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
Pathologic 2 - it’s a really stressful game, but I think it’d be perfect for the criteria. The choices matter aspect are intertwined in both how you spend your time (it’s limited and you can’t be everywhere at once), and in quests (the more traditional choices, like pick A or B or C). Don’t want to spoil any more but it’s amazing, you don’t need to play the original.
Besides it, I’ve also heard good things from Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous, though I haven’t played it personally.
Or, y’know, go with the original version of the trolley problem, where you start with the classic formulation (do you pull the lever?), then move to a new scenario;
“You’re a doctor, working in a hospital that has been cut off from outside resources by a disaster. You have five patients, one in need of a liver, one a heart, one a pair of kidneys, one a set of lungs, and one a pancreas. You have no suitable organs available, and all five patients will die without transplants, but there is a healthy young janitor working in the hospital who, by a stroke of extreme luck, is a compatible donor for all five patients. You could kill the janitor, harvest their organs, and save five people. Should you do it?”
Fascinatingly, almost everyone opts to pull the lever in the first part, but refuses to kill the janitor in the second, even though they are, from a deeply utilitarian perspective, the same choice. Unravelling why we see them as different is where things get really interesting.
Level 1 - one person Level 2 - the kids Level 3 - best friend’s mom Level 4 - cancer cure guy
None of it matters in the long run anyway, so might as well pick the choices that affect you directly. Toughest one in this is the best friend’s mom definitely.
Control. Liked it despite being in 3rd person view up until the mezzanine fight an hour or two in, then realized that the enemies are just dumb high DPS bullet sponges, the PC is a low DPS squishy and fighting from a cover or any other tactical approach I'm used to doesn't work.
EDIT: There was also a spellcrafting mod for Skyrim where the endboss was immunebto all magic and would teleport away as soon as you got too close while summoning a bazillion powerful minions. At level 50...60 it was litwrally impossible to figjt the bastard. After many tries I just console killed the bugger and was done with it.
I’m about 8 hours into it, and I would say try it again, and once you get the launch ability rely on that as your primary weapon. I only really use the gun in a pinch or against enemies that can dodge launches.
Maybe I'll give it a retry at some point in the future. If I can recall my forgotten Epic login credentials, that is. Too busy with the thargoid war for the next few years, though.
I also bounced off Control. Really wanted to like it. 3D metrovania in a SCP inspired setting ,how cool is that. The game is a technical marvel. How Remedy got that game to run on base PS4; I will never know. However the gunplay just feels off. I don’t like how the gun recharges instead of an ammo reload system. I feel like I’m too squishy. The weapon mods feel materially pointless. Don’t get me the wrong the setting so super unique. Most of my time playing was spent glossing over all the lore bits. “Threshold Kids” is horrifically fascinating. As if it came straight from creepy pasta. I wonder if I would enjoy Control way more if it was a limited series on Apple TV.
If you want more cinematic games, the Quantic Dream portfolio has a couple. Heavy Rain and Detroit: Become Human are both notable examples. I remember having some serious anxiety playing Heavy Rain, in the best way.
I actually liked Beyond 2 Souls, too. Didn’t age well at all especially with the naked model allegations and all, but playing it at the time there were some intense moments in there.
I can’t speak for the other games mentioned in this thread, but in the case of Heavy Rain it was very enjoyable that often you had to make quick decisions or the game would choose for you
Hahahahaha, you’re right. My choice of words is very debatable, but it’s true that the moment you had to make a choice was implemented well and I was very concentrated in the heat of the moment
No it’s definitely enjoyable, I’m just kidding around. It’s that it’s the complex kind of enjoyable that is fueled by adrenaline and harmless anxiety. I’m a big horror fan, so it feels familiar to that fandom.
I’d be more supportive of Valve if Team Fortress 2 wasn’t a dumpster fire to play in 2024. The game is infested with bots that make anything outside of independently moderated community servers unplayable.
Even Counter Strike 2 has dogshit anticheat despite the boasts that VAC Live was a solution that could surpass Vanguard, to the point where the only good competitive experience you can have is to play on FaceIt or ESEA servers with their own ring 0 anticheat solution.
If you can only have a good experience by installing malware, you don’t have a good experience.
I really should finish building that nvidia jetson based hardware anticheat that’d allow anyone to cheat even in vanguard protected games with perfect accuracy for just ~150$. Ring 0 anticheat’s only use is to spy on you and yet people will continue defending it until someone’s proven just how useless it is.
Can only speak for the higher ranks of both games but cs2 is currently unplayable above 25k elo since its almost guaranteed to have 1 out of 10 players cheating. While i only encounter a few cheaters each season in immortal in Valorant.
I mean TF 2 is 16 years old. They just don’t really support it anymore. I can’t comprehend how it’s still in or close to the top 10 steam games by player count when it’s been dead for years.
It seems like it would have been a lot more friendly to have reached out personally first instead of via lawyers initially. Seems like these guys would have been receptive.
Maybe there’s some legal reason they couldn’t, but doesn’t seem like it to me.
I guess I don’t. I would have assumed the team would have mentioned it. Especially if there was communication, but it moved forward to DMCA request anyway (i.e. there was a disagreement or something). But seems like the team would have responded pretty quickly.
But yeah, I don’t know for sure.
Still, it seems way more likely that Valve legal just went straight to DMCA.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne