The meteors are funny IMO. But it definitely isn’t good game design to have a mechanic where you just randomly die with no way to defend yourself.
Also people need to chill out. Things get buffed and nerfed. The meta changes. We are already getting our first taste of power creep with the mech suits.
There’s a couple of actors in my province that had a hard time finding work after playing a certain role because people were mad at them personally and producers didn’t want to touch them with a 10’ pole!
OK, so let’s assume that’s a good faith literal interpretation.
Let’s try it this way.
Yes, it possibly would be considered more logical, but people who threaten kids over videogames aren’t generally considered to be working with an abundance of logical thought.
I could however be wrong in this generalisation given I only have my experience to go on, if your experience leads you to believe people who threaten kids over videogames are not running with a logic deficit then your statement makes sense I suppose.
Yes, it possibly would be considered more logical, but people who threaten kids over videogames aren’t generally considered to be working with an abundance of logical thought.
You’re just repeating yourself.
“Logical” is not a binary position. It’s a spectrum.
I don’t care about abby and her physical appearance, my issue was purely the santa Barbara section. Had the game ended before that started it would have been fine. By then ellie was fine leaving abby alive as killing abbys friends had not helped her process the death of Joel. They just extended the story for no reason and it made it worse
I think different people have different reasons for disliking it.
For me it’s the writing. Specifically: the first half does it very best to make you hate a specific character, then the the second half has you play that character. I get what the writers were trying to do. The problem I have with it that is doesn’t make for a fun game. I don’t want to play a character I hate.
The writers were so intent on making a specific point that they forgot that they were making a video game. A video game is different from e.g. a movie in that the player is a part of the story, they take on the role of the character they are playing.
For this to work there has to be some part of the character the player can identify with. When playing Ellie, the player can identify with the rage she’s feeling. For Abby, there’s nothing to identify with. She’s mad that Joel killed her father but Joel was entirely justified in killing him. Her father was a bad person and deserved to die.
It makes it very hard for me to put myself in her shoes. As a result I just didn’t enjoy playing as her and quit the game after realizing that it wasn’t just a short section but the entire second half of the game.
Because writing has no face, you can't show writing how much you hate it, because it doesn't change and has no feelings. Meanwhile an actor does. It's just stupid emotional stuff.
TBF, she did go on a tirad against players when the game was getting ciriticized. I found it weird that she took the criticism of the game’s writing so personally despite her not being one of the writers.
Keep in mind that I’m not excusing the death theats. That shit isn’t okay. I’m just pointing out why she may have been targeted for harassment.
Seems like a good time to go indie. Big game companies are bloated and unhealthy. Specialization is so niche that there clearly isn’t the kind of interdepartmental communication there ought to be, and it’s pretty obvious that the money people have their hands in way too much.
That doesn’t seem to me like an environment that’s conducive to art.
HogLeg’s success is pretty crazy if you think about it. Ignoring the sales we’ve looking at today, take yourself back to the launch of HogLeg. It kept up pace with Fallout 4 in terms of active players and achievement completion rates. This is huge to me. They’re both singleplayer RPGs, so they’re both vying for the same type of audience. *But.*Fallout 4 was a hugely anticipated sequel to one of the most renowned series in all of gaming. Harry Potter had almost no presence in gaming beyond nostalgic shovel ware titles.
Fallout 4 was developed by gaming darlings, a company known for producing huge open worlds with strong volumes of content. HogLeg was developed by shovelware developers with no major releases in their history.
Fallout 4 is a first person looter shooter, one of the most ubiquitous and successful genres out there. HogLeg is an action roleplaying game, still admittedly a safe genre but doesn’t have the genre conventions that makes it possible for anyone with FPS experience to pick up a Fallout.
And finally, Fallout 4 targeted gamers. It’s a gamer’s game, you know? It’s for lore nerds and RPG fans and tacticool nuts and all the rest. HogLeg was for Harry Potter fans. It needed to drag fans across media types to secure a big enough audience.
I truly, truly did not expect HogLeg to find the success it has. And to be honest, it’s quite a mid game! It’s a visual accomplishment and adherence to the universe means that it’s a treat for any Harry Potter nerds, but the rest of the game is as close as generic as it could get.
