I know exactly what you are looking for and the classic Doom games are perfect for this, because they are simple, yet they still feel good to play.
Not too fast, not too slow. No jump scares, only some light puzzles if you want to hunt secrets. There is almost a rhythm to the combat, especially if you play with the shotgun. Try them.
I’d say Eternal actually fits the bill more. Once you get all the mechanics down every encounter becomes this deadly ballet of high speed chess where you really can enter a flow state of just reacting and acting.
2016 can be like that but it’s a little bit more forgiving, funnily enough managing to keep your brain more in the foreground.
Depending on your definition of cozy 2016 could win, because it is not as taxing as Eternal. At least I could manage 2016 much better than Eternal with my Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. But if you manage to stick with Eternal I think it’s more conducive to get you into a meditative state.
I played through Sigil recently and the whole time there was a gaping super shotgun sized hole in my enjoyment of it. I get that Romero fine tuned it to play without it but for me I realized that I can’t feel totally cozy playing doom without the ssg.
In ten years, when they want to pull the plug on this game, they will cite dwindling users and “exorbitant” per-user maintenance costs.
They don’t want playable legacies. They want something they can leverage for nostalgia marketing in 20 years, and if you break out the original game, they won’t make any money. Production companies want you to buy what they are offering today, because it pays for new yachts.
In ten years, when they want to pull the plug on this game, they will cite dwindling users and “exorbitant” per-user maintenance costs.
TemTem has been accused of exactly this. It’s nonsensical how they won’t allow people who bought the game to play offline. Here’s an example from 7 months ago on reddit where someone said: “they’ve literally said that they will keep TemTem playable one way or another, including if they need to make an offline mode”. The game has under 1k players now according to Steamcharts, about 700 today. It launched with 27k players. It’s virtually unplayable since it’s designed as an MMO fully online, but has barely anyone playing it. But they STILL refuse to develop an offline mode.
In ten years? If I had to guess the average life span of live services games I’d say about 18 months. Heavily skewed by the survivors. The shortest lived one only worked for 13 days. Only the very popular ones survive past 5 years and there are a handful of 10 plus. I know it’s hard to believe, the average gamer is oblivious to how over saturated the videogames market is. Despite executive’s delusions, time and money are actually finite. Not all games can demand all of it, at the same time.
From what I understand, things like squeezing through walls were supposed to go away with the PS5. But, Ragnarok is still available on PS4 to cater to mass audiences, so they need that extra bit of time for loading.
Ironically, one game that’s handled open worlds a bit better is on a console less capable of handling them. Breath of the Wild uses it to promote exploring towards vantage points and then interesting sights.
Sea of Thieves does something similar. You start a session, and want treasure, so you take a basic and boring assignment with a treasure map. BUT, you spy a bunch of interesting happenings throughout the ocean and beaches on your way, and so your adventure becomes more complex. Coming across those at random feels a lot more fun than picking them as a targeted assignment on an objective board.
To be fair, even if the open world is not well used, it can provide a sense of connection for the world. It can be more fun than just having a mission select screen.
Ironically, one game that’s handled open worlds a bit better is on a console less capable of handling them.
This is even more interesting when we consider that BotW was not developed for the Switch, but for an even less capable console: the Wii U.
Hardware limitations haven’t been a real barrier to open world continuity for a long time, if ever. (Seven Cities of Gold allowed you to sail from Europe to the New World, and then explore it over land, with no loading screens along the way. That was on 8-bit computers with 48KiB of RAM, loading data from some of the slowest floppy drives ever, back in 1984.) Doing it on lower-end machines does require some planning ahead, but the effort is worthwhile, IMHO.
Breath of the Wild uses it to promote exploring towards vantage points and then interesting sights.
Not only that, but to incorporate verticality into the game mechanics. Reaching things that are surrounded by hazards, or taming especially wild horses by gliding to them from a mountain, for example.
