This is going to be a weird suggestion but, if you like the pvm aspect of killing bosses to get powerful loot and take on more difficult challenges, you should play Remnant 2.
It’s a souls like shooter about exploring a few different worlds searching for new gear so you can make better builds, loot is not randomized so there is a clear BiS for your build.
If you’re not excited about Brighter shores then I really don’t know, for some reason no one else has ever tried to make the same type of game (aside from Genfanad and Titanreach, both of which have shut down quickly after release)
You could check out Project: Gorgon, it’s something of a mix between Runescape’s multitude of slow-to-level, interconnected skills on one character and a more typical MMO with distinct classes, buildcrafting and group content. It has a free demo on Steam. All of that said it’s only vaguely similar, and I wouldn’t mention it if there was anything closer to OSRS.
I’ve come to the point where at least some people come to me for advice on buying electronics.
Girl friend asked me for a TV to connect with her PlayStation, not that expensive, 4K/60 and low input delay for casual gaming, and it should last for at least 10 years and should be cheap. Long story short, I got her a 4K/60fps TV with a gaming mode that has like 2~3ms delay for € 550. It‘s a dumb Philips TV running Linux, so no google play and you can remove all spyware. It has apps, but she got the PS to do all of this anyway.
Huh, that’s interesting. I would have thought that a TV running Linux would be called ‘smart’.
I’m with you though, it’s better to be more ‘modular’ and have your playback device- be it PlayStation, media server, heck even television receiver, seperate from the display itself.
Yeah i think that tv is still a smart tv just not an android based smart tv (or it might still be Android since that is also very Linux like, especially when you remove Google services)
First off: cables don’t have version numbers. The host and the client have ports that adhere to a certain spec and the HDMI foundation made that very unclear by incorporating 2.0b into 2.1 and now not every 2.1 port supports the same things. Cables are defined by their max bandwidth, i.e. high speed, ultra high speed or high speed with ethernet. You might see marketers saying something is a 2.1 cable, that just means it is capable of supporting some or all of the 2.1 spec.
Second: the only reason to get new HDMI cables, like you said, is if you currently have a very old one and have devices that actually make use of the bandwidth. And I’ll tell you right now, most of the high speed cables will do just fine. It’s when you start doing 8k120 with HDR and VRR with eARC you’ll need heftier cables. The only external devices to support that, though, are either supplied with cables because their makers don’t want you bottlenecking your device, or they are PCs.
Third: the only reason HDMI is even a thing is because this joint venture behind it successfully lobbied their inferior product to TV manufacturers. DisplayPort has always been and will always be the better interface for video.
Yes, and this is unironically a problem. I am frankly happy to see this push just so I don't have to find out that the video issue I've been troubleshooting for the last 2 hours was due to a cable that's marked the same as any other cable happens to have half the bandwidth as some other arbitrary one.
While I almost completely agree with you, never underestimate the power of using the right tool for the right job. HDMI is actually far more resilient to signal corruption in my experience than display port since it implements TMDS and the cables are more commonly well shielded since they expect them to be used in device dense environments, which isn’t really applicable to anyone familiar with technology (don’t group up your cables next to something with significant RF noise/leaks, duh.) but does matter for the end user use case these see. The fees hdmi charge are a scam though fr and we could ask better from the industry.
Mostly unable to make use of certain features. Say your display supports 4k @ 120Hz. If you have an improper cable you might be able to get 4k30 or 4k60, but not 4k120.
Not really. It isn’t as good as Far Harbor aeven though the world building is better and more interesting. Of course it’s way worse than Dragonborn. But it’s definitely better than Nuka World and Automaton. And also better than the Pitt and Mothership Zeta even though it’s difficult to make comparisons with Fallout 3
I am blissfully unaware of the differences, and since I’m playing the steam deck on my TV the only HDMI cable I rummaged around for and found in our pile of obsolete cables is doing the job.
Corporate greed has killed all of my favorite mmos, and every new mmo that comes out is further down the spiral.
So I decided to make my own damn game, a mashup of my top 5 favorite defunct mmos. Base gameplay/progression/dynamic events from Tabula Rasa, Star Wars Galaxies crafting/building, Firefall jumping/gliding/thumping, the mechs from Exteel, and the territory control map from Planetside 1.
It’s 100% a shameless asset flip, and currently jank af, but pretty fun at the moment.
Well…except the next installations of Fallout and Elder Scrolls. Let’s be honest, that’s what Microsoft were really buying, and neither are anywhere near a release.
Judging by how Starfield turned out, will missing either of those games (which are almost certainly going to be using the same incredibly outdated engine) be much of a loss?
For those of us that miss the lore and story/atmosphere of this games, absolutely.
Don’t get me wrong, Starfield has made me truly worried about the next installment, and I truly believe that milking Skyrim has ultimately left Bethesda in a position where open world gaming just leapfrogged them. The likes of TOTK and Elden Ring have absolutely shattered what they can show to deliver in a supposedly improved generation.
All I can hope is that Bethesda really look at the feedback they received, and take the time to make the necessary changes to their engine. That alone might be enough to at least give a retro feel to the games. I’ll still eagerly await them, but my hopes for them being GOTY are long gone.
The engine isn’t why Starfield sucks. Sure, the constant loading isn’t great but it isn’t the reason there’s nothing fun or interesting to do. It’s also a solvable issue, but they haven’t made the investments they need in the engine.
Starfield is just soulless. The characters are boring, the stories aren’t interesting and don’t let the player choose fun options. The universe is static and nothing matters. There’s just no reason to be involved in the world, so there’s no reason to want to be in it.
They could fix this. I’d say the way they need to go to do so is to stop targeting literally every player. They need to figure out who they’re making the game for and target them. I’m a big sci-fi fan, and I like older Bethesda games. I should have been an easy target for Starfield, but I hated it, not because of the engine but because the stories, characters, and universe weren’t engaging. The engine is an easy target to complain about, but it isn’t what’s holding them back. Indie games can do more with worse engines.
The engine really isn’t suited for the kind of game Starfield wants to be, so it really works against it. But you’re right, even if it were a new shiny engine with the same writing and characters, it would still suck. Likewise, if it had the same creaky engine but actual good stories and characters the constant loading would be easier to overlook. It just has the worst of both worlds.
Bethesda’s game design is just too old. Playing Starfield felt like playing an RPG from a decade ago. Bethesda just got complacent from back when they were one of the only companies that could seriously do an open-world RPG, now we have CD Projekt-Red and FromSoftware with wildly different, significantly more innovative gameplay experiences. Hell, even other AAA devs like Capcom have been able to outperform in the open world space, Dragon’s Dogma 2 was a ton of fun.
No, sadly I think the design is too new. Morrowind was 22 years ago. It is the direction I’d like to see them go again. A complex world that feels lived in, and actually gives players options to play how they want and figure things out for themselves. The newer boring “design for everyone” approach sucks. There’s no soul and nothing interesting.
FromSoft is somewhat notoriously old-school. Their game design has directly evolved from their older games. Look at King’s Field and then look at Dark Souls. There’s so much similarity. Yeah, ER is more cleaned up with a fuck-ton more money and technology available, but it’s essentially the same design.
Obviously Balder’s Gate 3 is just an evolution of classic RPG design, and it did very well. I’d argue CDPR also has taken classic RPG inspiration more than modern ones. A modern RPG design wouldn’t do half the stuff Cyberpunk did, because it’s not targeting everyone (and no one).
Modern AAA design doesn’t pick a target. Their target is everyone and everything, so they do nothing well. Classic design is knowing who your game is for and making a game for them and not anyone else. Bethesda is doing the former.
Holy fuck gamers really do have the worst memories. Cyberpunk is still a shit game after 4 fucking years of patches. CDPR has like 5 titles and one of them is pretty good. FromSoftware has a legacy of bangers a mile long. These 2 companies aren’t even in the same wheelhouse.
Cyberpunk is very much not a shit game, it’s a pretty good RPG with a great variety of character builds and fantastic writing. The devs did an absurd amount of work in order to make the gameplay significantly more fun. I’d also make the argument that Witcher 2 is a really good game, and is what popularized the series enough for Witcher 3 to be such a colossally known hit. The two companies make very different RPGs to one another, for sure, but you’re just being a contrarian if you think the pedigree of the two companies is vastly different.
but you’re just being a contrarian if you think the pedigree of the two companies is vastly different.
