My biggest one is robust modding support. I understand it’s something that potentially needs a lot of extra effort to implement from the developers, but when I look at my collection of games that I love, almost all of them let me mod like crazy. Let me download 90 bugfixes and 40 QoL tweaks for a game from 2003.
One issue is that this can be a vector for malware. I kind of wish that game engines came standard with something like the Javascript engine in browsers, with some sort of sandbox for mods. I’m not saying that that’d solve everything – the game code that the mods invoke probably isn’t hardened – but it’d be better then just having arbitrary modifications go in. Especially with mod systems that auto-download new versions – even if the mod author is on the up-and-up, if someone compromises his account or computer, they’ve compromised all the computers using the mod.
EDIT: This isn’t just a problem specific to mods, either. A lot of online software library systems that provide auto-updates (pip for Python, rvm for Ruby, etc) can be a vector into systems. Providing auto-updates where many, many people have rights to push updates to computers is convenient in terms of getting software working, but unless the resulting code is running sandboxed, it’s creating an awful lot of vectors to attack someone’s system. This isn’t to impugn any one author – the vast bulk of people writing mods and open-source software are upstanding people. But it only takes one bad egg or one author who themselves has their system compromised to compromise a lot of other systems, and in practice, if you’re saying “subscribe to this mod”, you’re doing something that may have a lot of security implications for your system.
Consoles and phones already do a decent job of sandboxing games (well, as far as I know; I haven’t been working on security for either of them, but from what I’ve seen of the systems, they at least aim to achieve that). So maybe someone can compromise an app, but there’s a limited amount they can do aside from that. Maybe dump your name and location and such, but they can’t get control of your other software. However, Linux, Windows, and MacOS don’t have that kind of app sandboxing generally in place. I know that Linux has been working towards it – that’s one major reason for shifting to Wayland, among other things – but it’s definitely not there today.
For servers, I think that part of the way that sysadmins have been trying to deal with this is running containers or VMs on a per-service basis. Looking at !homelab, I see a lot of people talking about containers or VMs. But that’s not really an option today for desktop users who want to run games in a sandbox; it’s not set up automatically, and 3D card support spanning containers is not great today, or at least wasn’t last time I looked at it. I can run Ren’Py games in a firejail today successfully on Linux, but that’s not out-of-box behavior, Steam definitely doesn’t have it in place by default, I have no idea whether it’s possible for WINE (which is important for a lot of Windows games that run on Linux) and at least some if not all of the mechanisms firejail uses for graphics won’t permit for access to the 3D hardware.
I don’t remember where we got it, but back in the old days when everyone was trying to replicate the success of Rollercoaster Tycoon 1 & 2, we had School Tycoon. It’s certainly no Rollercoaster Tycoon since it was specifically aimed at a younger audience, but I find it still enjoyable enough when you want to just kill time.
Definitely better than Deep Sea and Space Tycoon. That’s a definite. We had those as well and I could never figure out how the hell to actually properly play them.
Z is a fantastic game but some of the levels infuriated me, no matter how well I played the AI seemed to have an answer… Turned out the difficulty goes up a notch after each loss since the devs expected you to git gud.
I remember initially falling in love with the concept of the game and the humor and the graphics, but then feeling absolutely crestfallen that I couldn’t accomplish anything in the game!
But then I had my very first big gamer epiphany - you need to be aggressive in Z! So not only was it one of my big surprise favorites, I had one of my most rewarding aha! moments as a gamer with it
It was terribly bland. It’s pretty, and immaculately coded from a character control point of view as always. Difficulty is much much lower than I expected, and failure did not feel possible at any point.
It’s fun and not a bad game, just gets boring fast, like a Kirby game where you can’t really run out of lives.
Platforming segments are solid as always in their design.
I’ve played it for a bit, and I enjoy it in short bursts, and then I get tired of it. Maybe 2-3 levels, max, at a time. But I do keep going back and enjoying it again, so…
This has been how the latest Mario games have felt to me, even that New Super Mario thing they were doing.
They’ve stripped everything out of Mario that made it fun, gameplay wise, for something that just looks ‘pretty’. These games feel more like tech demos than how I felt growing up with Mario games, and I truly and honestly feel that way. This trailer just looks like the same deal, and you’ve confirmed it for me thanks. Such a shame tbh.
If you consider the last one as New Super Mario Bros U, then sure, we are over a decade. However, Mario Maker, and especially Mario Maker 2, are so wonderful and repayable, that I feel no need for a new 2D Mario game. I get that a game like Wonder is going to have “curated” levels, and things can work more cleanly, but the volume of quality levels in the Mario Maker series is enormous. Anyway, I just find it odd to see your comment, which seems to ignore these titles.
Neither? Wildlands has some REALLY shitty depictions of South America and Breakpoint is that modern day ubi-Clancy of “Are they ironically spewing right wing propaganda or?”. And Ubi in general is a company with rampant employee abuse of a sexual nature.
That said: Wildlands is the much better game. Breakpoint “feels” better, but it is clear it was designed to be a co-op live game from the start with most of the missions not designed for AI. Whereas Wildlands was very much set up to just have three problematic bearded dudes lean out of a jeep and unload on anything you drive past.
Wildlands. Breakpoint isn’t crap, but Wildlands is just superior. It got more soul at least. BP seemed like a rushed “it worked, let’s do it again!”. From a mostly single-player PoV
I’ve been pretty psyched for this as someone who consumes a lot of 2D Mario content including Mario Maker and SMW ROM hacks. Glad to see basically everyone saying it feels solid
However, this quote from Digital Spy,
Instead, Wonder’s strongest moments are when it takes a breather, taking the time to set the scene while letting the platforming do the talking.
Is something I was kinda worried about as well. The wonder effects that were shown seem cool, but I really want the platforming to take the lead role. SMW ROM hacks show us that pure platforming can still be creative as hell. I wonder how SMBW will stack up to the likes of, say, GPW3
A new Mario game blew the critics away? Who could have predicted this?
sarcasm aside, i’ve been sort of skeptical of scores on reviews of Mario games ever since the New Super Mario Bros series. Critics seem to be physically incapable of giving a Mario game a low score, as best immortalized by this videogamedunkey video.
totally. I’m sure that if you’re a reviewer reviewing the 3rd New Super Mario Bros game, and you come out of it feeling like the game was pretty mid, it can feel scary to post a review with the lowest score. It’s easy with something like an Ubisoft game, where the quality of their games has been in question for years now. But with a Mario game? We all know the internet is full of assholes that will tear you apart for giving a bad score to bad game from a beloved franchise.
I swear i watch more videos than just dunkey, but this recent vid of his actually captured this other side of the coin pretty well.
It's not even a Nintendo Curve (They might have a stronger curve), but the vast majority of the time these large review sites are all in the pockets of publishers (event invites, interviews, exclusive first looks, review copies etc) and in order to keep that gravy train going so their review company doesn't fold means to not bite the hand that feeds too much, even if you have to lie.
Eh, I don’t (Edit: corrected) think the big review sites can survive if they get blacklisted by one or a few publishers. It has happened in the past already. There are so many games getting released, that missing one game or even a whole publisher probably doesn’t really affect them. Same for the publishers, they get more eyes on the game, for pretty cheap probably, so it’s also advantageous to them as well.
From what I’ve heard over the years, the marketing departments on both sides know this as well, so most don’t take a bad review personally.
It’s the small, one or two-man channels that are probably more prone to lying about a game. If JohnNintendoFan69 on Youtube manages to get some early copies for upcoming games (or a sponsorship, whatever), they want to ride that wave for as long as possible, if their livelihoods depend on these things.
Eh, I don’t think the big review sites can survive if they get blacklisted by one or a few publishers.
