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 got a hunch that the team behind prepping the game for new hardware just didn’t have enough time to polish the port for DLC as well.
The outrageous prices are provably set by sales and/ or upper management anyway.
I kind of don’t get the urge for buying BotW on switch 2 if you alredy have it on original. Why not save your money on new games to play that are coming for thw system?
lol the Nintendo hate is so odd, 99% of games do. It come with the dlc. Unless you buy a season pass additionally. Why only call out Zelda for something that is normal and has been for a long time?
I mean generally if a company releases their game on a new console years after the original game came out it does include the DLC and is like a definitive edition. At least that’s how I remember it used to be when I actually bought console games.
ign.com
Ważne