Even if we ignore all the other bootlicking and fanboying in the above comment, this statement alone is completely absurd. FromSoftware has developed over 50 games and CDPR has…4? Maybe 10 if you count mobile trash? By the year 2000 FromSoftware had released more successful games than CDPR has released total, good or bad, to date.
It’s no wonder that cyberpunk is such a piece of garbage really when you realize every other game CDPR ever developed has “the witcher” somewhere in the title.
I don’t know about nowadays, but back in 2007 when I got bored with Runescape I switched to Guild Wars. Great MMO. Kind of dead playerwise now, but the servers are still up and it is soloable.
Recovered my account a couple years ago with support and providing my og serials. Can’t believe it worked but it punched me in the face nostalgia-wise when I got into it.
I still remember hanging out in a few of them around this time of year when stuff was decked out Halloween themed. Never did beat the expansions. Crazy how little detail the game seems to have by today’s standards 🤣
Guild wars 2 is a very good game, but very different than guild wars 1.
They both avoid the endless gear and level grind, but gw2 is generally easier and less tactical. You can solo most of it. Builds are a little more limited, but it’s also harder to make a useless character.
They addressed the most common problems with early mmos: other players are never a bad thing. there’s no kill stealing. If you’re doing some event to fight off demons that have invaded the town, and other people show up, the game silently scales up a to accommodate more players, and everyone gets credit. it’s great.
I really like it. I don’t play it every day, but I go back to it all the time.
Yeah it does a lot of stuff very good. The only thing I miss is something like chasing WoW raids drops. In GW2 you’re almost always working on crafting/mysticforge/achievements instead. I play a lot though don’t get me wrong :P
I believe the things you are calling out are an integral part of the ARPG genre so there isn’t going to be much change to the core without fundamentally changing the game you’re playing. Plenty of people enjoy the wanton clicky destruction and seeing numbers rise, just look how popular stuff like cookie clicker is.
Have you tried monster hunter? (Or god eater or wild hearts) Those games sound a lot like what you’re describing. At its heart the core gameplay is ‘Hunt monsters to gather parts to make better gear to hunt more powerful monsters’
Instead of mowing down tones of small things though, you take down a single large and dangerous foe. As you progress, new and more powerful foes appear, but despite the large roster of monsters, they all feel unique. And while better gear certainly helps, a good deal of skill is also required.
This is why I’m looking forward to the first few seasons of PoE2. It sounds like they’re starting out focused on making the moment to moment gameplay more interesting. They’ll cave to the zoom zoom crowd soon enough and ruin the game with power creep within a year, so I’m very much planning on treating it as a temporary game, but it’ll be fun while it lasts.
I’ve given up on every major developer/publisher, so-called AAA garbage, except for capcom for monster hunter and square enix for final fantasy. I’ll be extra sad the day they too go the way of every other greedy lazy “AAA” game company…
At least indie devs care to make a good game and not try to make a money printing IP machine with some game like aspects in it.
Even Capcom I’m not preordering. If wilds is getting good reviews a couple days after launch I’ll get it. (Even though I’m pretty sure it will be a good game)
I feel like monster hunter is kinda hard to mess up, unless they suddenly decided to make it turn based with micro transactions for extra turns or something lol
The “story” is: omg big monster messing up the ecosystem, go fight! So it’s really all down to gameplay lol
$70 is going to be the new normal price for AAA. Prices haven’t increased in decades. I don’t like it, but that’s what it is. It’s not AAAA because of the price, nor is that even a thing.
AAA comes from credit rating scores. It essentially means nearly guaranteed returns. It was used to identify games that need to be stocked for game stores. AAA is going to sell. AA is slightly less but still good. Etc. There is not AAAA credit rating. That was just stupid marketing buzzwords that don’t matter.
as a hige indi/small developer fan i see great times ahad. AAA will fail, clmpanys will close and developers will find new homes in smaller teams. by 2030 i predict a golden age for AA and and perhabs also a new golden age for indi.
You could stand by and hope for great things with Brighter Shores, from one of the original makers of RuneScape. I’m hoping it gives me that seem feel rs did decades ago.