Then those review sites shouldn't exist. It directly conflicts with their entire business model of "reviewing products objectively" when they can't review products objectively without fear of the hand that feeds getting mad at them for saying the truth
A review site that lies isn't a review site. It's advertising
I agree, which is why I think creating companies around subjective reviews by boiling things down to a score that people are expected to take objectively as a measure of a product's worth is entirely asinine and silly. ESPECIALLY when the general triat of capitalism allows these review companies to have their bias and subjections swayed by not wanting to bite the hand that feeds their comapny's existence
ESPECIALLY when the general triat of capitalism allows these review companies to have their bias and subjections swayed by not wanting to bite the hand that feeds their comapny’s existence
And my argument is, that a site like IGN, Gamespot, whatever, doesn’t care if they don’t get the latest Ubisoft game prior to release anymore. There are so many games coming out, that they are picking and choosing anyway. One less game on the pile, big whoop.
I mean, Kotaku apparently has been blacklisted by Sony, Bethesda, Ubisoft, and Nintendo at some points (not all at the same time), and they still exist.
Also, with how many freelancers run reviews for all of them, you’d have heard something credible over the years, that scores get artificially inflated to keep the publishers happy, but the only thing I remember is the Kane & Lynch thing at Gamespot, which lead to Jeff Gerstmann getting fired, because he didn’t change his score.
Review scores and review sites are dumb
You could argue that scores are outdated, because too many people just look at the number and don’t read the review and how this rating came to be. However, sites dedicated to reviewing games, still have a place out there.
For me I just don't get how anyone can realistically extrapolate a game's score to anything about the game itself. Reviews are fine, and people providng their own experience and interpretations of and pros/cons is fine, but then boiling that perosnal subjective into an interpretive score that somehow is supposed to convey they same information just makes no sense.
I do agree that most people just see a score and don't bother to look further past that, it's very annoying to see comment sections just talk about the score itself and how it might be "right" or "wrong".
That's the part I don't get, when people think that someone giving CoD a 6/10 is "wrong" because another reviewer gave it a 9/10. Like, seriously, who cares what the score is. I don't play games because the score is high, I play games because they sound interesting to me. I don't care that some website gave Death Stranding a 4/10 because they didn't "get it". I still liked the game and their review doesn't tranish that in any way, neither of us is right or wrong because not every game is made for everyone and people's own subjective tastes and stuff will obviously affect the kinds of games they like.
I just overall think people care WAY too much about some arbitary scores that ultimately don't mean shit. IGN giving a game I didn't like a high score doesn't mean I was "wrong" about the game, but too many people want to just use scores to argue with other people. Like bro, just go play the games that interest you, stop caring about scores
Scores are just too engrained in this whole review thing at this point, not even just in video games. There was a small movement a few years ago to get away from scores, but not enough big publications joined in, so it didn’t catch on.
just go play the games that interest you, stop caring about scores
Sometimes it’s not that easy, mainly if you can’t just afford every game that catches your eye.
Sometimes it’s not that easy, mainly if you can’t just afford every game that catches your eye.
I'm not sure how a review score will change that. The entire point of my discussion is that anyone who extrapolates a subjective review score as some objective quality measure is just wasting money.
It's better to play a game that interests you than play a game because it's scored high. "Scoring high" isn't a metric of what makes a game fun.
What I mean is even if a game looks interesting, but then I see it’s mixed on Steam or has a bunch of 5/10 reviews, I’d probably give that a pass. There might be a chance it’s some hidden gem or totally up my alley, but why risk it? I’d rather play it safe, and give the 9/10 game a chance, even if the premise isn’t that compelling.
Once you are able to just not care about the money, this can definitely shift. If it turns out that interesting game sucks to play, doesn’t matter, just buy something else.
What I mean is even if a game looks interesting, but then I see it’s mixed on Steam or has a bunch of 5/10 reviews, I’d probably give that a pass.
I don't see how letting other people's opinions on something you think looks interesting should matter. I play games for me, so I don't care if someone thinks something is a 1/10. If it seems interesting to me I'm going to play it, because that's what matters. Some of my absolutel favorite games are panned by reviewers and critics alike, and most of the games I can't stand are highly reviewed yearly rehashes. Scores meaning nothing.
