The indie and AA scene have finally started catching up to those tastes of mine that AAA left behind in the racing genre, for what it’s worth. What are you looking for?
I mean, I would take a Burnout instead. I just wonder if it'd make sense to try that at this point with a completely different market and group of people. I guess we can see if they figure out that Skate reboot and go from there.
I think the Criterion Hot Pursuit and Most Wanted games are underrated. I get why, they're very Burnout-y for NFS fans but don't play just like Burnout, but man, are they sticky and precise and smooth.
Both MW and Paradise have very quirky handling built for their open worlds, but I honestly really love both.
Paradise is such a perfect little gem of a small open world that is entirely consistent and has super clear design rules, sometimes to a fault. MW is a super smooth, compulsive expansion on that. They both hold up amazingly well today, even visually.
I just don’t want to be navigating while going 200mph. The big goofy arrow barriers are part of the Burnout experience, and Paradise not having them to keep me on track kills it for me.
Also, I embrace Takedowns, but reject Traffic Checking. This is the way. It’s all about the tiny pinpricks of light in the distance rapidly becoming metal walls of death. If you’re not in the oncoming lane, that’s not Burnout
Yeah, Paradise is built on you learning the map. I have a hard time wrapping my head around how hard doing that is fresh because man, is that map seared into my brain forever now.
Traffic checking is weird because I want to dislike it on principle coming from 3, but... yeah, I kinda really like the games that include it, too. Like, reluctantly. I see how it breaks something at the core of the Burnout idea, but also... it's really satisfying and makes the game more pleasant to play, even if acknowledging that feels wrong.
The worst part of that most wanted is that its called most wanted. It’s a great game but it’s name causes it to create comparisons to the og most wanted which for most, myself included, have big nostalgia for
Yeah, I skipped over the original and when I went back to it I genuinely couldn't see what the fuss is about.
My biggest gripe with the remake ended up being that it felt a bit weird after coming from playing a bunch of Hot Pursuit, but I ended up playing an absolute ton of MW once I got used to the way it drives.
I couldn't tell you why they chose to reuse titles for those two games, though.
I’m a huge (old) nfs fan, and I love HP '10 and MW '12. It’s no U2 but both are damn good games. I fired up MW not too long ago, just to cruise.
Burnout was the shit too. Mostly for Crash Mode. Paradise was cool with the open-world but them kneecapping crash for whatever the fuck they called ‘bounce your car endlessly down the street’ mode was fucking atrocious. EA selling the ‘ultimate box’ on the pc without the fucking island - and no way to get it - was bullshit, always been pissed of about that.
That’s fine; I lost interest in the series after Underground. NFS was ruined for me anyway when I learned what Rubberband AI was. (Which was also around the same time I started driving real cars, and thus began realizing just how terrible the physics are in all but the most hardcore sim racers.)
I know everyone loves to hate Ubisoft, but this is quite the common term. Also it only even applies when the agreement is terminated, I don’t even know how that would look like. I have never heard about a usage agreement being terminated, unless you yourself violate it (e.g. get banned for cheating).
This is why I’ve been boycotting Ubisoft for literal decades now. I refuse to even pirate their shit. Fuck them. They used to be cool company in the 90s, had bunch of cool franchises and then turned into this soulless greedy corporate bullshit just being absolute dicks to gamers and releasing all games with identical concept to Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry, for 20 games in a row…
IANAL but wasn’t that text just some “standard” legalese relating to the way they license software and it was basically unenforceable anyway? I know it’s cool to pick on ubisoft for being a shit company, but BG3 had a similar requirement in the game’s EULA: https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/35f2d0ff-69f1-4dea-95ba-79e0154893a8.png
I can’t find it on GOG’s but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s in most EULAs. I’ve seen emails saying “confidential, if you are not the intended recipient of this email you must delete it.” There’s no way to enforce that. Ubisoft isn’t coming to your house to review the contents of your drives. I’m guessing it’s to stop some loophole like “you said I can’t resell your game so instead I sold my hard drive (that has the game installed on it)”.
I read it the same way you did. If you want to terminate the EULA, then they request you remove your copies of the game. In that snippet it says nothing about them arbitrary demand you delete all your copies.
Exactly this. And it's kind of logical actually, when you go crazy like writing Larian "fuck this shit I hate the game, you can shove it up your ass" it's no surprise you're fed up with the game and don't want to have it anymore. It's like when you literally destroyed diskette/CD/DVD back then in a rage (or fighting addiction).
They both are. Both agreements can be terminated for any reason. Larion’s says nothing that would prevent them from terminating the agreement, it only clarifies that the signer can. There’s no real difference here.
yes but there’s still a EULA you agree to about redistribution and how you’re allowed to use the software etc…even FOSS software has licenses. if there’s terms in there about being able to back out of the agreement, i’d imagine there would be a clause about destroying copies of the software
Because a good lawyer looks for any sort of far reaching authority they can legally get away with, and will continues to push boundaries as legally far as they can until they get challenged. All in the name of protecting their clients from liability.
I don’t like it, but I get it. And these things can fall apart when challenged in court or public opinion.
Makes me think of the guy who died from an allergy at Disney land and Disney tried to say he couldn’t sue because of his Disney plus agreement.
Lawyers put in all kinds of legal clauses specifically to try and avoid any and all liability on anything imaginable or unimaginable. Most times it’s beyond what anyone would call reasonable. But we aren’t dealing with reasonable people.
Say I broke a game disk that they told me I had to destroy and I cut myself on it, deep enough to need medical attention. I wonder if I could sue them for the costs, since they specifically told me I had to break my game.
It seems like the relevant section in the Ubisoft EULA says
“Upon termination for any reason, You must immediately uninstall the Product and destroy all copies of the Product in Your possession.”
I read this wording of this to be stricter than the BG3 example you shared, because the BG3 one seems to be saying “if you don’t agree to this EULA (or if you agree, but later terminate that agreement), then you must uninstall the game”. Whereas the Ubisoft one seems to include Ubisoft terminating the agreement, rather than just the user. That’s just my interpretation of these snippets though, as someone who is not a lawyer. It’s possible that the BG3 EULA also includes other parts that would mean similar to what people are unhappy about on the Ubisoft EULA
Here I though offline mode for The Crew 2 was a small step in the right direction or an olive branch. This is what I get for being optimistic I guess lol
notebookcheck.net
Aktywne