I’m done bro. I have no hope left in me after Back 4 Blood. The original creators of Left 4 Dead, totally failed to deliver a fun and interesting game. I can’t believe the whole “original creator” bait anymore
I don’t think this means ES6 is doomed. Did anyone play the Civ space game? It was an offshoot one-off experiment that wasn’t really well recieved and they quietly moved on.
My guess is that this game pivoted during development and they ended up with something that didn’t really work and shouldn’t have shipped. The failure to find something good in this experiment may be isolated to this game.
The fact that they released it in the state they did could be more about their workflow and project pipeline/target milestones they need to hit than it is about their ability to execute.
The failure here is in design, ES6 has a tried and true design to follow.
Story and worldbuilding wise, ES6 has a very bleak future ahead. Emilio Pagliarulo, the de facto director of Starfield and lead writer, has shown that no hole is deep enough that he won’t dig it further down when it comes to lack of quality and consistency. Not that Skyrim’s main story was good, but it was certainly better than Starfield’s. There’s also the disturbing indifference of “the world” to everything happening around it. Literally nothing you do in Starfield affects anything outside its own storyline. Hell, shooting up in the air or using fucking space magic in the middle of a city generates no reaction from npcs if nobody is hit.
Point being that they can experiment and do something a little different, I don’t think that the quality of the spinoff indicates the quality of the main franchise.
I think ES6 will have the advantage that it won’t be a procedurally generated world, or at least I don’t hope so.
But it will probably still run on the shitty Bethesda engine that they cling onto for dear life for some reason.
I think it will never actually live up to the hype, expectations are so insanely high, and the longer it takes the higher these expectations rise it seems.
And I bet it will turn out to be another half-assed game that they hope modders will fix. Like the last bunch of games, they all require mods to be even remotely playable, but even mods can’t fix core issues.
My expectations for Bethesda dropped to bare minimum with everything that came after Skyrim.
The problem is Starfield isn’t a one off. It’s the latest in a line of progressively worse games. Every game they’ve released since Skyrim has been worse than the one that came before it.
Since Skyrim? I’d say their quality has been slowly declining since Morrowind. It wasn’t that noticeable at first, since oblivion, fallout 3, and Skyrim were still quite good and fallout 4 was decent. But then fallout 76 was a mess at release, TES blades was shit, and starfield just seems lazy.
Skyrim was at least an improvement over Oblivion. It showed they had the ability to recognize and fix the mistakes of Oblivion and still create an interesting world.
and they ended up with something that didn’t really work and shouldn’t have shipped.
That sure didn’t stop the marketing department, as this game was being shoved in our faces left and right as if it was the end-all-be-all game we’d be playing with our grand children in 50 years.
My guess is that this game pivoted during development
Nah, the game matches pretty well with what Lyin’ Todd said he wanted to make almost 20 years ago
It’s also very clearly their usual design decisions but in a new setting
If anything the issue is that they stayed stuck in EXACTLY their usual development methods: no design document because Emil doesn’t like them, their writers make their quests too, and use an engine that’s absolutely not meant for the kind of game they’re making ON TOP of being ancient and garbage
No, it’s adjusted for corporate greed. World of Warcraft has never once raised their subscription. Also, they shouldn’t have had to raise their subscription because they introduced microtransactions in both RS3 and OSRS which further boosted revenue. You’re comparing two very different times in the game. There’s no excuse whatsoever.
The only microtransaction in OSRS is the ability to buy membership with in game gold. As someone who is normally staunchly against all MTX it’s a very reasonable tradeoff
It has unequivocally ruined old school RS. Not only do people still buy gold for real life money. They also real world trade, too. some very popular streamers have RWT permanent bans. So the bond has solved literally no problem it claimed it would. It really just allowed people to buy gear for money in real life which is really sad. I get you can buy membership with gold. But that was never a thing back in 2007 and shouldn’t be allowed now. That sort of insane feature is directly fueling the bot industry
People buying gold for real life money has literally always been happening behind the scenes (yes in 2007 as well), so again I have no issues with this. With membership bonds it even removes gold from an inflated economy. It seems to me though that you want a version of the game exactly how it was in 2007, in which case you’re SoL
bin.pol.social
Gorące