Agreed on this. They’re just so good at making new interesting things that it feels like a bit of a shame to waste time on sequels. I even really enjoyed Pyre, despite it being generally considered the weakest of their games; it was such an interesting setting and premise.
Bastion and Transistor both had very satisfying conclusions to their stories and revisiting either doesn’t feel necessary.
They’re obviously a developer that I would be interested in anything new that they put out. But both bastion and transistor were two of my all-time favorites from the indie scene. And I would really and truly love to revisit both of those worlds in a sequel.
A bit of topic, but it pains me to see how powerful high end phones got. Like most people just use them to text and scroll social media. Why do people spend that much money?!
If anything, it makes me wonder why we don’t have more small dedicated handheld gaming devices that aren’t phones or pseudocomputers and don’t cost a bomb.
Like a £220 PSP/GBA/DS-like device with decent first-party support would be really nice for me imo
I’m probably part of the problem. I’ve never used a controller except a few times at friends’ houses. I grew up with Nintendo DS, Wii, PC, and smartphone games. I don’t want to ever have to pick up a controller.
With a phone, there’s a type of controller that wraps around the phone, turning it into a Switch form factor. That’s probably the middle ground between atrocious touchscreen d-pads (or only playing games that actually work well with touch controls) versus lugging around a Dualsense and some mount contraption or kickstanding your phone on a surface.
I’ve never had trouble with or resented touch screen D-pads ^^; again I am part of the problem I suppose, because it seems by your post that most people hate the things I’m genuinely satisfied with. I hope the general controller-liking population gets things to serve their needs too, though. Thanks for providing the information for what I’m assuming is the majority.
The Switch Lite is exactly this. $200 handheld that runs first party games. There are android handhelds like the Retroid pocket 5 as well.
A Steam Deck Lite would be incredible. Small, cheap, linux-based, and powerful enough to run indie games and some light 3D. I think that form factor basically needs an arm cpu though.
theres also isnt much difference, so the higher end , aka flagship ones are slightly better than the previous editions. no need to spend 800-1k+, i bought a OPR12 instead. pixels tries to justify thier flagship prices with thier useless AI chips.
Yea, I got the op 12 because it was just $50 more than the r on Amazon at the time.
It’s definitely powerful enough but I’m slightly disappointed by the software, arcore is just completely broken, and hdr is fairly spotty (works in yt app and photos app but doesn’t work in chrome or Google photos)
the op12 has higher memory capacity storage, and beter telephoto lens, i dont really like the curved screen though, other than that its good. i think 13 or mostly got rid of that curved screen.
There are real video games for phones now, and I’m pretty sure emulation is up to at least on the gamecube era. Slap a controller on it and a phone is pretty much just a hyper-powered gameboy advance.
The big benefit is that much horsepower allows the phone to very very rapidly “race to sleep” in that the faster it can crunch the numbers then return to a much slower clock the less power it’ll consume overall
I did assume a thing or two I guess lol. I got a refurb when it was cheaper than a fix. Wonder if that counts as a “new” phone… Theseus would probably like to have a word.
Apps by corporations are stuffed with ads, telemetry and other crap. It uses frameworks on top of other frameworks and import libraries for the dumbest shit. For example the reddit app is about 120mb while my lemmy voyager app is 8mb…
The twitch.tv app is 150mb while an open source twitch app is 25mb. It has even more functionality and options and runs like butter.
Most of the shit phones have to run and process is in the background to track and sell.
Its really bad and why i encourage people to use open source versions of stuff they use.
Cancelled or shut down? If you wanted a cancelled game to come out, 99 times out of 100, it was your imagination making it into a great game, and they cancelled it because it wasn’t coming together.
For games that were shut down, for me, it was Robocraft. It was only shut down recently, but the version of the game that I loved from about 2017-ish was basically replaced a year later with a version of the game that I was not a fan of, and it stayed that way until the game’s and studio’s closure. I had to get burned by Robocraft in order to come to some realizations about the rot at the core of live service games, and it informed a lot of where I spend my time and money now.
Yeah. Sometimes we’re lucky and get a leak of the cancelled game. Happened with the War Craft adventure game. It was almost finished. And it was really mid. Maybe up to today’s Blizzard standards but not back then.
This 2D platformer metroidvania has memorable characters and very cool worldbuilding. You switch between characters to match their abilities to the right situations. They live on a living, planet-sized creature and are fighting off the parasites that are slowly killing their creature-planet. You’ll swim through its blood vessels and explore its organs.
It’s not super long—I finished the story in 9 hours. It’s just about the right length to satisfy.
Donkey Kong (1981) popularized having different levels in a game to progress a storyline. Until then, you would have the same level over and over with increasing difficulty
Battlefield 1942 always stands out to me as the one that popularized large scale online battles on big maps with vehicles. At the time it was revolutionary in online gaming.
Command & Conquer: Renegade came out around the same time as well, with similar features. I kinda wish that game had a sequel as well.
Another gameplay feature that comes to mind is the exclamation/question mark above NPC characters for quests. I remember it first from WarCraft 3, but I think it really kicked off with World of WarCraft to get adopted by many more games.
I don’t remember being possible to spawn on teammates in BF1942, but definitely remember it as a first to select spawn points on map like Battlefield always did.
I can’t remember if that mod had squad spawns. But I definitely remember playing it a lot, that was an absolutely revolutionary mod with so much content, not to distract from other great BF1942 mods though. I believe the original DICE team originated from that mod team to create Battlefield 2 as well.
DICE hired a few of the DC devs to work on BF2, then promptly laid them all off about 6 months or so after release, and then the laid off devs and others who weren’t hired made Kaos Studios, and made Frontlines: Fuel of War and Homefront, before being corporate acquisitioned into non existence.
There were a few BF42 mods that, on certain maps with certain vehicles, allowed you to spawn in vehicles.
IIRC, Forgotten Hope had a number of para-assault maps that allowed players to spawn inside of the aircraft they would parachute out of.
I believe you could also do this in… I can’t remember the name of it, but the Star Wars themed 42 mod (which the BattleFront series either largely copied or was directly inspired by), I think it had some spawn-in-able vehicles as well.
Also BF Vietnam, the official game, used a similar concept of having ‘tunnel exits’ that could be built/placed by Viet Cong engineers, which were placeable spawn points, and the US had the ‘Tango’ … mobile river boat with a helipad thing… which was a mobile spawn point.
I am 99% sure it was BF2 that first introduced being able to spawn on a player, I don’t think any of the mods for the earlier games pulled that off always had to be a vehicle or placeable static object.
I’m not sure I’ve ever had more fun with any game than I did with BF1942. It was just so much fun. There were games with smoother play and deeper mechanics and better graphics, but none were as fun. The dumb mechanics made it amazing, like being able to lie down on the wing of a plane and snipe people while your buddy flew, or dive bombing and parachuting out at 10ft above the ground to capture a point, or shooting the main cannon from a tank into a barracks that has 15 people spawned inside it, or piloting a goddamn aircraft carrier and running it aground to get to a spawn point safely. It was so stupid but so fun.
EA did this thing a while back where they saw people were still playing Bad Company 2 on PC on community servers. They updated the game to require a login to EA’s server on boot, then took those servers down. Always online is cancer.
They finally killed off BC2? So I can finally give up on the futile effort of reinstalling the game every year, in hopes that maybe I’ll find a populated server this time around?
I miss that game so much. Rush was so much fun. The maps were designed perfectly for that game mode, unlike future BF titles where it’s a tacked on feature. It was so good, that I found out the hard way that I actually don’t like Battlefield games, after wasting money on BF3, 4, and Hardline, and hating all of them. I just want more Bad Company games.
It was dead last time I tried playing (because of the login thing). Unless someone made a community patch to bypass the login prompt, I guess.
You’re pretty much in the same situation I’m in. BFBC2 was the last Battlefield game I liked, and it was because Rush was so much fucking fun in that. I hate how much the newer ones kind of mostly focus on Conquest, personally.
Conquest is not my idea of fun, either. It’s a lot of running back and forth between the same objectives over and over again until someone wins. To me there’s no thrill in that.
I like the concept of “push/bomb/capture the objective and move on to the next phase of the map” in any game that has it. Used to play a lot of Team Fortress 2 and Overwatch because of it. But now I’ve moved past those games as well. Overwatch has an issue where the meta evolves faster than I can keep up, and TF2 has the opposite problem we’re the meta doesn’t evolve at all because Valve doesn’t update the game. So I’ve stopped playing shooters for now until something new comes out that satisfies my desire for this kind of gameplay.
That’s what every game company has said about every game for decades though! A game disc which installs and plays the game was legally still some nebulous “this provides a licence to play the game which can be revoked at any time”, it’s only now that the companies actually have the power to revoke them at any time.
👨🚀🔫👨🚀Always has been. You never owned the software. Even when games were on cd or cartridge. The only thing that is your legal possession is the physical CD or cartridge and the license that came with it.
Always has been a blatant motherfucking lie, you mean.
Saying you don’t own a game you bought is exactly as batshit insane as saying you don’t own a paper book you bought. We wouldn’t put up with this shit for that, so we shouldn’t put up with it for games either!
Stop letting the copyright cartel steal our property rights and drive us into serfdom.