Yeah anyone who thinks 3D games without loading screens are only possible on SSDs needs to go back and play Dungeon Siege or Asheron’s Call. GTA3 mostly didn’t have loading screens either. The Witcher 3 wasn’t even that long ago and it didn’t need loading screens on HDDs. (I guess traveling between the main big areas did, but I guess that’s more because they didn’t have an animation of Geralt taking a boat or something, everything else streamed fine)
Sea of Thieves is honestly great. There have been many times where I’ve been on the way to an objective and I’ll find random loot floating in the water, or something skinny catches my eyes on a passing beach, or I’ll get attacked by a pirate ship or even a megalodon.
The horse archers in civ 6 are so pathetically lame that the only reason to build even one is to get 3 points toward a golden age. The computer builds swarms of them, of course, but anything can kill them, even a recon unit.
They’re pretty easy to counter in Rome 2, you just need to remember it’s necessary and not all-in on heavy infantry. Infantry skirmishers clap them right back to the steppes and there are good auxiliary cavalry options from the start available in Italy.
I definitely remember being frustrated when I first played it trying to chase them around with legionaries but the correct answer is don’t do that then.
Wasn’t it so that you could wreck them with foot archers? Even if they can’t fire further (don’t remember if that was the case) having foot archer vs horse archer shootout was always really costly exchange for the horsey bois.
The DS series was the peak handheld generation for me. I like that the console’s design encouraged creative game mechanics, and it has some of my favourite games of all time. I have a DS Lite, a 3DS and a new 3DS, though I think the original DS line had the better game library compared to the 3DS. The camera and 3D effect were rather gimmicky and didn’t add much value for me.
I think the game that best encapsulates what I love about the DS is The World Ends With You, a JRPG set in modern Tokyo that used both screens at once in its action combat system - to control two different characters. The character on the bottom screen would have you use touch gestures to trigger attacks, while you needed to do button combos to control the character on the top. It was insanely fun!
Other games I liked from the early DS era are Hotel Dusk, a detective game that is played in “vertical mode” so you hold the console like a book - and Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan!, the original Japanese version of Elite Beat Angels, a rhythm game.
I also played all romance/otome games that were available in English for the DS, my favourite was Tokimeki Memorial Girl’s Side.
The DS figured out touch-based interactions way better than smartphones which are like the main touch-based “handheld” nowadays. That is because you could dedicate the entire touchscreen to gameplay input, since you still had the top screen to show relevant game information. Smartphones on the other hand need to utilize the entire screen both for input and displaying stuff, which just doesn’t work as well imo.
Minecraft probably. I avoid legitimate horror games (and movies) and the fact that you don’t have saves can get a little stressful when you’re down in a cave, don’t know how to find your way back (and thus probably won’t find your body) and then basically get jumpscared by dangerous enemies or holes in the ground.
if you want to know how to get back, pick a side (i chose left) and always put torches on that side going down. to come back up, keep the torches on your right. 🔥
When it came out, I saw the trailer and decided that it’s not for me. Way too scary. Then recently I watched a commented speed run and thought “Yep, I was right”.
I just wall myself up inside with a gate and wait out the sieges. I also place two dogs outside the main entrance to catch kidnappers. Has the same effect without needing to mod the game or alter the settings.
Of course once I can build ballastas or make use of water/lava, I can set up winding paths with Dwarven Shotguns (basically using water pressure and garbage I can fire minecarts full of crap at high speeds) to obliterate trespassers.
Financially, I’m not sure if you could say that starfield or fallout 4 was a failure… Look at steamcharts player counts as an indication. All time peak concurrent players:
Skyrim: 90,000
Skyrim SE: 79,000
Fallout 4: 470,000
Fallout 76: 72,000
Starfield: 330,000
Sure skyrim has sold on many platforms and over time likely has sold the best, but you can’t say that starfield and fallout 4 were commercial failures. Starfield being on game pass day 1 means the real concurrent numbers would be enormous.
