I do QA for a living, and that was an interesting read.
…VR is constantly innovating. But the work conditions for QA folks who learn the inside out of these technologies rarely are.
Welcome to the world of QA, where upper management is constantly asking, “What is the point of your department? Why shouldn’t we just roll this into Dev’s workload?”
Lots of people giving Netflix a hard time for “getting into gaming” but they’ve been curating a decent mobile games library lately. It includes this and some other cool things like editions of Dead Cells, Shovel Knight, Bloons TD6, GTAs III, VC, and SA. It’s nice to have more mobile options than the same old ad-ridden, free garbage on Google Play.
Controversial opinion but I actually am kinda sad to hear this. I remember really liking the OG Factions multiplayer games in TLOU 1. It was really refreshing at the time for multiplayer shooters, since you needed a lot of tactics and teamwork to get resources in order to craft tools and take out their other team. Really nerve-wracking, engaging gameplay at the time. And since you had one life per round, you couldn’t just run and gun like in CoD/BF.
I know that the multiplayer game they were coming out with wasn’t like this, but I would’ve been happy to play Factions again and relive the old days. Probably one of the last games that I’ve really enjoyed a multiplayer shooter.
I’m not convinced any online-only games are worth anyone’s time if they’re planned as a live service game from the get-go. When Halo: Infinite F2P multiplayer dropped, so many people on the Halo subreddit were like “yeah, it’s fun but the battlepass is so slow to progress that I feel like I don’t have a reason to keep playing.” Uhhhhh maybe keep playing because you’re having fun? Or do you need some artificial number to tell you to keep going?
Seems like a confusing shift in the target demographic where battlepasses and constant new updates are required in order to consider a game “worth your time.”
squeaky old man voice back in my day my brothers and I would play CoD: Zombies using the exact same strategies every day after school for years with no updates to the gameplay AND WE LIKED IT
Yeah I don’t get it either. Everyone rn is saying that Halo infinite multiplayer sucks because you “have to” pay for cosmetics or do lots of shit to progress the battlepass.
Literally all COSMETIC. Like it’s not even pay to win, just play the genuinely fun multiplayer game wtf
Yeah, if the game is fun then ignore the cosmetics. If you like the cosmetics enough, then buy the cosmetics. As long as gameplay elements aren’t locked behind a paywall, I see no problem.
Halo Infinite’s problem isn’t that there’s a store where you can buy cosmetic items. It’s that the game was built AROUND the store. Cosmetics took a priority over gameplay, features, etc.
The previous Halo games prioritized features over microtransactions. There are tons of articles lamenting all the things left out of Halo Infinite e.g. screenrant.com/halo-infinite-launch-missing-featu…
I see you were too young to have played previous Halo titles and so you immediately downvoted without giving a response. I’m sorry you’re too ignorant to realize what they stole from you.
Makes sense. The world moved on from Unreal Tournament for better or worse. You can’t just release and leave an online-only game any more. It has to be supported with years of content, or it’s never going to be popular and make it’s money back.
I’m going to guess it was always a small team ticking over in the background of Naughty Dog anyway. Their minute to minute gameplay is solid, but their stories and bombastic set-pieces are much more interesting and separate them from a crowd of pretenders.
There are actually still people playing the original Unreal Tournament from 1999 on public servers. I occasionally jump on one of them and it’s still the glorious chaos it always was!
Yeah, it’s still there, but it’s from a different era. If Naughty Dog could make TLOU Online for $2 million like UT was developed for, they’d have just done it. I suspect they’ve spent more than that just on market research, and the answer has been “gamers aren’t really interested”.
I mean, I like the TLOU and Uncharted games, honestly don’t think Naughty Dog has ever released a bad game since the PS1, but I can’t see my self playing some online multiplayer only bullshit version of it. The players that do want that have already got enormously successful games that they already play. Muscling one of them out of contention seems like a monumentally hard task for a small team to do.
I have hard time believing they had this great product they just didn’t want to support for a few years. Specially with how Sony has been dead set on having many live service games in its portfolio.
The flop of high profile titles like The Avengers showed that it’s no golden bullet.
Some gamers love a game they can play forever. Maybe others gamers dabble in it, but it’s time that becomes the limiting factor. I know people that every year buy CoD and FIFA and nothing else, and sure, they make unreasonable amounts of money, but there’s plenty more on the table to be had from gamers who don’t like that.
My biggest problem is that story doesn’t work if you do not sympathize with the funny muscle lady because the ending would be horrendous if you hate her, like I do.
Did you play it? If so, fair enough, but if not you’re missing out in my opinion. When it was announced i never believed i’d ever question whether a sequel could top the story told by the original, how could it? Playing through it a second time i do have that question now, it’s that good.
I had, I had a hard time with the conveniences in many of the cutscenes. The major problem for the story is that it really only works if you sympathize with Abby, if you don’t, then the ending just doesn’t… work.
If you spent 16 hours of gameplay with Abby and her story and her relationship with Lev and Owen and the rest of her friends and all you came away with is that she’s “the funny muscle lady”, then ya you did miss out on this game.
That’s nice and all, hey, do you remember that time that when Ellie pleaded with Abby not to kill Dina because she’s pregnant and then Abby responded with “good”?
Ya it was an intense scene! Why do you think Abby had that response? Because she’s a purely evil twisted character? or maybe because she was in a fit of rage after
spoilerlearning that Ellie had killed her pregnant friend Mel?
Are Ellie’s actions justified and Abby’s not? Why? I wasn’t trying to be mean by saying you missed out on this game, if you think Ellie’s actions are righteous and Abby’s are evil, you missed what the game was trying to tell you.
And you can get it next year on sale for $70 because fuck you you stupid consumer bitch that’s how it works here in Bethesda! Now go praise Starfield you fucking idiot!
gameinformer.com
Najnowsze