There are two different ownerships that are being conflated here. When you buy a book, let’s say it’s a new book, just released, and rapidly becoming a best seller. You own your copy of the book, you can read it, you can make notes in it, you can lend it to a friend but while your friend has the book you can’t read that book yourself, or you can sell the book again but once you sell it you won’t be able to read it anymore until you purchase another copy or go to the library. What you’re not allowed to do just because you have the book is make copies of it to sell or give away (which is somewhat challenging to do anyway with a physical book that has hundreds of pages), you’re not allowed to make and sell an audiobook recording of the book, you’re not allowed to go and make a movie based on the book. You’re not allowed to take the characters and write a sequel to the book and sell it. The author still owns the rights to the contents of the book.
In the early days of books, especially the 19th century as books became easier to produce and more people could read, a lot of this started to become problems. People with printing presses would see a book people like, get a copy, and start printing and selling copies on their own. They made translations and sold copies in other countries. People would produce plays based on the books, and depending on where it was performed the author might never know about it. This was all usually done without the involvement of the author and the author often was not paid from these. A surprising number of highly regarded and top selling authors wound up making very little money from their books because they weren’t being paid for most of the copies being sold. Many died poor. This led to the development of the concept of copyright and various other associated rights.
These rights became more complicated as media progressed. With audio recordings there are multiple rights involved: the person who wrote the song has a copyright on the actual music and lyrics, and the person who performed the song has a copyright to the recording of their performance. Sometimes these are the same person, sometimes they’re different.
The laws kept getting more complicated. With software, the developer or publisher owned the software, often because the developer was working under contract to the publisher or sold the software to the publisher. It’s kind of rare to sell the actual software to a customer, and is usually done only for corporate or government clients. In that case the entire rights to the software are transferred and the publisher/developer can’t sell another copy to someone else. Much more commonly only a license to the software is sold to many different customers, and what exactly that license involves can vary widely in the legal terms of that license (which most people never read). Some are very restrictive. It used to be that a lot of licenses specifically tied the copy that you purchased to the hardware you first installed it on. If that hardware died or you purchased a new model, too bad, you’re now supposed to buy a new copy. Some licenses said you’re not allowed to change the code of the software, some licenses allow it. Ten or fifteen years ago people didn’t really think about the idea of streaming gameplay and creating a video from a game was considered a derivative work and not allowed, like making a movie from a book. Now a lot of licenses explicitly allow streaming gameplay, but some older games that weren’t planning for it might not have the rights to stream the music from the game.
If you violated those rights in the past, the terms technically said those rights ended and you were supposed to stop using the license. In practice this was on the honor system and the licensor would rarely know about it, unless they sent an auditor to check compliance, which was usually only worth doing at large companies. With the internet, companies now have the ability to actually access your computer and monitor your use of the software you’ve licensed. They can even disable your access to this software. Unfortunately, of course, a lot of companies have gone the greedy route and used this to their own advantage and at cost to the customer. Not everyone does, though. It’s really important to know what the terms of the license say. If they say they can delete the game you’ve bought and not refund you, don’t buy from them. Don’t give them money for this crap. Let the game flop, even if it otherwise looked great. Support the developers and publishers who want to support the customers. Read the terms on your software; you should always have the option to say you don’t agree and get your money back if you don’t go through with installation. And the laws that allow bad licenses don’t have to stay as they are; some jurisdictions are friendlier to consumers than others.
It’s the same with paper books though. If you buy a paper book you don’t automatically own the rights of that work. You own the copy and can sell that copy or even make a copy for private use. But you can’t make copies of that book to sell, since you don’t own the copyright
Copyright is definitely being abused by the big corporations but without copyright small artists/software developers would constantly get their work stolen by those big corporations.
…which is the entirety of the important part. Once the store sells you the copy, that’s it: the copryight holder has no more right whatsoever to say what gets done to that copy. In particular, it does not have the right to dictate to you when, where, or how you may use your property, e.g. by requiring an Internet connection for the fucking thing to run!
The copyright holder’s temporary monopoly privilege should not be allowed to supersede or infringe upon the copy owner’s actual property rights in even the slightest way. Full stop, end of. The publisher’s business model is its own damn problem, not the customer’s. If it relies on destroying the latter’s rights in order to achieve profitability, the business deserves to fail!
For its 30th Anniversary Magic the Gathering hyped up the return of $1000 card packs with the CHANCE of pulling non legal reprints of its original Alpha set, including the covered Black Lotus, that is…again…not legally playable in any format and is worth the same as a lotus you get from your home printer. For $1000.
I think cosmetics can be fine, but they aren’t always. I remember spending a lot of time and effort unlocking all the armor in Halo 3, and it made it feel rewarding. Now, skins can be interesting customization, but they’re never rewarding.
I like MTX to an extent, because it let’s other people pay for continued development of games I like. However, even cosmetics only absolutely still has an opportunity cost to the feel of the game that’s being payed. I think we should all be aware of this. I know at this point most people probably don’t remember when cosmetics were opportunities to make the game feel more fun, not just products to sell, but that is how it used to be.