And finally, Fallout 4 targeted gamers. It’s a gamer’s game, you know? It’s for lore nerds and RPG fans and tacticool nuts and all the rest. HogLeg was for Harry Potter fans. It needed to drag fans across media types to secure a big enough audience.
This is… perhaps, the very formula for its success. Perhaps the gaming crowd isn’t that big. Perhaps, HL was not chained to a particular demographic and instead had the freedom to appeal to a wider audience.
I know of people who picked up a controller for the first time in their life because HL was a Harry Potter game… just saying.
Yeah, I feel like their logic is circular. Choosing to actively ignore the fact that the game is based off one of the most popular book series in the entire world is frustratingly dense, and feels like they’re stanning for the sake of it. From what I understand, the game is ridiculously repetitive, and is genuinely riding solely off of the popularity of the book series.
My wife is a big Harry Potter fan but has mixed feelings about it. She described the game this morning as not great but not bad either, with great graphics, but also with an indecisiveness to it that suggests too many cooks in the kitchen.
With that said, that’s just one opinion. The game seems outstandingly popular. She felt it’s worth the money if you can get it on sale in her personal opinion.
My wife and I had the same opinion. Magical to run around the castle for a few hours and do the early classes, surprisingly good combat mechanics, but then… Nothing.
It is really hurt by the inclusion of brooms. They necessitate a huge world so you can’t cross it in a minute, but then it’s too spread out and empty. At least in Ghost Recon my world-design-crippling flying devices have rockets and gattling guns.
Totally agree with this. The first few hours were great but then when you get the broom and you see the huge open space that’s just really lacking. I really wish it never went to that scale.
You may hit the nail on the head, once you get the broom you just breeze past everyhring. The forbidden forest may be the most dense content wise on foot, everything after that does feel more sparse as it was designed with the broom in mind. All in all I still enjoyed the game and got my moneys worth out of it, I did pick it up rather cheap on a sale
Thanks! I think I’ll hold off on this title. I don’t have much time for gaming and open world games can be got it miss for me. This one sounds like it might be a miss.
I got it on sale in December and think it’s worth it. I’m not a huge HP fan by any stretch but was impressed by the mechanics, they’re fun. Though as the game opens up you start to spot the tedious shit all open worlds tend to throw in to keep you busy. I just ignore that shit.
I’ve been enjoying the game as well. Not so much the story, or even “day by day” quest line its had. Once you get into the game and it opens though as the last guy said, it also has a lot of fun activities. You can also customize youre own “room” with the many magical creatures you can find as well.
If you liked the books, and just want to enjoy the game to feel what it might be like as a wizard than its an awesome game.
It’s extremely popular because it is a well polished Harry Potter game; something the world has been begging for for a long time. It does invoke that sense of magic that the films do so well, so if you’re just looking to get a fresh hit of the Hogwarts world it’s great. There are also a lot of really interesting and well designed characters. Most of all the world, particularly the castle, is beautifully and lovingly crafted.
The game buried beneath all that polish is a pretty basic-ass RPG. It is crammed with filler fetch/find quests. The dialogue system is just another exhaust all options non-system. The combat has some really cool ideas on paper but I personally ended up mostly mashing buttons against one of like 5 generic enemies most of the time. Also the only customization in this RPG is your appearance.
It’s not a bad game by any means, but i wouldn’t say it’s great either.
I also agree with the above statements. The best way I could describe it is that while the gameplay wasn’t all that spectacular, experiencing the game world was definitely a treat, and made me smile like I did the first time I opened the first Harry Potter book or played the first games that game out on PS1!
Haha! I actually listened to the audiobooks on the lead up to the release to get myself in that warm and cozy mindset for the game. Those books are like comfort food for my soul.
Can you give me some of your opinions on it? I made it to book 3 of Lord of the Rings, and just couldn’t put up with the purple writing any longer. Segments just seemed to drag on and on and on just to get through some dialogue that could’ve been said with a lot less flowery prose. It was charming at first, but I couldn’t put up with it any longer by book three, at least going back to back. I will finish it one day though! 😭
Ill preface with the fact that overall I think it’s more than worth your time, and is one of the greatest works of fiction ever made. That being said, it takes a little work to read as it is a VERY long series, and does a lot of worldbuilding. There is a point towards the middle where the “depth of field” of the story increases dramatically, and from my experience and my friend who has also read them, that is typically a burnout point. There isnt as much prose as in Tolkien’s works, though some of that is just cultural/temporal, but Robert Jordan was definitely in love with the story and takes the time to describe things fairly often. Im confident you’re likely to greatly enjoy the first three books and the last few books, but the middle could be a stumbling block.
