Thing is, it could be a good idea if they didn’t have such strict parity rules - play the game, but not necessity with the exact same features (ie, disabling split screen, but still allowing co-op). Heck, that could even have been a selling point to get people to “upgrade” to an X.
They pitched parity in the beginning which is what I based what I thoughts on, 100% agree with you on that. Even if the dropped the expectations on how well it’s supposed to run… Drop it to a 720p console
Yall windows gamers be acting like the only computers people own are windows. It’s a huge pain to run a number of games on Linux. And don’t get me started on Mac support.
It’s a lot better than it used to be, from a Linux perspective. I switched to Mint a few months ago and it can be a bit fiddly, but I haven’t had any real issues with any of the games I’ve tried. Admittedly, that’s all through Steam, but still.
It sounds like a dumb idea, but I kind of see where he's coming from at least that it would be easier for developers. Admittedly consoles today are a lot closer in specs than they use to be, but you still have issues crop up like Larian Studios having to delay BG3 for Series X because they have to get split-screen working on Series S before it can launch. So I can see the appeal of only having to develop games on one console. But I don't really see the benefit to players, since whoever made the one console would have a monopoly on the market.
What are all of your general expectations for Starfield? I feel like in my corner of the internet, people are generally being very skeptical and pessimistic. I think this is fair, based on the last few years of Bethesda.
I didn't love fallout, but mostly because of the dinky crafted weapons and their handling and the fact that you almost had to use VATS to make it work. They're damn good at making giant worlds worth exploring, and the gunplay looks a lot more fluid than fallout. I like the premise of highly customizable shipbuilding a lot more than fallout's settlements, too. It's far from guaranteed to be great, but "sci-fi Skyrim with enough engine improvements for guns to feel OK" is extremely promising to me. There's a reason Skyrim is still selling copies a decade later when the mechanics are super limited by age, and if they're able to bring the same world building to space exploration I'm all for it.
I'm not going to get it. I just don't like the bethesda style for their recent stuff. I didn't like fallout 4 at all. My favorite bethesda game is tied between daggerfall and morrowind.
I’m a lifelong Diablo fan, so I’ll probably pick this up next week. One thing that bugs me is that folks keeps saying “it’s just cosmetics”. To me, this ignores the fact that, since Diablo 3, your character’s look is part of the fun. That cool armor you just found looks cool too. Now I worry that the gear is going to look boring so that you’re subtly nudged in the direction of buying cosmetics.
Basically, I still want to be able to play dress-up.
I played the first one but after that the formula felt pretty samey and I was bored of it. Would a fourth Borderlands game even be good if it wasn’t laggy?
If you’re not able to commit to learning new strategies and using game mechanics to adapt to a game’s difficulty, and experience it as the developers intended, maybe it’s not for you. You can always watch a lore video or let’s play by other gamers to get the story if that’s the goal. This is Dark Souls 2 all over again, and I will personally say as someone who initially hated it, then gave it another chance; When you persist and triumph through grit, the game leaves a lasting impression and sense of accomplishment that you cheat yourself out of with a difficulty slider. That’s my favorite game in the series now, which is a deeply unpopular opinion, unsurprisingly.
This debate pops up every now and then and my opinion remains the same, there are plenty of games that aren’t meant to be a challenge to choose from. Part of games that are built to be a challenge is being able to reflect on how far you grew in the process, and people hate to hear it but ‘git gud’ is a real thing for those who believe things worth doing are hard.
Runbacks are a lame attempt at artificially increasing difficulty. I’ll happily die on that hill. I love difficult games, but there is a fine line between frustration and difficult.
Elden Ring (at least all the bits I played through) and Sekiro absolutely nailed it. None of the run backs were particularly egregious, and it let me really focus on experimenting and learning to feel out the difficult fights. Celeste is another good example. I have dropped hours on some of the later levels trying to master them, but never once got frustrated.
Hollow Knight I never finished because I got stuck on a boss and the runback was just way too long and annoying. I loved everything else about the game and want to finish it eventually.
Edit: I think they have their place as “mods” that you could enable to increase difficulty, and i’d actually probably enjoy it that way. Just designing the game around them is where i draw the line.
To be fair, From has like many games to learn from that while Cherry only has HK. I’ll never forget the sheer pain of the Frigid Outskirts from Dark Souls 2.
To me it feels like “if you don’t survive the journey, you’re too weak for the boss itself” it brings me down and makes me calmer until I reach the boss.
I like them because it forces you to try to salvage a fight instead of just conceding after a bad start. The time spent getting to the boss is investment you don’t want to waste.
I think this is really just an issue of the tools and abilities not being inherently linked to the related bosses.
FYI quickhop attacking is faster than ground combos and you can weave in the trio dagger throws when you are dodging away from close attacks. Also your attack will negate enemy attacks weapon hitbox(but you still have to dodge bodily contact). The poison tool upgrade is overbalanced and makes a lot of fights a joke.
ign.com
Ważne