There might be a chance it’s some hidden gem or totally up my alley, but why risk it? I’d rather play it safe, and give the 9/10 game a chance, even if the premise isn’t that compelling.
Because you're risking it with either purchase regardless, so why not pick the one that actually sounds interesting to you? Letting review scores bias your decision making on an entirely subjective medium of art expression completely takes the point out of art.
Once a generation you might get a Death Stranding 2 or something, and really enjoy it, but other times you’re stuck with the original Lords of the Fallen, because you like Souls-likes, and that’s your only game this month or quarter.
And yes, of course, just because a game is rated highly doesn’t mean you’ll enjoy it. Still, unless you have really specific tastes, the chance that you’re going to enjoy a highly rated game, compared to a mediocre one, is much higher, in my opinion, doesn’t matter if something looks interesting.
I’m also talking about a hypothetical, mainstream consumer here, because those are the ones that a review score is for.
A hypothetical mainstream consumer is the least educated person on the topic and is exactly the kind of person that gets swindled constantly by review scores. They're the ones that need to hear more than ever that following review scores as some objective truth is stupid.
Once a generation you might get a Death Stranding 2 or something, and really enjoy it, but other times you’re stuck with the original Lords of the Fallen, because you like Souls-likes, and that’s your only game this month or quarter.
And sometimes the original Lords of the Fallen is exactly what you want to play, even if everyone else says it's bad. That's entirely my point. General consensus of "good" and "bad" means nothing. Equating popularity and quality is dumb
Since I don’t agree with your initial premise, that review scores are faked or kept high to please the publishers, I also don’t agree that people are being lied to or swindled by them.
And sometimes the original Lords of the Fallen is exactly what you want to play, even if everyone else says it’s bad. That’s entirely my point. General consensus of “good” and “bad” means nothing. Equating popularity and quality is dumb
In a perfect world, where everyone has infinite time and money, sure, just do whatever. However, this world doesn’t exist, so most people probably want to avoid wasting their time or money. That’s why reviews exist.
I also think, most of the time you can equate popularity and quality to some extent. Not that the most popular are the best, but they’re usually at a decently high level. There are always going to be exceptions, of course, and not everyone will like everything.
I have heard (and I forget the source) that it is advantageous for reviewers to give a new game a good score, otherwise they might not be invited to review early-access games in the future. With that in mind, the best reviews might come after launch.
yeah this is an unfortunate part of the modern game review landscape. Probably the reason why many people just watch their favorite influencers for game opinions instead.
Pretty sure this happens a lot with the Madden franchise and their competitors. All of them are terrible American football simulation games, but if you want a free and early copy for your channel, better be nice to them, I guess.
I actually totally sympathize with that critic from your clip and don’t think there’s anything dishonest or otherwise cognitively dissonant about that review. There’s nothing I can spend more time complaining about than something I really enjoy because I naturally fixate on things that stand out about a given experience and the flaws are what stands out in something that’s overall very good.
I would never in a million years rate that particular game a 9.1/10 but that’s just me and the critic valuing different aspects of design different amounts.
thank you for your take! you make a valid point. Also dunkey clearly edited that down to every critical thing he said about the game and none of the positive things. The point stands that I have trouble trusting review scores on Mario games, and this is me speaking as someone that loves Mario games and is hyped for Wonder.
Wildlands is still a great game. It is set in 2019 Bolivia, you work to take down cartels one region at a time. It’s fun both singleplayer and co-op for up to 4 players.
Breakpoint is set on some semi-futuristic Elon Musk type fantasy technology island with drones driving and flying around. The map itself is large and varied, it seems like a South Pacific type environment. Breakpoint initially did a lot of things worse than Wildlands, such as not having AI squadmates and needing to level up your weapons. But since then the game has been updated with a lot of options to fix almost everything, and even add a lot more content. It’s a lot to get used to but ultimately still a lot of fun.
But first play Wildlands, it is fun right away, and more realistic overall.
bin.pol.social
Gorące