters”
There was already an HD remaster released back in 2011… I’m all for crisper graphics, bugfixes and the like, as long as the core gameplay and charm from the beloved original is still there. Still also holding out for BG&E2, but that feels as close to vaporware as it stands.
Also, fuck Ubisoft and their craptastic launcher. Main reason I have strayed from majority of their titles. Maybe it’s a little pedantic, but I’m in the “Steam or no DRM” group if I bother with a game.
Seems like everybody forgot about the HD release. It was good, and the only reason I haven’t played it a third time is because I don’t want to set up the console for it. Hopefully this new version won’t be too bogged down with Ubisoft crap 🤞
I, for once am excited. I didn't buy Overwatch since I was deeply disappointed in Blizzard, after D3. Then the whole pandering to CCP and Blitzchung fiasco happened and that cemented my decision.
I didn't play Valor ant since I don't enjoy having a Chinese kernel level spyware on my PC.
So this may be something that can satisfy my itch.
Because many of us remember before that, when Valve revolutionized the single player first person genre again and again with the Portal and mainline Half-Life games.
Any other dev would have capitalized on the massive interest in a sequel or at least sold off the property so someone else could have continued those franchises.
Man, I’m glad that people are enjoying the game as much as they say they are but I tried my first play through earlier this year and it was terrible. I saw almost no difference in the amount/type of glitches between what I experienced back in January and what I saw online when the game first released a few years ago.
I played on launch month and only encountered one bug that was game breaking and it was only a loading point glitch where I had to load to a previous save point. Played just a month ago and the whole game was super smooth.
I have 50+ hours and only minor graphic glitches. A couple dead bodies standing up, the odd piece of floating loot. Nothing that seriously detracts from the experience.
I said this at launch, you cannot do early access with an established IP. The agreement is a reduced price because you’re paying to get in on the ground floor before it actually gets good. But for an established IP you’ve already built your audience, so most people are going to buy on day 1 at the reduced price, so the “reduced price” has to basically be full price. Now you’re paying full price for an unfinished game because Take Two pushed them to release an unfinished game that had been delayed by years.
Maybe it was the botched launch. Baldur’s Gate 3 was an early access title made by a known developer (at least in crpg spaces) of an existing IP, though BG 1 and 2 are old as hell and I imagine most of the player base didn’t play them, myself included.
I played KSP and was waiting for performance to get better before buying KSP 2. Oh well.
IMO the user interface/controls/gameplay of BG1 just feels so dated compared to modern games. If you didn’t play it back in the day and have that extra nostalgia bonus when you go to play it now, you may just find yourself thinking the game is super clunky and wondering what all the hype was about.
That being said, the story is second to none, and the story of BG2 is arguably as good or better. So if you don’t mind the somewhat-dated play style and want a good story, they could be right up your alley.
Hmm I used to play old point and click Sierra games, so the interface can’t be worse than those I’m assuming. The question is do I have the patience now to figure it out lol
Some parts of the interface are actually pretty similar to the old Kings Quest/Quest for Glory games lol. For instance you still cycle through the cursor with a right click to look, talk, walk, and left left click to use the action shown by the cursor etc. The combat is substantially different, and sort of like KoTOR you can pause during combat and plan the next moves for all your party members. It also helps to have at least some understanding of AD&D’s combat system, THAC0 in particular, as that is what the combat is based on.
But yeah if you’ve been gaming long enough that you remember the golden age of Sierra games then you will probably be able to appreciate BG1 and 2
I haven’t played BG1 or 2. As I understand it, the only connection between the games is a couple of cameo characters. The main plot and characters of BG3 are completely original and independent.
However, it would be helpful to have some experience playing DnD and/or some vague knowledge of DnD lore.
As someone currently working in QA, they might have a bunch of high priority tasks related to monetization or partnerships with legal obligations. QA for things the consumer sees only needs to be prioritized enough to keep the profits vs. outrage ratio in the green
Comments section is pretty clear who read the article and who is only reacting to the title.
Helldivers 2 has weeks long campaigns where the entire playerbase has to defend certain planets. The "GM" keeps a close eye on progress of this event and manually adjusts it to make sure the campaign doesn't complete too soon.
There isn't some poor motherfucker staring at a screen watching the progress of each individual match spawning more bad guys whenever they feel like it.
This continuous evolution has actually seen Joel getting up at unsociable hours to sort out situations when the Helldivers 2 team realised the game wasn’t as balanced as it could be. “There have been some sudden moments where maybe one planet was too easy or one was too hard and [Joel] had to get up in the middle of the night to give the Automatons a bit of reinforcement so the players don’t take [the planet] too quickly,” Pilestedt said.
I don’t like when they remake a game I loved but they add a bunch to it like new gameplay mechanics, or make changes to stories or characters. That being said not all remakes are bad, probably most are just fine, but really not my cup of tea.
I greatly prefer a straight remaster. Just update the graphics, remaster the sound, maybe add a little more details to the game world, and I’m a happy dude.
I doubt a patch nor mod support will motivate me to play this game. This is the most empty Bethesda game they've released when they could've had something special if they had any ambition.
Haha, o god, no. Bit a guy like him would probably not even for a second think about working for them even of they would give him 100% of the funding they receive now (50k?)
eurogamer.net
Ważne