anyone interested in this should also check out Star Garden, which combines elements from the original Air Ride and the a-life features in the Sonic Adventures, a very dangerous combination for gamecube kids
So Mario Kart World was the big launch title with bundles, and they already released a new Fast game, the series that seems to have basically replaced F-Zero.
Seems like a lot of racing games early on from Nintendo.
I think the Switch 2 will do well, as it’s already had a better launch than the WiiU or 3DS. But it’s kind of in an awkward spot. The community reaction seems to be “yeah Mario Kart World is great, but it’s still just a Mario Kart game at the end of the day, and it will need some DLC to catch up to the level of content of MK8”. Donkey Kong was received well but doesn’t seem to have the staying power of a game like Super Mario Odyssey or Breath of the Wild did. Pokemon Legends Z-A is probably going to do well, but I don’t think these kind of spinoff games are going to drive console sales like the main games do (especially when there is a Switch version coming out too).
My point is that a few months after launch I still don’t see a game where I say “wow that’s worth grabbing a Switch 2 for!”. It almost feels more like the “Switch Pro” that was rumored for years rather than a true sequel- the main reason to upgrade right now is that Switch 1 games run better. That is enough to launch, but I’m looking through the list of announced games and trying to find what the big system seller is going to be. What’s going to release this holiday season that makes parents stand in line to buy the latest Nintendo for their children?
Maybe this is by design? Maybe Nintendo has purposefully left a bit of a drought to avoid having a ton of cross-gen games, and plans to start announcing more projects in 2026?
I have the original and passed on upgrading to the OLED. It really hasn’t shown much age at all, yet. I’m not really playing AAA or demanding titles on it, anyway, and it works perfectly for all of the games I do want to play on it. I figure the limiting factor will be the battery, and that seems to be just as good as it was new.
The clones aren’t acceptable replacements to me, they are more of handheld-consoles than handheld-PCs. If it doesn’t have touchpads, I don’t want it, period.
I also have the original and really should just be happy with it as it suites my needs. Never had an OLED screen so it’s mostly just that I suppose. Was debating the screen upgrade as well but the install video was a bit much for me. Going to keep my money for whatever hardware is next for Valve. Really would love to see Index 2 this year.
Until recently I’d have agreed with you, but some recently released games (like E33) are either locked to very low settings (and still has bad framerate despite that), or even run like shit (Sword of the Sea) even on low.
So yeah, I’m kinda feeling the need for an upgrade right now, and as much as I hate Microsoft, depending on how it will cost I may be tempted… If it runs Bazzite well.
I dunno, I don’t play these games. The most demanding game I play on steam deck is Oblivion Remastered which runs fine with upscaling/framegen and lowish settings. The nostalgia factor makes low settings totally fine for this game, too, so its not a big deal. Anything game where I want great graphics and performance, I’ll just play on my desktop.
For $900 you could literally just build a decent desktop, but you do you
I do already have a pretty powerfull desktop already (5800X3D, 32 Go RAM and RX 6800), but I just love the Deck form factor.
Especially that now I can play at work, which makes my noon brake a lot less boring. It is kinda harder to bring my desktop around 😅.
Microsoft seems to be throwing in the towel as far as driving people to their storefront is concerned. They’ll be putting out all their games on anything that can run them.
I’d argue this is not really the case, and their strategy has shifted to increasing the price of actually “owning” games to be a premium experience, ie all their new games are now $80, making subscription prices seem more attractive
They rolled back the $80 increase when they noticed that people weren’t going to buy Outer Worlds 2 at that price point. They then confirmed that their games will stay at $70 for the foreseeable future (ie. until a bigger player normalized $80 games).
They walked back the $80 price point, but I definitely agree they’re trying to figure out ways to push people to gamepass. They just keep stepping on rakes
Actually I think this is the only way to save Xbox, at least as a very first baby step. I’d bet you dollars to donuts that in ten years, there will be no functional distinction between Xbox and Windows gaming, and Xbox games will be running on PCs.
So in ten years Xbox won’t exist as a brand at all? I agree. No need to take the bet.
I think what you’re describing is exactly what Microsoft is doing. Except I think it’s incredibly short sighted from a business, consumer, and brand perspective.
IMO, It’s basically the brand equivalent of seppuku.
With no functional distinction between Xbox and Windows, you just get the entirety of the Xbox ecosystem silently competing with all of Steam. But even worse: it’s now just the word Xbox on Windows. And everyone really hates Windows at the moment. It’s bleeding OS marketshare to Linux like nothing I’ve ever seen.
So they want to put the entirety of Xbox recognition on a Platform (PC) that their console users won’t be familiar with, and the OS they’re integrating it with is actively losing users. Mostly to Linux. Which Steam has an entire OS built on top of that anyone can use for their games for free.
So the consumer choice for PC users will be between:
Steam OS based on Linux for free. Runs all steam games and has a desktop mode for all other apps.
Windows 11 for $hundreds, smaller pool of games + worse performance.
I don’t think people are going to choose option 2 just because the word Xbox is in it somehow. Some might, but this is just HBO becoming MAX all over again, but without the escape plan of returning to HBO.
Destroying a console AND brand just to compete with Steam with an inferior product is incredibly dumb, and incredibly Microsoft.