Additionally, if you aren’t aware already, RJ passed away before the last book(s) could be finished and his wife arranged for Brandon Sanderson to collate all of the drafts and notes and conjure up a conclusion, which could definitely be something to consider. Personally, I was already a Brandon Sanderson fan before I read WoT, and I loved the ending.
One last thing, if you are deterred by the series or not ready to try it yet but still want a less-daunting rec, I love to recommend the Licanius Trilogy by James Islington. It is a reasonable length, it is one complete story, and it is just 🤌. End rant
edit: I forgot to mention that I am an audiobook-oriented person and greatly prefer them for the wheel of time. They’re narrated by Michael Kramer and Kate Reading, and they are EXCELLENT narrators.
You’ve got a friend in me, as the only times I have to allocate towards books is the hour commute to and from work every day, I will listen to my audiobooks that I have found or that have been recommended by wonderful people like you!
I will give the Wheel of Time and even the Licanius Trilogy a go, as I do like the epicness of LotR!
It is crazy how narrators can make or break some books though, isn’t it?!
Also, I just finished Fahrenheit 451, and the narrator had the “golden-age” of radio kinda voice and made it so much better than if I was just reading it myself!
Thank you again for taking the time out of your day to gush about something you love! 😁
If you do like Wheel of Time it’s always worth giving Brandon himself a shot as well. He’s busy writing his own universe called Cosmere. It’s got a few different series based on different planets and magic systems that can mostly be read as standalones, but they are also connected in… let’s just say ‘certain ways’ for now. Mistborn is a popular starting point. Personally I think ‘Emperor’s Soul’ is better if you want to try out his writing style, since it’s only about 100 pages or so.
If you aren’t sure, wait for a big sale. I quite enjoyed the game, but other than being a massively-popular IP, I’m not sure why it’s getting so much acclaim. It’s big, it’s Harry Potter (with all the attention to detail that usually gets), and it’s an RPG. If it wasn’t HP, it’d be another good indie game, and that’s it.
It’s a casual game that lets you run around the world of harry potter casting spells at people and things, solving puzzles, and wearing silly wizard clothes. If that sounds good to you then it’s good.
If you’re a HP fan the game is a no-brainer. But if not I suggest finding another AAA RPG game. I borrowed my friend’s copy via family sharing and I only got maybe around 4-5 hours in before I got bored and uninstalled the game.
The character customization is pretty good. Mostly just face and hair iirc but there’s a good bit of options. You can also customize your wand. That’s the most important bit I’d say.
I’d say if you’ve ever wondered what it be like to just wander about the castle, it’s well worth it. It’s cheaper than going to say universal studios or the Warner Brothers lot in London…
But there’s actually very little gameplay in the castle around areas you recognize from the books or movies. It doesn’t take long until you’re throwing into a very generic game with a thin coat of Harry Potter paint applied. There’s a lot of samey quests and combat doesn’t really evolve ever.
For most games, I’m fine with renting my games. If they charge a reasonable continuous rental fee and not a crazy one-off price that will make the game available for some unspecified amount of time at the publisher’s discretion. For example, I could imagine paying $2 / month to play Assassin’s Creed. And if it turns out to be boring I can just stop renting it.
So you’ve had the game for 3 years and you’ve now payed more than the retail price. Are you going to keep paying for it, or do you expect it to be “yours”. Also, as with most things digital, let’s say you invest a hundred hours, almost get to the end and…. They decide to yank the game from their service. No ending for you. Thoughts on that? Both are very real scenarios by “renting” the game.
To be fair nobody plays *JUST one single game for 3 years. Economically speaking it is more affordable to pay the subscription than to buy it. That said there are no guarantees they won't raise prices. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually decide to include ads and add limits eventually. There's not even an expectation of control by the users.
But we have seen enough of how streaming libraries change and split. Losing access to your favorite game is an almost inevitable eventuality.
Skyrim, Fallout 4, RDR2, Witcher 3, The Sims, Dark Souls, Civilization, Borderlands 1/2, Stardew Valley, Persona…
Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean there aren’t people that come back again and again between games to dust off an old favorite. While I personally never touched Fallout 4 again after beating it, I’ll break out my XBox 360 and give New Vegas a whirl to see what character concept I’ll try this time.
