I’m not from us but I’m holding off buying since the first tease. That little thingy that pop out from the switch and goes onside the controller looks worrisomely flimsy. It breaks and is no more docked mode anymore. Hell probably no more charging.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Are you talking about the Joycons? The ones from the switch 1 are less flimsy than they look Photo of the Joycons sitting on a table
Also, these are not required for docked mode (if you have another controller, of course. You need a way of controlling the console), not required for charging and you can buy new ones if you lose or break the ones that come with the console.
No no I mean in the console the black thingy that reminds a micro sd card. Is rarely shown in pics. That thing looks like it will break any day really 1000012036
I’ve heard “it’s made of metal” but still I do not think it’s a good design. You have magetic clamps it should align enough for a contact surface thingy. Edit: seems to be called pogo pin.
At least for me, we had 2/4 joycons develop stick drift and we had to replace the sticks with magnetic ones. It was expensive, but worth it. But ill be honest, for the price, im not looking to get the Switch 2 this time around.
I’ve mainly been an Indie gamer since 2012 or so. My last gaming build is almost 7 years old, but I think the last AAA game I played was during lockdown and that was just because it was a way to hang with friends. At this point I just play indie ports on my phone.
Funny enough, after going through my Steam recently played, the last AAA game I enjoyed was Nier.
vrs got some cool unique stuff, vtol vr is solid gaming still got some really cool stuff coming out, I wanna live in a world where vtol vr is as popular as cod
They’re polished, but nearly all of them are too safe.
The ones that subvert things a little are always best for me, and these always get mixed reactions from people who went in with a set idea of what they wanted from it.
Red Dead Redemption 2 being a slow paced wild west simulator rather than Grand Theft Horse is a prime example. It didn’t play by safety and doing popular things. It did what they wanted it to be, and it’s all the better for it.
There’s plenty of “evolved” RTSs in the indie scene:
Against the storm is trying a roguelike approach
Kingdoms and Castles is a banished-like survival with RTS elements
Endzone is also a sort of survival-crafter with some strategy mixed in, albeit with some issues.
Beyond All Reason is an open source RTS that’s expanding the Total Anihilation formula.
Manor Lords is a fantastic medieval strategy
8/9 bit armies are colourful, fast paced strategies.
The genre is far from dead, but the problem might be audience. When they demand “evolution” that means it should pander to recent trends like survival crafting and roguelikes and whatnot. Problem is some of these formulas don’t usually pan out well for RTS games. Then there’s multiplayer and, like other commenters mentioned, ranked multiplayer usually devolves into a bunch of strangers playing the same few maps over and over, but gamers still demand multiplayer.
Alas, I see the genre as not dead but in a “doomed if you do, doomed if you don’t” spot. Meanwhile I’m sitting here waiting for a regular old historic RTS like Empire Earth or Rise of Nations.
I’d add They are Billions as another evolutionary branch that’s doing something different. Starting to see some clones of this formula.
That said, I don’t think Against the Storm or Manor Lords are the kind of games Pottinger is talking about. Against the Storm doesn’t even have combat. Those are more in the city builder realm.
True, they’re a bit off the mark, but they were the ones off the top of my head. Also, in my defense, I don’t think Pottinger knows what he’s talking about either. The man glorifies Age3 like crazy, saying they had to scale back some features, fearing they’d prove too revolutionary. I love Age3, but the game was hardly world-shaking. Take its contemporary Rise of Legends, now that was a title that went balls out.
Still, I’m curious what they’re cooking up in that new studio.
They are Billions is a very interesting game, but stupidly stressful. It takes ONE fucking zombie getting past your defenses to completely fuck your base
I just want an RTS I can actually play with my wrist in its current condition. I can do the earliest C&C campaigns, but that’s partially because the AI isn’t good enough to require fast and precise mouse movements. I just physically can’t do micro anymore and attempting it hurts, but most RTS games are designed in such a way that micro is required.
I hear you! Stopped playing RTS when starcraft came out :-/ For me it’s like another type of game based on adrenaline and quick mouse movements. Guess it sells better.
Loved the old Warcraft, ough-da! and C&C & Red Alert ofc. The golden age.