I’ve not played starfield and agree it looks like shit, but TES VI is likely going to sell gangbusters to mainstream audiences given how much Skyrim broke into the mainstream.
I agree with you that Bethesda isn’t what they used to be with TES Morrowind - Skyrim era and desperately need to get rid of that engine. But for the metric that truly matters, sales, I don’t know what it would take for TES VI to fail.
I think there’s two definitions of successful in gaming today. First is financially successful, it generated some decent profits for the stockholders. Second is how it was actually perceived by the community as a whole. Oblivion was spectacularly well received and made game of the Year edition. Fallout 4 was heavily criticized, but still somewhat successful in terms of the community reaction. Starfield was globally frowned upon, as someone who has played that exact game, it’s horrible. I honestly feel like that game is a one out of 10. 1.0 out of 10 would be my exact rating if I had to give it one. It’s not going to get the cyberpunk treatment, so sure maybe it’ll break profits and be considered financially successful. But I don’t think that game should ever be considered a success in any other aspect
A 1 out of 10 for Starfield is ridiculous; either hyperbole, or you haven’t played many video games before to see what a 1 out of 10 would truly be. I was very disappointed by it too, but level set a bit here.
I couldn't take this post seriously with how much subjective opinion is stated as fact. Fallout 4 is one of my favorite games, but that doesn't mean I'm blind to its faults and shortcomings. That being said, I can't read something that's claiming extremely broad negative things like Fallout 76 is still "broken" and only lives because of MTX" without acknowledging "why people are playing this and microtransacting if the game is broken and irredeemable?" And without defining what is broken and what is not.
I think Starfield was a wake up call for Bethesda. They need to heed it and keep up with the times, get back in touch with the simulational and unique things that they were known for and can still carve a niche out of, and not rest on their laurels as the rest of the gaming landscape innovates around them.
As soon as the unique and interesting mechanics and systems have been eclipsed by Bethesda's failure to make an exceedingly polished and innovative game, people stop justifying the jank and the public opinion falls off. Starfield is their last sign to turn the ship around.
I remember buying mistmare on cd back in 2003. That thing was a broken mess of a game that crashed constantly, and no returns once you open the seal. Kids these days don't know what a 1/10 game really is, lol. That game was so bad most of the (short) Wikipedia page on it is about it's low scores, including a 0/10.
A 1 out of 10 for Starfield is ridiculous; either hyperbole, or you haven’t played many video games before to see what a 1 out of 10 would truly be
I’ve played 20 years worth of games. My criteria is actually very logical. What is the scale of the company and their resources, the budget, past releases, and then finally, the game itself: How many hours do I get out of it? How linear is it? How believable is it? How captivating? Replayability? I give Starfield a 1.0/10 in all of these. Keep reading if you’re curious why
Linearity: This game is almost entirely linear, despite being called a “sandbox”. There’s no point whatsoever to wandering around away from the main storylines. Unlike Skyrim, Oblivion, hell even Fallout 76… You can’t just go wander off and find some new awesome area to do interesting stuff in. You find a new area, but it’s bland, has nothing interesting, or is very short-lived. So you’re basically coaxed back to just go finish the main story, with is such a linear and plain slog.
Believable: There are so few important choices to make, none of them really feel meaningful either. Also, the story just feels so cheesy. It’s so bad. You’re wandering around with a cowboy and his pre-teen daughter shooting people in the face, really? Yeah, that makes sense. All your companions are judgmental and never STFU with the ‘holier than thou’ attitude, forcing you to basically be good, or to be lectured constantly and nagged. Towns feel pointless and unbelievable. Not a single town I visited felt like a real place. For example, the western style town felt like Westworld. It was so clowny.