You are confusing my argument. You listed me 10+ games. If you paid $2/mo for 3 years and got to own a game for it, that would be enough for a couple of them at most. I'm not saying old games are not worth playing. I'm saying that if you had to pick between buying all the games you like or paying for a subscription, most likely the subscription would be more affordable. Because ultimately you played more than a single game.
To be fair nobody plays just one single game for 3 years (they play multiple)
rather than
To be fair nobody plays one game for 3 years (they are too old)
The former complements the following argument regarding how costly buying vs subscribing would be. The latter doesn't work with the following paragraph that lists the unreliability of subscription libraries as a downside.
I never mentioned age. I mentioned games that are played for thousands of hours. Meaning that the value of those games far exceeds the value of the subscription. Furthermore, then the subscription ends (including when pulling games that are too old) and you are left without the game you have been sinking an incredible amount of time into just because some suits determined that not enough people play X game to warrant providing server space.
You really seem to want to argue with me but I don't think you understood what I was saying to begin with. I'm not saying subscriptions are better, I'm saying they are more economical but unreliable, and I am saying that you, who listed 10+ great games you played a lot, didn't get only a single one. It also doesn't mean there won't ever be any new game you like.
You know, 10 games × $60 > $2 × 12mo × 3y
Though Ubisoft is $18/mo and games are $70 now. Ubisoft Club is a bad deal but Game Pass is still ends up cheaper at $10/mo. But I digress,
You’re also not taking into account subscription price hikes, policies dictating what you can and can’t do with the software, media availability without internet, surveillance and data selling.
Netflix has doubled their fees in the last ten years while hemorrhaging beloved content to other streaming services.
Netflix and others dictate that you’re not allowed to siphon the shows and movies to watch later, at a time and place that may be inconvenient for the service (such as removing it).
Go anywhere without internet and suddenly all of your paid options don’t exist. That may be resolved one day by unlimited internet everywhere, but that leads into…
These streaming services will know where you are and what you’re doing all the time. Surveillance in general has only gotten worse, and watchdogs may be vigilant but it’s not blunting how much privacy is being stripped away from you on a regular basis.
The price you’re paying isn’t just dollars and it’s not locked in forever.
That said there are no guarantees they won't raise prices.
Yup. You just want to argue and decided you'll be doing it at me for whatever reason. This is literally on my first comment that you replied to.
You convinced yourself I'm advocating for subscription as The Future, rather than just conceding one point on economic grounds. Meanwhile in this thread you could find me arguing that DRM-free backups is the only true guaranteed way to own digital media.
It can go however far you want. Even if you say you'll play these games for the rest of your life, at $2/mo buying it only becomes more economically worthwhile if you entirely quit getting games entirely. I emphasize, economically. Now, if we take Game Pass, depending on where you live buying might be more worthwhile if you get 2 or less full-priced games a year. In my country Game Pass is cheaper than 2 games
You’ll lose access to games by virtue of lack of support. Systems will change, libraries and dependencies will fall out of sync with requirements, and “the games you love” will be forgotten by devs (though not in all cases).
I used to play a really fun game on MacOS (pre-X) called Glider Pro. There was no easy way to play it, since you’d have to emulate a MacOS 9 system. Only recently did the original devs upload the files to GitHub and open the source. Some smart people then forked the repo and made it playable on various systems.
And that’s just one game. Lots more are now lost to time, and yet we’ve all collectively been able to continue gaming.
This sort of argument is just a way to cope with the erosion of customer rights and the overreach of corporations over digital media as if that's some inevitable entropy of the universe type of thing. We still have books that are thousands of years old, but even though we have better technological means to store and reproduce media than ever, arbitrary legal hurdles are leading people to treat cultural loss as an inevitability.
You got your answer in your own response. Emulators are a thing. Virtual Machines are a thing. Proton is a thing. We figured out how to recover games going as far back as the Atari. Unless actively and fiercely obstructed people will figure out how to keep these things available out of sheer passion and goodwill.
A DRM-free installer/executable for a game, when properly backed up, will still be playable most likely indefinitely.
Unfortunately, as the mention of DRM itself indicates, obstructions are plentiful and ever increasing. This is why supporting DRM-free media and open platforms is valuable. Can you imagine what people could do if they were empowered instead of obstructed?
