Frostpunk was an amazing game, but I honestly don’t know that I ever want to play the sequel. The first one was so stressful. It was the game equivalent of Requiem for a Dream, ie the best game I never want to play again.
Worse (at least back then), the replayability plummeted a lot. Once the fear was gone, you played a couple times to see all the branches and min-max a bit. Once you did an extreme deathless run, it was as solved-problem as any puzzler (which in a way, it was).
I’m curious what a sequel would look like. If it’s a totally different puzzle to work out, it might be interesting.
From the images, though, it looks like it might be a bit more seamless an experience, where expanding beyond the initial burner is possible. That could change everything.
What a sad story. This person is no doubt now facing feelings of intense emptiness as well as a realization that a substantial part of their life has been wasted on something utterly meaningless and without value. I hope they make it through that darkness to find something else to occupy themselves with soon—hopefully something that results in happiness, knowledge and expertise this time around.
Despite some of the players complaining, a lot of the audience likes the pay-to-win mechanic. It's not a game funded purely by whales; a lot of average players will spend money on the loot boxes. "I like that it means I don't have to grind for ages, I don't have time for that" and "it feels like the sports trading cards I had when I was a kid" are a couple of the reasons I hear somewhat regularly. The idea that it could be designed to not be grindy in the first place doesn't even occur to them.
I am trying to convince my best friend to not buy the same cashgrab game every year but my mans just can’t stop himself. At least he doesn’t partake in any microtransactions.
CS2 feels like a downgrade from CSGO in a lot of ways, but CSGO at launch and CSGO at end of life were two completely different games, the same is probably true for CS2. Long term support is what keeps games going.
No peaking, iron sites, head turn, geometry grappling. CS is very much nostalgia mechanics. They started the competitive shooter genre, and they’re still here.
Actually this maybe should have been named Counter-Strike 3. 1 was the original based on HL1, 2 is the Source version, and this should be 3. CS:GO is a variant of Source version with different gaming modes. I wonder if a GO version of this new CS will appear.
Would anything drastic need to be done to a map to just load it up in CS2? I would assume the file format is at least the same and they’re built using Hammer.
I love it. I do wish they had opened up mods and community servers before launch but the core game plays and looks so good. Most of the missing modes were never core to the game, hopefully they add some of them back after reworking them later (DZ?). It runs even better than GO did on Linux too.
They're right that retail prices of AAA games are too low to make a profit. Which is why they've turned to microtransactions and dlc. However, the price of such games is too high, which means the budgets and profit expectations are too high. With the quality of games coming out lately, even $60 is too high. I can't imagine spending $70 or even $80 on a game.
To be fair to Capcom, I think that an ideal world for them would be not having to compete against games whose expectations and ideations are out-of-wack with the price point and requires huge sales numbers to even be profitable.
For example, SF6 has a full single player mode that exceeds any of the output of previous games. While the quality of this single player mode is sub-par, it's still very ambitious compared to their old method of releasing fighting games (Arcade mode and Versus mode, with some mini games -- that's all!) and it finds itself having to compete with other 60 dollar titles whose scope is often outlandish while knowing full well that a fighting game can never move FPS game figures, for example.
The 60 dollar game made a lot more sense in the era of the PS2 where games were often linear experiences, sometimes lightly to heavily cinematic. A game that was made like MGS2 could be sold today for 60 dollars and it would have a very hard time competing against huge blockbusters like Starfield, with some probably scoffing at the idea of paying 60 dollars for that experience. (See Armored Core 6 -- a good example of this that actually happened.)
They should just get rid of the expectations of sales numbers like what current AAA get. If we want better games, less people will buy them, because a good game isn't for everyone.
ign.com
Gorące