Replayability: Once you’ve done the entire storyline, there’s literally no reason to replay the game. It’s such a linear and unimaginitive story that there’s really nothing worth going back and seeing again
Now why is this a 1.0 out of 10? Taking the company size, their past projects, their capabilities, their support network (the entire mod community of all their games)… They had the potential to make SOMETHING better than this, but it was clearly rushed. It’s also highly unlikely they’ll give it the Cyberpunk or NMS treatment, leaving it bland, boring, broken… for $70. Unbelievable. The fact that a multi-million dollar company backed by Billion dollar Microsoft could produce this is just ridiculous.
All your points are valid, but people might not judge the game based on your criteria. One could rate the game in Scale, Artistic vision or Gear progression and would not land on a 1 out of 10. Surely not on a 10/10 but definitly not on a 1. Even in your categories you have a strong bias. IMO there is no way you can give linearity a 1/10. Sure all of the sidestuff is not great but it’s there. A game with the lowest score in linearity does not even have options. Like one Mario level and that’s it.
I agree with your point how games also need to be measured by how big the company is and how great the games potential is. Totally 1/10 for Bethesda there.
Quality would be a new criteria which I wanted to exclude in scale. Sure the quality of it all ain’t great but there are a lot of poeple who enjoy gigantic maps, no matter how bland.
I’d argue that the best part of the game is the pirate questline. You get to pick between being a double agent, gathering evidence and sabotaging their plans, or an evil pirate that fights the law and only cares about themselves.
Your opinion is your opinion, but I don’t think the scale of the company or its resources matter one iota. Games made by a single person have been better than those made by thousands of people, and that’s without putting my thumb on the scale in either direction. I don’t even agree that Starfield is linear, but even if it was, that doesn’t make a game bad. If you’re calling Starfield a 1 out of 10, there’s no room to go down from there on that scale, which is absurd to me, because that means you’d have to cram Superman 64 and Bubsy 3D on the same part of that scale.
but I don’t think the scale of the company or its resources matter one iota
It absolutely matters. I can forgive and honestly move past a 1 person team or small indie company making a huge clusterf*ck of a game. But if you have 25 million dollars to make a game and you produce literal trash, there’s no excuse. The little guys/indie studios struggle, like totally understandable. How does BETHESDA sized company fail so spectacularly? That’s the core complaint.
Superman 64
??? this is a Nintendo 64 game, not even remotely the same resources available. Now we have incredibly powerful tech available in the gaming industry, and although we can’t confirm it, supposedly generative AI is being used. You’re talking about someone building a log cabin and it looking like crap, versus someone an entire construction company with top of the line cranes and huge vehicles.
It definitely does not matter. You build a game that you’re capable of making. If it felt like they were making a game that needed a bigger budget to realize the design they were shooting for, that will affect my opinion of it. Games like Halo Infinite spent so much money on the game making it “big” that it actually made the game worse than if they’d spent less on it and kept it smaller. I don’t give a damn how much they spent making it. We had a whole era of RPGs in the 2010s that were made for a tiny fraction of the development cost of what was coming out of BioWare, but they were better RPGs without having to give them any sort of pity scale to arrive at that conclusion.
I brought up Superman 64 because it’s known to be one of the worst games ever made. When you know how bad a game can actually be, Starfield has no business being a 1 out of 10.
I would say non of your points are valid, but I am someone with about 300h in Starfield and I didn’t quit because I didn’t had any fun anymore but because other games stated to pile up. Personally I can’t wait for Shattered Space and I will play most likely start a complete new character and play the game from scratch with the DLC.
Do I think that it is a perfect game? Hell no! No game is perfect and Starfield has its fair share of problems and issues (the really boring temple “puzzles” for example). But for me Starfield is a very interesting and believable hard science fiction world that is not far away from what we could do with our technology now, if we would figure out a way to jump faster then light. Starfield is very good in delivering a believable space, and yes a believable space is huge and mostly boring. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t find for example beautiful places out there, it just is random, take lots of time (due to the frigging size of space and planets) and is rare. Starfield gives us a universe that is in huge parts like the real universe out there. For me the main quest of Starfield is one of the best main quests ever written by Bethesda, just after Morrowind and way better then the “Find the hidden heir, protect the hidden heir, close some portals and watch the hidden heir fight the big evil of the game” main quest of Oblivion. That I, personally, find utterly boring and unsatisfying. The strengh of every Bethesda Elder Scrolls/Fallout/Starfield Game is not that the main quest but all the other quests around and starfield has lots of great side quests, companion quests, and faction quests all over the game.