I’m old enough to remember a time before DRM. My point wasn’t that it’s not valuable to fight for consumer rights, but that some software will inevitably be lost in spite of efforts to preserve it.
It’s not an erosion of consumer rights, so much as it’s accepting that time comes for us all; hell, I have countless games I’m never going to revisit, and neither is anyone else. Does it truly matter that I own them, if I know I’m not going to play them again?
To be clear, I’m not proposing this model for everything in life, but where games are concerned, I think there’s a lot of collectors and archivers who think they speak for people like me, and I’m really just along for the ride.
With the means that we have, that anywhere in the world a dozen people can figure out how to get very niche things adapted in one way or another into different systems, and countless people can keep media on thumb drives rather than needing entire climate controlled libraries, something has to be very, very, extremely obscure for it to be completely lost, and even then there are people for which the obscurity of something is the very thing that makes it appealing.
I don't think you are technically incorrect to some extent that some things will inevitably disappear, but I would still scratch it far more to imposed legal and technical restrictions than to the futility of fighting time.
Say, every single online or mobile game that closes and is completely lost? It's 100% on the erosion of customer rights, exclusively. We have today the technology to keep them running and people willing to do it. It's just that business and contracts defined that, no matter how much people have spend on them, they don't get access to essential server files necessary to keep it running. This is not "time coming for us all", it's selfish businesses enabled by a law with no regards for cultural preservation.
Meanwhile the MAME project year after year figures out how to run incredibly niche arcade titles from decades ago. Even with all the challenges and obstructions.
Really, take a moment to really admire, that with all the struggles and limitations that we have, you as an individual human being, can with a handheld device, access and personally store thousands of Public Domain books from the Gutemberg Project, the entirety of Wikipedia, several full collections of every single game released for multiple consoles, including prototypes, hacks and homebrew. A single person can do that much. Ozymandias' statue may crumble to dust but his history lives on, in someone's pocket.
Maybe to you all that effort is pointless. Maybe it's be easier to just let it go. But there's a whole world of other people who might be interested in it. Maybe you just care about one single game. But a different person cares about a different single game. In a world of billions, how many different things might people care about?
If you talk to me about the inexorable advance of time, I'll still be on the side of the indomitable human spirit.
I play single games for years with a bit of other games mixed in. I played Diablo 1, 2 and 3, World of Warcraft (already a sub, of course), Minecraft, and Skyrim for many years each. You could maybe put Team Fortress 2 in there but I didn’t continue going back to that well nearly as long as the others - I hate lootbox shit and I miss the days when skill and strategy was the only difference between players. I would totally play TF2 vanilla, though.
I’m sure I will continue to play Diablo 3 (4 does nothing for me) and Skyrim for years to come. So we do exist, however we are probably an unknown and unserved group since we don’t tend to pour a bunch of money and time into new games. I do have 800 hours into Baldur’s Gate 3. I’m going to regret having that on console instead of Steam, I’m sure. Probably wind up buying that one twice.
I think renting should be renting, and purchasing should be purchasing. I’m okay with renting and what that entails (e.g. they might remove the service in the future and I won’t ever own the game). I’m also fine with buying games, and for some games that have a lot of sentimental value or replayability I do want to own them.
What I’m not okay with is the current state of affairs, where they make it seem as if you buy the game and you pay full price, but legally it’s only “licensed” to you and the license can be revoked at any time. It’s all the disadvantages you describe with renting, but with the price of buying. So that’s what I had in mind with my comment: I’d be content instead of angry if they offered a rental service with honest terms of service and a fair price, instead of the bullshit they’re pulling right now.
If there was a proper rental service I would likely rent a lot of games that I wanted to try out. Then I would go to GOG to buy DRM-free versions of the games I want to keep for a long time. Games like Civ5, RimWorld and Cyberpunk 2077. I think I wouldn’t need to rent a game for three years to figure out that I want to buy it, more like a month.
I’m with you. It’s hip to hate on Ubisoft, but I’m of the impression that subscription based gaming has already gained traction with Game Pass. The article is spot on though when the author remarks that Ubisoft offering their library at 18$ a month is a hard bargain. Especially considering Game Pass is currently at 10$ a month… and includes Assassin’s Creed Valhalla, Origins & Odyssey.
I’ve said before that being a PS Plus subscriber has changed the types of games I play by making indie games more accessible to try, with low stakes. Prior, I usually reserved my funds for what I assumed was the biggest bang with AAA titles.
There’s value there with having a library of games to just try out. That being said, the trajectory of subscription services generally and “digital ownership” (see Playstation’s recent Discovery kerfuffle) is really concerning.
I think Ubisoft’s mindset here is on the wrong track (surprise…). Luckily, as others have said, there’s not a lot of temptation here for Ubisoft’s modern library (Prince of Persia being an admitted exception).
For this to work it would have to be like, hourly or minutely billing. This takes care of the multiple games issue as you’ll likely never play more than one at a time and don’t pay for the time you don’t play it that month. You can try a game for a few days or a week and stop playing and also stop paying. You can try some indie games because you’d only be spending $0.05/hr or something.
Or you just have to include a whole library of games like Game Pass or access to all of Steam or something which would allow you to hop games yet not own them.
I’d still want to be able buy games I intend on playing for years (like Skyrim or Civ or City Skylines). So maybe a “rent to own” scheme would be cool.
I wish rent-to-own was a more common model. Unfortunately the only examples I know of in real life involve customers paying several times the retail cost of the items they rent before they actually own them.
What I’d really like to see is a system that keeps rental and purchase prices roughly where they are, except that once you’ve paid rental fees equal to the purchase price, it counts as a purchase. That would relieve me of having to guess whether I’ll be using something enough to buy it, and I doubt it would hurt seller’s profits.
For digital goods you would be right about sellers profits (to a degree, discarding the minuscule amount of interest the money of your purchase could accrue), for physical the use does degrade the worth faster so the seller would loose out.
Piracy is a very noble endeavor to keep alive. Thank you Ubisoft for keeping us on our toes instead of being complacent with trusting digital platforms. Piracy is the true preservation and ownership.
We all could see that Unity’s layoff was coming, that pricing backlash not only drove away many developers, also probably was driven by troubling financial within the organization.
Twitch is sort of unexpected, but when I see the number of impromptu rules they rolled out and rolled back last year, whether from restricting multi-streaming, to limiting showing brands logo on stream, to restricting / unrestricting female streamers from showing too much skin, etc. I assume that means that even with all those intrusive ads, Twitch is still losing money.
I guess from now on, when a tech company starts to arbitrarily change their T&C / rules to either protect their revenue / market share, and maybe rolling back from backlashes, then it’s a sign that there’s trouble brewing (if you work at those companies, beware)
I just bought the only game I’ll likely ever buy on EGS. It was Alan Wake 2. Being published by Epic, it will unlikely ever be anywhere else until EGS shuts down.
My justifications are as follows: I love the developer and want to support them.
That’s it. The experience was… fine, but far from streamlined. The Epic achievement system is terrible. Imagine walking around in a horror game, immersed in the atmosphere, then a loud cheery mobile app chime blaps through your headphones and a giant banner splatters across the top of your screen announcing your achievement totally jarring you out of the atmosphere.
Then, imagine you find out you can turn on a ‘do not disturb’ mode by pressing shift+f3, then imagine you need to turn it on every time you launch the game. That’s the Epic Games Store experience in a nutshell.
I tried, it's unwatchable. Some zero-year-old charlatan trying to hype up stealing other people's work, intercut with short clips of his colleagues laughing for some reason.
I don’t really see the “sucking trump’s dick” aspect there. Most of the video is spent going over the legal framework that was being used by the administration with little to no editorializing. And the end of the video directly calls the politicization of the emergency powers a threat. If anything, I’d say the video was critical of trump, not supportive of him.
Well, I had seen them partner with Black Rifle Coffee at some point, which is a pretty pro-MAGA branded company. Their content doesn’t seem to lean that way though.
I’ve got a question. Does anyone really care if the specs are x.xxGhz and XGB of RAM? It’ll be +YGhz and YGB of RAM more than the last generation at least.
As long as it can still play the games then no. If it can’t handle new generation games then obviously that’s an issue. Just like devs game up on games for older Gen consoles.
If you have a switch for Zelda and only Nintendo games then you are probably golden. It’s only really an issue for games being ported over. They will require more power for those games. Not graphics but actually to run the beasts.
kotaku.com
Ważne