There’s a danger in any game where it might be largely designed and marketed to be one thing, and then has lengthy mandatory sections where it becomes another.
Poorly made stealth sections are a prime example. Game designers want to change things up, but if the game isn’t made to do stealth, it can easily turn into an annoying mess. There are a few (not a ton, but a few) games where the mandatory stealth sections are well liked, but they were made to carefully take advantage of the game’s strengths and knew when to end.
There’s a danger in any game where it might be largely designed and marketed to be one thing, and then has lengthy mandatory sections where it becomes another.
This is the only issue I have with the cyberpunk 2077 DLC. Most of the game is an open-world action rpg. Then all of a sudden depending on your choices in the DLC you can end up in a mission that is basically Alien: Isolation survival horror. You go from being a powerhouse that can destroy pretty much anything in the game and shrug off missile hits to being hunted and unable to kill what is hunting you. It was super fucking annoying the first time I did the DLC because I hate those type of games. Great DLC except for that small part.
I blame Metroid Dread for that one. Such a bizarre design choice for Phantom Liberty, especially being very late in the game. At least Dread flipped that around.
It still has some kinks that need ironing out, and it could for sure use a bigger roster, but they’re cooking with this one. The MOBA core and superb movement mechanics just complement each other so nicely, and with both powerful easy to use active items and ability-based heroes available it’s possible to perform even if you’re not an aim god.
It doesn’t change anything, though. TF2 isn’t nearly as bad as Overwatch 2 or Halo Infinite. Idk, all Valve’s free games have MTX (microtransactions), but they’re not like… annoying, infuriating, etc.
It’s still early access… Valve literally invented the hats economy, you’re insane if you think they aren’t going to add microtransactions to the game 🙄
Silent hill is one of my favorite series, and I’d argue the last time we even got a decent game was back in 2007 with origins. The drought has been unreal. I can’t believe we are finally eating good again
Sooo, since I have you as an enthusiast here: The only Silent Hill I’ve ever played was Shattered Memories way back when (I actually have a rare pre-release press copy). Clever game and equally scary. Which game should I pick up first if I wanted to seriously get into this series? This new remake of Silent Hill 2? The original Silent Hill? Shattered Memories again?
Tbh the only starting points I would recommend is the original or some version of sh2. Since it seems like this remake is really good I think it would be a great place to start!
Imo, the 2 S tier silent hill games are 2 and 3. However 3 is a direct sequel to 1 (an A tier game, only knocked down from S tier by PS1 jank) so i do think that should be played before 3.
The remake makes things a little different since it’s gameplay style will be pretty different, but my normal recommendation was:
Play 2 (PC enhanced edition preferably), if you enjoy that, then play 1 and 3. If you want more, play 4 (the last made by the original team and a good B tier game imo, but a bit different than the other 3). If you still want more, check out origins (a, imo, C tier game, the first made by not the original team but the most respectable effort of this new generation of games).
I’d say after that I personally don’t find any of them worth playing. Shattered memories isn’t my favorite but it definitely isn’t a bad game. I’d say play that again if you want! It’s more or less a very strange reimagining of sh1. An interesting game but not for me. A fine place to continue if you want more.
Homecoming and downpour are just quite bad imo. Stay away
I’d second Pillars of Eternity II except that it’s not actually on sale. It also doesn’t have gamepad controls, which is disappointing, so Steam Deck controls can be kind of slow.
I’ll second Tyranny and Pillars 2.
Tyranny’s ending is… well… they tacked on some text - but it’s a great game otherwise.
PoE2 is more enjoyable than the first one, IMO, just for the lighter tone. They do a better job of explaining the world, too, because you aren’t bludgeoned with lore-dumps like in 1.
Pathfinder WoTR is an overall improvement, but Pathfinder Kingmaker also has its charms.
It feels like playing a DnD campaign with the developers acting as the DM.
It does require some metagaming if one wants to experience everything, it does have an ending act that drags on for too long, it can feel oppressive with the disaster timers ticking away while one is still trying to figure out a rhythm and it can end up with things spiraling into danger if one doesn’t “rush” and plan around each main act quest.
It is one of those rough games that does have a certain appeal to those that do not mind working through the frustrations for a more grounded adventure - relative to the setting.
Tyranny, from a world building experience was great, felt like it was short an act though as I got to the final act and thought - “wait, what is that it?”
Also it is refreshing to have a game where morality is fluid and open to interpretation and up to the player to rationalise their actions, where the decisions lean more towards following an ideology more than morality
For a Warhammer cRPG, Rogue Trader is something to consider as well as it captures the feel of its setting pretty well
I’ve used CD keys and G2A in the past and had keys failed to work because they had already been used. Lukewarm customer service on both. I don’t know if I would trust that
As well as OP’s problems getting dud keys, I would warn that key resellers often contribute to the pickpocketing industry.