Is Starfield a 9 or 10 out of 10? No! But there are only very few games out there that I would give a 10/10 rating Is it a 1 out of 10? Not at all! But it is a strong 8 and could become a 9 when the DLC is for Starfield what Far Harbour was for Fallout 4.
All personal taste, Starfield is unfortunately not the right game for you but it is a great game for me. I love it!
My God… doing what, exactly? It took me like 40 hours to 100% the game, then everything else is pointless. Every planet is completely barren…
Having fun mostly. Doing quests, exploring the planets, building bases, building ships, doing NG+ multiple times and playing different playstyles in every new universe. There is so much in the game to do and to experience. And saying that you 100% the game, yeah sure when that means having every achievements, but that is not how to really 100% the game at all. At least not for me.
First is financially successful, it generated some decent profits for the stockholders.
This is the only sort of success they care about. Anything else is secondary. These companies gladly burn bridges with their communities so long as they believe it’ll benefit their bottom-line.
I think you’re missing the point that the majority of l companies don’t care about the quality of what they release. Large pro consumer companies like Valve and Lego (I couldn’t think of any others video game related), who might be willing to let their bottom line fall in favor of improving relations with the customer, seem to be very much in the minority. For most others, the only thing that’s important is how the bottom line is affected. Starfield, for all its flaws, was the #11 bestselling game of 2023.
Now, you could be onto something when you mention Bethesda’s poor track record, and how that might play into ES6’s release. If they keep making disappointing games, maybe there will be a “boy who cried wolf” type situation where, since Bethesda keeps making disappointing games, no one will want to buy ES6 by the time it comes out. Personally though, I don’t think that’s very likely. The reality is that many (if not most) consumers don’t even know who makes the games they buy, nor do the look into the other games that company makes. And for the ones that do, more still probably don’t care. I think no matter what there will be a sizable amount of people who see Elder Scrolls 6 and go “Hey, I liked Skyrim, this’ll probably be great!”
So your personal opinion of the game is the only thing that matters. Got it! At least use an objective metric. I personally played the hell out of Starfield and really enjoyed it, with a few caveats. I guess that means it’s a huge ass success. It’s your opinion vs mine. And I value my opinion over yours.
So your personal opinion of the game is the only thing that matters
Nope, there’s lots of real reviews out there besides my own. Generally, the community views star field incredibly negatively. You had to purchase it on Steam to leave a review. That’s an objective fact. Ain’t nothing fake about it. It was overwhelmingly negative on release.
How much money a game made, on the other hand, is worthless. Who cares? Call of Duty is objectively very profitable. Does that mean it’s a masterpiece now??
i miss the black and white buttons from the mini xbox controller days. still feel like 4 buttons is not enough on the right pad, especially considering how often games use L3/R3 joystick click which i fucking loathe.
Get a controller with underside buttons. I also consider stick-clicks an abomination, but it’s great now that there are under-buttons we can hard-remap to L3 and R3.
8BitDo Ultimate Bluetooth controller has some awful ergonomics on several things, but the underbuttons are excellent examples.
It’s been funny seeing the Playstation controller slowly morph into an Xbox controller. Which is great because I definitely preferred the Xbox controller since the 360.
I still prefer the offset sticks on the Xbox controller though.
Normal mode - made for the absolute lowest common denominator, every challenge is overcome in seconds before you understand what the intended solution was
And
Hard mode - the intented challenge to normal happens 1 pico second in, you now have to solve 20 combinations of different challenges. Not because it’s difficult, because the developers want you to die over and over and over until you understand all combinations enough.
bin.pol.social
Ważne