Ashes of Singularity tends to be easy on the action-per-minute requirement, since there’s no micromanaging individual units, unless it’s the larger ships, so you can probably have a good time with it.
Regarding the desire for Final Fantasy to return to traditional turn-based combat, Square Enix said “they are aware of Expedition 33 and consider command-based RPGs to be Square Enix’s origin and foundation”. For Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, Square Enix insisted “They value the command-based RPG genre and plan to continue delivering games in this style in the future”. For fans disappointed by FF16, this is fantastic news as it means Square Enix intend to return the series to the command-based formula it made popular.
No it doesn’t. Assuming the translation is accurate, they said they still like turn-based games and will continue making turn-based games. Octopath Traveler and Bravely Default would fit here, especially in reference to their desire to make more “mid tier” games when asked about Clair Obscur. “For Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest” does not appear in the translated text as context to making more turn-based games, though I don’t think Dragon Quest has been real-time to date? Hey, maybe I’m wildly off base here, but it appears to me like the author of this article added what they wanted the tweet to say rather than what it actually says.
Yeah that’s how I understand it, too. They’ll do turn-based, but probably not in their “biggest” outings as they know action-based tends to (usually) sell better.
To be fair to the investor, who was probably asking the questions more as a fanboy…do they usually sell better? There are more variables here, like platform exclusivity, to blame for poor sales in Square Enix’s recent efforts, but when games like Baldur’s Gate 3, Persona, Metaphor: ReFantazio, and Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 are outselling Square Enix’s real-time games, I don’t think we can say turn-based sells worse in such a blanket way.
It’s not turn based, but even though it’s on PC, the launch momentum can often be extremely important to a game’s long tail of sales. A delayed release on PC can sometimes poison the well.
It’s not necessarily even more expensive to develop, it just impossible to do with the management techniques brought in recent years. Techniques brought in with the intention of streamlining personnel management and to make lay offs easier.
But you could also make the same argument about graphical fidelity, which has been pushed further and further for decades, greatly swelling the cost of production
Because it is an easy metric and looks good in trailers. Indie games prove again and again, that good games come from good gameplay and not from photo realistic graphics
I agree, but my point was that cost isn’t a sufficient explanation.
I think I particularly agree with @megopie: one reason we see photo-realism instead of more stylised graphics is that it is more generic, and thus less dependent on a specific team.
The more artistic/creative your work, the less interchangeable your workers are.
I hadn’t even thought about preferences for photorealism being a streamlining thing, but it does fit the idea.
I think it’s also a risk aversion thing as well. Few people will complain about a game looking realistic, so it’s very low risk from the point of view of publishers/investors/marketing. Most people will prefer a unique and stylized look that meshes with the game, but investors and marketing teams can’t be sure in any given case, so it’s written off as a risk.
It’s a question of longer development time with smaller teams, or short timelines with big teams. A small team working on content in series is more cohesive, but, requires a longer timeline. A big team can do a lot in a short time by making content in parallel, but this necessitates that content be siloed to prevent needing constant revision. A few long quest lines with lots of outcomes, or a bunch independent quests with simple outcomes.
A small team working longer will cost the same as a big team working shorter (generally speaking). But the priority is short timelines, for the sake of chasing trends and packing the latest greatest tech in. This same kind of priority also leads to spectacular failures of long timeline games, like “black flag” or “duke nukem forever “. The issue there is not the long timeline, but the constant changes in priority to chase trends.
I think even when the companies have a bit of money, they tend to go overboard. I think eg. Baldur’s Gate 3 is actually so long that it’s problematic, I would have been quite happy with it at 2/3rds the length it is. Even worse would be something like Pillars of Eternity 2 - it’s great, but it goes on forever and didn’t make any money. There’s too much of it.
Give us more games like Disco Elysium. Not that long, tonnes of replayability, and more importantly, it’s different. Really different. And the “moral choices” actually mean something.
Yeah I’ve spent considerably more time on BG3 than any other game I’ve played on this console generation, but still haven’t finished it. I could have gone for something shorter, but it’s kinda nice to come back to it every few months and put a few more hours in.
pretty sure that’s illegal and they can sue for the maternity leave pay as well as discrimination….
lots of corps(e) don’t want to employ mothers of young children, as there’s lots of legally excused absences and they can’t press them for as much overtime….