Tourist gets lost in Indonesia, kid grabs his wallet. In the time between then and when the tourist calls their bank, the kid buys as many legitimate keys of Game XYZ as he can using the tourist’s credit card, and sells them to G2A.
The bank refunds the fraudulent transactions, but even if the key retailer (eg, Greenmangaming) reports the transactions to the game dev, the dev is often pressured to not revoke the keys since it just leads to poor press off later customers that believe themselves “legitimate” for spending money on the game.
Sites like isthereanydeal.com give more legitimate tracking info and avoid key-sharing sites; the copies sold were obtained directly from publishers. They can also give price history to give you an idea of whether the game will go on sale again soon.
Discounts on games creates a sense of urgency in the buyer, as most discounts are temporary. Since discounts are often shown on the front page of a storefront, it gets a lot of eyeballs on it. If someone’s wishlisted the game then they’ll even usually get a direct notification.
Another way to look at it is that the game is always available at the full price. But if you’re a patient gamer then you can expect to get a lower price eventually.
Depending on how much discretionary income you have, you might be forced to wait for a sale. Or the difference in price might be no object to you. Or you may have to hoist the black flag.
Something else to consider is that the perceived value of the game differs from buyer to buyer. If I’m a big fan of a niche genre, I might be willing to spend more on a weird game than the average user. A $30 game might be worth it for me, but you might only think it’s worth $20
And more to that point, it’s extremely difficult to nail down the exact value of a game. What honestly separates a $12 game from a $15 game when they both offer a unique experience?
Anyway, all this to say, I don’t think having sales on games is strictly a predatory thing. Sometimes a discount is the only way you’ll get eyeballs on your game, or a way to reach more of the market that wouldn’t have otherwise bought your game.
I do agree that modern AAA prices are out there. I don’t pay very much for games now, and usually AAA prices me right out of the market
I get the concept behind it. But it just seems so predatory that older games never depreciate in value. Back in the olden days of GameStop, they would adjust prices. An old game was reduced in price after a certain time since it’s no longer new.
Now, that’s no longer the case. Valve seems to be the only one that does this, as an exception. Left 4 Dead 2 is now $10 standard and that’s not some crazy percentage off discount. That’s just the base price now. Other games though are silly as hell with the pricing. Battlefield games are the most obvious. Priced at a full $60, but the value plummets to $8 when on sale. Why don’t they reprice it to $30 and then on sale for $8? Seems less psychologically manipulative
I agree that it’d be nice if they depreciated in value like in the days of physical media.
In those days though, the store only has a certain amount of shelf space. So in that sense it makes sense that they depreciated because a new game is always going to have a higher perceived value.
Digital storefronts don’t have that problem. The game can be shared infinitely without accruing a ton of publishing costs. There’s always more shelf space.
In this sense, there’s no financial motivation to depreciate. And we all know the social responsibility of big companies will be to only do what they’re forced to do.
We often feel games ought to depreciate because that’s how it’s always been. But just because that’s how it’s always been doesn’t mean that’s how it always will be.
Battlefield is an interesting case though where each game in the franchise is highly derivative of the previous game. So if each new game is essentially an upgrade of the previous one, then I’d agree that there should be an expectation that the older version is less expensive.
The same could be said about many of the giant titles. Call of Duty, Assassin’s Creed, and most major sports games come to mind.
One final thing to think of is that many games have continuing development. It’s basically the early access model (a whole other can of worms), and you could argue that many of these games appreciate in value. Some notables have - Factorio comes to mind.
I don’t think Battlefield 2042 falls into that category though
There’s still a bit of market force, but it comes in the form of other game developers.
Imagine you went to the grocery store, and saw Hardin McCombsky’s Super-Premium Dry Seasoned Cheese was $1000 a wedge. How ridiculous! How do they expect us to pay that much for that cheese?
Only…Shaw’s Bargain Dry Cheese is $4. And it’s not the same thing - but it’s still pretty good.
Basically, this kind of thing works out in many other industries. Sometimes on rare occasion, one producer makes things MUCH better than competitors and can demand a much higher price because no one else comes close.
To give a more game-relevant example, BattleBit is $15 and compared favorably to Battlefield. In other cases where there’s no competitor and the developer hasn’t lowered their price for sales, it may be because they’re confident they did good work and made a good game. Factorio is famous for this.
Can we stop posting screenshots of games on here. It has taken over the games sub, and nobody really cares about what you’re playing at this very moment.
All the games you listed like PUBG and GTA V are more like fads. Sure some lasted longer than others but their popularity dies down. Games like Counter Strike are considered to be more of classics. Especially to the older generation of gamers who grew up on them. These are games that are able to stand the test of time.
GTA V is second only to Minecraft in copies sold across all of video games, and it still appears in the top 10 for copies sold on most months, 11 years after its initial release. It’s also available on other stores and consoles, so Steam is not a complete picture.
bin.pol.social
Ważne