If Hades didn’t have God Mode (which actually works in a pretty interesting way and isn’t just invincibility or whatever), I would have given up incredibly quickly.
Once I enabled it, shit started to actually feel fun for me.
Pyre. The long-term goal is to get you and your boys out of fantasy australia, but there are complications along the way. Namely, who gets their freedom, and who doesn’t? Are you really going to let your goofy dog buddy go when he’s your best party member? Will you throw the match and let one of your favorite rivals win their freedom instead? Wouldnt it be really funny to let the little goblin loose back in civilization instead of someone who actually wants to go back home to their families? These are the tough questions Pyre asks of you, and they go places.
I know Pyre is probably Supergiant’s worst game, but it was still damn good and very overlooked. Everyone should check it out, the story was really good. Also Epic gave it away for free once or twice, so check your library.
I ragequit half way through the final boss after having died for the thirtieth time. The game is absolutely beautiful, but fuck me some of it is tough.
Ended up watching the last bit on YouTube. No regrets.
I doubt that I’ll ever get that far. I used to play games on “hard” difficulty and explore/find everything. Today I’m just glad if I find the time to play, have fun and enjoy the games, even if I need to play on “easy” difficulty. All the completionist aspirations are gone.
If I picked Wolfenstein: The New Order back up today, I'd probably have a better time with it, since it's been a decade since I touched it last and my gaming abilities have improved since then, but for whatever reason this game was ridiculously difficult for me, even on the easiest setting. It finally came to a point where I just couldn't finish it, and I'm not sure if I ever will.
I remember it being probably the most difficult shooter I had ever played up until that point. The campaign was genuinely so hard. I (barely) managed to beat it and the boss fight at the end took me real life months.
A good chunk of comments have spoilers, so if you read this first beware. I guess people like to brag about game knowledge more than they like having other people experiencing stuff.
Flash-in-the-pan multiplayer games that may not have anyone left to play with if you don’t join in while the pan is still hot. Heck even ones that stick around a while just get harder to start in when most players have built up skill in the game and know all the little nuances. It’s a lot easier to grow along with everyone when a game first drops, IMO if you care at all about the competitive side.
It would be interesting to see how many 'patient gamers' are actually into multiplayer games at all because of this reason. I wouldn't call myself one per se, but I probably fit the criteria, and most of the games I wait to come on sale are single player campaign.
I’m patient for SP games, but I also sometimes jump on bandwagons for MP games from time to time. Especially when they’re cheap, like Lethal Company or Fall Guys.
Mass Effect was pretty great with this and really paved the way for games now. i still don’t know another set of trilogies where the game can be affected from the choices you made years before in an earlier game. I think they went so ambitious that it really tied up their hands with a lot of things for ME3.
Being able to manipulate scores before the game starts is related to accessibility, and is always an optional feature. It helps balance the game or session for those who need it, or might spice up a game for those who enjoy it.
Aside from Mario multiplayer games (like Mario Party) and just sports games in general I don’t know of any games that utilise this.
There are games that give you something OP it you fail a lot though. A lot of Nintendo games work like this when they notice you failing a lot and ask if you need a hand. There was another game I can’t remember that makes you start with a power up if you die too many times, but I’ll have to edit this post when I find it.
Edit: it is Super Mario 3D World / Land for WiiU / 3DS. If you fail a lot in succession the game throws you a golden leaf that makes you invincible when picked up. It’s entirely optional otherwise.
Nintendo started doing that a lot around the Wii. New Super Mario Bros series, Donkey Kong Country Returns, etc… also on other games regular messages to let you know that you could lower the difficulty. And Skyward Sword’s Fi being unable to let you play more than 2 seconds without trying to “help”.
Honestly I did not like it much. I didn’t mind that it was an option, but I did mind that it was a shiny, blinking thing making shrieking sounds at you as soon as you’d start facing a bit of challenge.
Super Mario Bros Wonder’s way of doing this is way better IMO, with the beginner characters and some of the badges that you can activate to make the game easier when you need it.
