I’m not totally sure what that would add to the experience. The core battles are still the same, just with more added on. I like pixel graphics and old gameboy music, but I don’t see why people would buy it. It’s seems strange considering it would be the same game as before, but less.
Pokémon: Violet except: it’s 2D, scarcely animated, without double-battles, without shinies, without several types, without terastallizing, without the open world, without the rideable legendary, and so on.
That was me imagining it if it were limited to gen 1 gameplay. Maybe there’s a case to remake regions in like a style like emerald, but I still think it’s just a game that already exists but with less.
If you don’t know about them already, you should look into pokémon rom-hacks. Some are kinda like what you described, but they add their own twist like changing the story, adding new types, or adding newer pokémon or mechanics. A lot of them are really well made too.
Just because there’s more “stuff” in a game like Violet doesn’t mean it adds to the overall experience. Sometimes it detracts from it. A lot of times it detracts from it.
This is of course all subjective and if you enjoy the additional mechanics, it’s good you have them. There are of course others out there who would disagree with you and appreciate a more “core” experience in a Pokemon game.
Pokémon: Violet except: it’s 2D, scarcely animated, without double-battles, without shinies, without several types, without terastallizing, without the open world, without the rideable legendary, and so on.
In my opinion, they can keep everything you’ve mentioned except terastallizing, a rideable legendary, and probably a good amount of your “and so on.” I’m pretty sure Pokemon games have had an open world since the beginning, but maybe some people have different ideas of what constitutes an open world.
If you want a pokémon game without new things, why want a new pokémon game? That doesn’t really make sense to me. I don’t think most of the gimmicks they’ve made have throughout the gens have been very good, but I appreciate them for the splash of novelty and I just ignore the ones I don’t like because I know they’re not permanent. I almost never tera-ed my mons in violet, I just grinded levels and planned my party like I have for 20 years.
By open world, I meant being able to travel through most routes and towns without a black screen or loading screen.
That said I wasn’t making a quality statement. I was comparing the most recent game with the first and I don’t know how there would be a significant market for a much more clunky version of an existing game with a huge chunk of features removed.
I’d say Pokémon is one of the franchises to which the transition to 3D added nothing of value to the experience. Every 3D Pokémon has been ugly as sin.
I definitely think the quality on the 3D models could be better, but I think the move to 3D has made the game more immersive and things like the size variations are charming details that makes “your” pokémon feel more unique. I was mainly questioning whether a product like that would actually sell well enough to be worth the effort, not making any statement of which is superior.
if its well designed to utilize openworld concept. For example, kenshi is very well designed for openworld. Kingdomcome games are well designed for it too.
Being lazy and not feeling like doing every single thing in openworld game is good thing because it will make replaying it sometime later nicer by leaving content untouched. But if the content is just finding one more collectible then its just awful gamedesign.
I dont necessarily seek out openworld games, just good games that fall into the slots i like. Unfortunately things have been very barren regarding that to the point i’m starting to lose interest in games.
Done it and reshared a lot back when the campaign started. Can’t believe the “gamerzzz” are so freaking lazy to reach the needed goal. The campaign makes it such an easy step be step process…
Can’t believe the “gamerzzz” are so freaking lazy to reach the needed goal. The campaign makes it such an easy step be step process…
The issue is that a lot of people are not hearing about the campaign as Ross has contacted quite a few YouTubers who have unfortunately mostly ignored his letters when they could’ve made a massive difference in exposure. Shame on them for not seeing the bigger picture :/
The campaign definitely deserves way more attention with how good the posters are for it.
I already signed last year. I sent it around all my friends here in Europe and they too signed. And then they sent it around their friends… I really don’t know what else to do.
Seven countries need to reach the threshold and 1.000.000 signatures are required in total. The seven countries goal has already been reached, so right now only signatures are needed, regardless of the countries they are coming from.
I can’t say one or the other globally. It is very much game dependent for me. There are open worlds that are just wonderful and it’s joy to play them and there are others whose world is empty and useless and that sucks.
One of the best executed open wolrds is old Gothic IMO (Gothic 2 is great too). Sure it’s probably ugly and bland by today standards, but the world is absolutely amazing. It’s completely open from the start, but player is so weak it is probably good idea to play semi-linear at the beginning. But nothing (except for tough enemies) stops you from exploring whatever and whenever you want. And there are tons and tons of things to explore. Hidden cave with loot? Shortcut connecting two roads? Place with very rare alchemy ingredient at the end of narrow valley? Shadowbeast lair? There is so much love put in there I still have cravings to play it even though it’s like quarter of century old game… Quite the same can be said for e.g. Morrowind which is another absolute gem from early 2000s.
But there are also open world games where open world either simply sucks or serves no purpose. I’d have to think about which games fall in there, because once it’s like this I tend to uninstall and forget the title…
Haha yea I always check out the negative reviews first - either they quickly show that I’d be wasting my time with the game, or the negatives they highlight are actually neutral or positive for me, either way I generally find them better value/time than positive reviews. (Especially when a significant portion of positive reviews are memes, award-begging copypasta, or “best game ever” with no further details.)
I do the same. If the negative reviews highlight a consistent issue that I have an issue with and hasn’t been fixed, then I doubt I’ll be buying the product. Doesn’t have to be distinct to steam, either
I think Valve severely escalated the problem when they introduced the award system. Now people are extra motivated to cash in a quick laugh, or provoke outrage for the Clown awards. What boggles my mind the most is that hundreds of people give awards to the same copypaste comments that appear under every major game. I sometimes try to report the reviews of the spammiest accounts, but Valve is really hands-off with their moderation. At the end of the day they profit from the points system, and as always, user experience takes a firm second seat to profits :/
I was debating between Shivering Isles and Mage’s Guild, and ended up going with the Shivering Isles mainly because the beginning of the Mages guild is always something i struggle to get through. I didn’t know much about the Shivering Isles though and was expecting another Knights of the 9 situation, not a whole realm to explore
bin.pol.social
Aktywne