Only illegal if the maternity leave was the reason, and it can be shown to be the reason. Over 200 people were also laid off at the same time. I have no doubt bungie added them because of the maternity leave, but it’s gonna be really hard to show in a court of law.
Why bother with 5 at all right now? Remaster 3, and New Vegas, take the profits from those and then release 5. Oh and also keep that shit offline. 76 was a huge let down.
With the release of the TV show, the daily player logins are around 400k with 30k-50k concurrent across all platforms. I suspect a decent number of those are logging in for a half hour or less just to do daily or weekly challenges.
I have put about 2,700 hours into FO76, a decent amount was AFK to farm events. I have all the best gear and all of the items available in the game that you don’t buy from the shop with an abstraction of real money. I have fully beaten the game until the brahmin was pulp and has become one with the wasteland again, and then I began to dig a deep hole.
Last paragraph is the TL;DR.
It is now a Fallout game with a weak story and other people that may or may not be annoying, and the optional PvP is basically first attacker wins unless you are specifically built for PvP. You don’t need to interact with other players and can still put a few hundred hours into the game just playing story stuff. On release, it was a glitchy shit show filled with griefers and no NPCs.
It has bugs and glitches that aren’t a problem most of the time unless you really want to grind one activity. Sometimes random glitches, crashes, etc. happen more frequently than is understandable, especially after a content release. I swear they don’t actually play test updates and depend on the players to report things.
The building is kneecapped by a budget constraint that keeps you from taking advantage of the build area. In personal cells called “vaults”, the budget may be exceeded without the budget bar being filled. Most of the build items are in the store shop or are only obtainable during limited time events that you need to RNG grind to get or buy from another player that likely doesn’t know the fair market value. Items available in the store shop cycle randomly, so you may not see an item you want for a year or more. Holiday themed items often show up in the store after the holiday has passed.
More on the subject of arbitrary budgets, you only have storage for 1200 units of weight off your character. That is, unless you have a FO76 subscription which gives you 2 unlimited storage boxes for scrap materials and ammo, soon another one will be added for chems and healing stuff. That isn’t a problem if you don’t collect weapons, plans, and armor. It is a problem if you do because you won’t be able to keep tons of ammo or stims in storage. I traded uncommon and rare plans for caps because that is the fastest and easiest way to get caps, I had around 700 weight units of plans between two characters(each plan has a weight of 0.25). If you want to keep legendary weapon effects just to have or for selling, they each weight 1 unit. The player joke is that FO76 is an inventory management game with an open world action RPG mini-game, which is true for experienced players.
Some of it is a tedious grind to get some of the best armor, like hundreds of runs of a 5 minute activity to get enough of a specific currency or dozens to hundreds of runs of a Raid that requires you have a team of 4 and good gear+build that takes about a half hour but can take over an hour(or be impossible to complete) with inexperienced players at lower levels.
There are 8 different in-game currencies that you can’t buy, not including the game store currency. There is no way to exchange currencies except for 3 that are one-way and one of those currencies can only be used to buy another currency. Treasury Notes > Gold Bullion, Caps > Gold Bullion.
One of the currencies is only for seasonal content(4 seasons a year) that requires you to do daily and weekly challenges, that currency does not roll over into the next season and some seasonal rewards require a FO76 subscription. The seasonal currency you can technically buy through buying season ranks, a full season cost about $120 if you don’t want to bother with challenges. The daily challenges take a experienced player 10-15 mins to complete, the weeklies take 30-45 mins. The FO76 subscription is really nice for QOL, but I put around 500 hours into the game without one.
The events are mostly under 5 minutes long and aren’t fun after like the 6th time.
The big content updates are once a year with smaller content additions between. For instance, they just added fishing and before that they added the ability to become a ghoul. The last big update was in December when they added a 5 stage Raid and the next big one is at the end of the year which is going to be a big map expansion.
If you are a Fallout fan, Fallout 76 is a Fallout game that is fun enough to play for the quests(60% of Fallout humor compared to FO4) and free content, but it is not a Fallout live service game that will be enjoyable for most Fallout fans for as many hours that you can put into the singleplayer games and you will “miss out” on a lot of items if you aren’t down for the grind or have cash to burn.
Realistically, you could experience all the game content in like 200 hours. Even faster if you know higher level players that can help you, which a lot of higher level players will help you. That is a lot of content without the limitations that purposefully slow progression down like you see in MMOs. Keep in mind that you don’t need the game subscription to play the game and don’t need to spend any money in the game to play and get the endgame content.
It isn’t until you are trying to grind out getting certain things that your playtime skyrockets, but that is true with a real MMO.
On the subject of the community and players helping players, the community is pretty great. I have dragged lower level players through the hardest part of the game and taken them from level 20(you can start the game at level 1 or 20) to over level 100(there is no max level) in an afternoon with no detriment to my enjoyment. I have given newer players thousands of scrap, hundreds of legendary mods, and hundreds of thousands of caps worth of item plans that you can on get with RNG grinds.
I am not exceptional, I am pretty typical for the high level players. Since we have “nothing left” to do in the game and understand the meta, pretty much everything has lost value. We will buy overpriced stuff for sale in player vendors just because we want to get rid of caps and it takes us minutes to go from 1k caps to the 40k cap limit due to the value of the “crap” we have in our stash. Some players can’t hit the cap limit in hundreds of hours of play. It could take you hours to get enough material to make 2k of ammo(that you can burn through in an hour) and we will give you 10k of that ammo or enough materials to make 10k and not even notice the loss because we know how to net gain ammo.
Compared to gacha games and actual MMOs, FO76 is far better in terms of cost in terms of time and money, also the community is very helpful to new players.
I mean, they do have the infinite money glitch, a.k.a. being owned by Microsoft. If Microsoft’s investors think Fallout 5 will make its money back, it’s more lucrative to get started on it sooner rather than later.
And it does also need to be said that they can’t keep remastering Fallout titles forever. They need to develop a new title at some point.
Bethesda Game Studios has so far always only had one game in development at a time, which should be TES6 right now. If they are working on Fallout 5, we’re likely talking pre-production stages. So, it might very well be the case that the two remasters come out in roughly equal spacing before Fallout 5 comes out in a few years.
Bad/misleading title. The article (actually just a regurgitation of a podcast interview) is about the design & layout differences between two specific cities: New Atlantis in Starfield and Diamond City in Fallout 4.
Basically just this one designer saying he didn’t like the design of New Atlantis compared to his own work.
Purkeypile explained that Starfield’s main city, New Atlantis, was the “antithesis” of Fallout 4’s Diamond City.
Baity clicks are still clicks. Very shitty behavior from the site.
“I didn’t work that much on that city,” Purkeypile explained. “I worked on Akila and Neon a fair amount, but New Atlantis, I wasn’t really involved in that much. But I got lost in that all the time when I tried to play the game too it’s so big and Diamond City, you can see, is kind of like the antithesis of that like sprawling city thing.”
It’s a good point tho, DC is compact and designed that way with a solid lore reason.
NA should be more spread out lore wise, and it is.
The big mistake was having the navigation pathing direct you to fast travel station to move about the same map. So if you tried to walk places in NA, it was likely to make you walk to the closest fast travel point, even if it’s in the opposite direction. Which prevents players from learning the map and getting lost when they realize what’s happening and don’t want the loading screen for fast travel.
Like, I agree with the guy, but it’s not a design problem, it’s a pathing problem.
Wait… his name is actually Purkeypile? I remember playing through fallout 4 once and I looked through the list of names Codsworth recognized… and Purkeypile was one of them. I named my character that and made him the most dapper man in the wasteland “Missta Purkeypile…”
I wonder if they put that in there because of him.
That’s standard procedure. Elden Ring’s animations and enemy moves are mostly reused assets from previous games and it shows when the models morph here and there because the rig is recycled. Don’t remember anyone complaining about it even though it actually is noticeable.
The weird people are still there, but development teams are much larger now, so their input is not as prominent. Plus the budgets are so large that a flop can heavily damage a company or even ruin it, so they’re very risk-averse. We need more AA or A games instead of relying so much on heavy-hitters.
I mean, sure, complaining and while doing the same thing and expecting a different result is one strategy. AAA games are purely capitalistic endeavours.
videogamer.com
Ważne