Oh, definitely. The one issue with cosmetic DLC is that they used to be unlockable. Sometimes paid cosmetics are more development work than the kinds of things that were unlocked in-game back in the day, but not always.
Sometimes cosmetic DLC is a way to support the developers. Sometimes cosmetic DLC is a cashgrab. But if the game stands on its own, players generally aren’t missing much if cosmetics are paid DLC. Smash Bros. Ultimate comes to mind – there’s plenty of stuff to unlock in the game even with lots of costumes and such being behind paywalls.
The problem is what follows from microtransactions. When the managers see line go up because they released a paid element to the game, all the incentives push toward more paid elements. This means any dev hours that can be redirected away from work on the core game to the paid elements will be redirected.
Regarding the first point, if they can hire someone to make a feature happen, and maybe get an unpredictable increase in revenue, or hire someone to crank out cosmetics, which are much easier to make, and for which they often have metrics to show how much they expect to get, which do you think they’ll pick?
As for the second, I’m not sure if I’m understanding you.
I’m not talking about firings, or even other specific examples. The talk of hiring A vs B is just an example, not the whole concept. I’m talking about the inputs that influence internal decisions. Microtransactions incentivise decisions that put the focus on generating microtransactions, often to the detriment of other objectives.
And, okay, I get you now. DLC is kind of a case by case thing, but still not great to me. Some devs put out incredible DLCs that actually add something to an already complete game. However, some companies put things into DLC that should just be in the base game. (playable characters, etc.) The practice of having paid DLCs incentivises that approach, so I’m not a huge fan, even if some of them are good. It’s kind of like political donations. I can like the effect some of them have, but I recognize the problems that come from a system that uses them.
I have to say that the customer holds some of the blame. If people are obsessively buying cosmetics that do nothing and that’s the only way the game is being sustained…either the game is that good already, or the players are the reason the game sucks.
When players need to spend money to be competitive, I think it’s fair to place the blame jointly on both the devs/publisher and the players. When spending money doesn’t change the game OR provides new content, it generally indicates that the player base is happy with what they’re spending money on. I don’t think that’s a problem.
Enh… iffy hand wiggleI tend to put blame more at the point of informed decision-making.
In the same way I wouldn’t blame a person from the 1930s for their lung cancer after their doctor sold them cigarettes, I wouldn’t blame gamers for the DLC. A huge percentage of gamers are kids, legally incapable of giving informed consent. Many others are people who have never had the chance to learn the implications of their buying habits. It’s hard to blame people who aren’t making an informed decision.
The people at dev companies on the other hand, are immersed in the gaming world. It’s effectively a form of incompetence or negligence to not pay attention to the industry if that’s your job. They are either knowingly engaging in the practice, or failing to pay attention to the effect they are having on the world.
Part of it is the question of where you assign fault in a bad system. These days, and I’d hope you can agree, slavery is bad. But where should the blame lie if you lived in ~1800s America? Should it be on the producers, who choose to use slave labour, on the providers, who capture the slaves, on the legislators, who make/keep it legal, or on the customers, who choose to buy the fruits of slave labour? They all could be said to play a part but I’m inclined to find the customers, who have the least power in the system, have the least blame as well.
I think you’re making large reaches in your analogies. Are we supposed to have the government come in and bad cosmetic DLC, and then fight a war over it that splits the country (or world) in two? Lol
My point is that cosmetic DLC (and expansion packs) isn’t the problem – the problem is loot boxes and pay-to-win microtransactions.
I just wanted an unambiguous evil to serve as an example. You’ve gotten lost in taking the example as the point again. It’s an analogy, not an exact replication of of a previous event. See the similarities between the two and not the particulars of either one. That’s the point of an analogy.
The point is that the system of microtransactions incentivises the bad results (manipulative practices and distortion of decisions) without necessitating the good. (enjoyable content) As long as paid DLC exists, there are reasons for people to use paid DLC to manipulate people out of their money. However, nothing about paid DLC means there will necessarily be benefit to anything other than revenue, and things that exist within DLC could exist without it. I’d try to give another illustrative example but I don’t know if it would help.
You don’t understand the use of analogies. Common enough. Many people can get lost in them. Not a big deal. Not your fault.
You do understand them, but were actively trying to focus on the ways the chosen analogies were not one to one with the object instead of on the point the analogies were only used to illustrate. This falls under the category of bad-faith communication.
I assumed you were well-meaning in assuming your ignorance. Was I wrong?
Microtransactions have gone wildly past financing devs
The entirety of the Starcraft wings of liberty campaign made less money than a single mount cosmetic in WoW. That money definitely didn’t to to the developers
bin.pol.social
Ważne