You’re free to pronounce it however you want, but considering it’s named after a famous mythological character, you may get funny looks as if you referred to similar mythological characters as “Jod”, “Hey-zeus”, “Bud-hah”, or “Hurk-yoolz”.
Bg3 it’s not an strategy game, it’s and RPG, in fact based in the trrpg rules of d&d 5
Also BG1 and 2, weren’t grided, so it’s not like they doing it to “modernize” the game.
I really enjoyed all xcoms (from the msdos first games, so many hours wasted with xcom apocalypse…) But also enjoyed al bg (including not MMO Neverwinter, icewind Dale, etc)
For me, the only reason to jump on a game early is if it's necessary for there to be a thriving multiplayer community to enjoy the game. That's something you would miss out on by waiting for a sale. That early stage, where everyone is still figuring out how the game works and finding new strategies, can be fun. But I rarely play multiplayer games now, so I just skip that and I don't mind.
If it's a singleplayer game, there's no reason to jump on it early -- and certainly not to enjoy it as a technical spectacle. It'll look just as good five years from now.
I remember replaying the original Half-Life in 2008 for its ten year anniversary, and thinking, "This is still fun, but the graphics are almost distractingly outdated." But when I replayed the original Mass Effect from 2007 just a couple years ago -- which was more than ten years old then -- I thought it looked just fine.
That's a really good point. Sometimes the fun you can have with the game's "multi player" community isn't in the game itself.
Baldur's Gate 3 is probably the best example I can think of. (And I don't have it, and it is really tempting for the reason you just gave.) I actually overheard two people talking about it at a coffee shop today, and three people talking about it on the train a couple weeks ago. I can't think of any other game that has been like this.
The late 90s and early 2000s were a time of rapid increases in game graphics.
We went from DOOM in 1993 with sprite enemies, abstract textures, and technical limits like not even being able to have second story rooms on top of each other to Half Life in 1998 with full 3D characters and objects, physics, and much higher resolution textures.
Jumps in graphics back then could be huge. As graphics get better though, improvements on them become diminishing returns. It stops being going from 2D to 3D or going from block head models with textures pasted on to modeled faces, and starts becoming things like subcutaneous light scattering. Things will keep looking better and better but we’ve long ago hit a baseline with graphics.
Mass Effect was made on Unreal 3. While we are currently on Unreal 5, there have been lots of games released in the intervening years that either used Unreal 3 or a modified version of it.
Yeah, while there is an improvement in graphics, it largely plateaued after the PS3/360 “HD” era. We’re fast approaching a time when a 20 year old game will still look pretty good by modern standards instead of hopelessly outdated.
We’ve also reached a point where the novelty of ultra realism has worn off. People expect certain AAA games to look realistic, but nobody is wowed by it anymore.
(Anecdote time: Personally the last time I was wowed by realistic graphics was Battlefield 3. The Frostbite 2 engine was a noticeable and impressive step up, but ever since then I haven’t felt a sense of visceral awe even if I know graphics keep getting better).
In my mind the graphics themselves barely matter as much as aspect ratio, controls (for some genres), and stability on modern hardware when it comes to judging if a game is “hopeless outdated”.
Since this comment chain started with Half-Life, I admit there’s no way around it looking dated, but it doesn’t hurt my eyes or confuse me as some really old games do (Goldeneye 64 sadly falls into this category). I understand what the game is showing me, and the gameplay, art direction, and tone hold it up for me.
The last time I can recall being wowed by graphics was when I finally got an HDTV in 2008 and saw Oblivion on it (the environment, not the ugly lump of clay people). The jump to HD was huge, but ever since then it’s been incremental advancements.
I’m not sure I’ve seen it posted here, a little older, but the TellTale Walking Dead games are killer. You make full choices that affect your game later. Tons of fun, not a ton of action gameplay but the stories told are next level IMO
bin.pol.social
Aktywne