I don’t think they’ll scuttle the brand, I think they’ll make Xbox a standard for compatibility backed up by custom hardware targets. Like the generation after next might be System X and System S, but you could have a custom PC build that certifies as “exceeds System S” and thus any app can reliably run at that level of quality as a guaranteed minimum. You could still buy an Xbox, but it would be more like a Steam Machine. And a handheld would simply be “any System S certified handheld, including the Xbox first party device”.
I agree this is clever, and a decent shot at evolving what an “Xbox” is. I just think it’s spreading the brand thin when it’s already been stretched far. While it would be very convenient and cool to have a certified Xbox machine, outside of CoD or Overwatch, there’s not much software that makes the Xbox brand as a recognizable game service valuable.
Basically, If all Microsoft has to offer on our Xbox PC’s are CoD and Overwatch, then that is what the name “Xbox” will be worth. I would not say either of those games have a bright future, let alone one that’s uniquely identifiable as “Xbox.”
So while I agree that Microsoft is making sure everything can be an Xbox, I disagree that will increase its brand value. I think, if anything, it will just further dilute the value of Xbox as a service or name that people relate to for games. If the only games offered are ones that have shrinking crowds, then what else is growing them that Xbox offers?
Imo, more entry points into having an Xbox doesn’t mean there’s more of a reason to enter.
It’s possible you’re right, but strategically, I think the Xbox brand is a lost cause on its own. PlayStation is just beating it up and stealing its lunch money at this point. On the PC side, Steam rules the roost and makes money hand over fist running other people’s games on other people’s operating systems. So it looks to me like the only valid move is to see if the combined PC/Xbox ecosystem can compete with either of them or, optimistically, both.
The catch will be that they need to position it properly and we all know how awesome they are at that coughxboxonecough. If they sell it as “buy an Xbox like you always have and it’ll play tens of thousands of PC games too OR buy a Windows PC and it can play Xbox games natively or with backwards compatibility now” then I think they have a shot.
I mean, imagine being able to play every Steam Deck-compatible game on your Xbox console OR your Xbox handheld by default, even if you bought it from Steam. That’s a goddamn value proposition if I ever saw one. Then they just need to try and win market share from Steam through distribution and ecosystem, which would be their next big battle.
Of course, I say all this as though they aren’t going to epically deuce the futon like they always do.
Interesting strategy! And thank you for describing it in detail as well! If I sounded condescending at all, it was certainly towards Microsoft 😉 But you’re right - that path is worth pursuing for that value proposition. It’s a safer path than others as well.
Agreed it’s almost destiny that the futon will be dueced. But at least this approach could make things interesting 🤘
You’re all good! You didn’t come across as condescending, just rightly pessimistic about Xbox’s brand. My friends and I have been diehard Xbox players for decades at this point, and now we’re all starting to feel like Microsoft is dropping every ball they can get their hands on. It’s depressing.
That’s a marketing campaign, not a strategy. To be clear, I’m saying native Xbox games will run on Windows and vice versa, which is a lot more than a marketing campaign based on what devices can stream cloud games.
It will parallel the push to Windows365 in the enterprise space. Thinking in terms of hardware only misses the internal goal at Microsoft of locking everyone in to Azure hosted services where they have unlimited access to your data for CoPilot training.
THAT is their strategy. TPM requirements, kernel locking and secure boot are baby steps to the end goal. It’s not about Xbox, it’s about training data for their GenAI platforms.
Additionally, their Prism Emulation Engine is running Xbox games natively on ARM hardware as of a few days ago (insider preview users at least)
That emulation engine just runs Windows games, not Xbox games.
I think you’re right in that they highly prioritize cloud data and subscriptions, but that’s where the Game Pass road leads. Native apps on a subscription service now, bets all hedged for a possible all-cloud semi-distant future.
Excuse my observation but this is just a Rog Ally with Xbox sticker on it no? Besides that are we just using Xbox label to call things Xbox now ? I guess I don’t get the originality of this
It’s a little confusing because of things shifting around but my understanding is that this the launch of Microsoft’s debloated and handheld gaming targeted version of Windows. Basically they saw what a better experience SteamOS was and realized it was a problem.
I think it’s actually the opposite, as they claimed to have optimised it for gaming with interface and QOL catered to the purpose. That’s more bloat when Microsoft does it.
I’m not a MS fanboy (incredibly far from it) but your comment sparked a vision in my head of an immutable variant of LTSC/iot that function liked a Debian or arch base with vendors building x window interfaces on top of it i(the name is already there). interfaces that are hardware or platform specific (e.g. here’s your Ubisoft skin, here’s your Epic Skin, etc…).
If only we lived in a tech utopia instead of… whatever the fuck the mba’s have spent the last few decades shitting out.
I hate having thoughts of utopia in an orphan crushing world.
I'm in act 2 and while Im in love with the game, I can agree. The game could be impossible for people who aren't already very good at platformers. Benches are very sparse and money is always an issue. I hope Team Cherry make the game more reasonable through updates.
I have no idea what people were expecting to be honest. Hollow Knight was already known for being an extremely difficult game with punishing anti-fun elements like runbacks and corpse runs. Which game had everyone played that got them so hyped for Silksong?
There’s a reason I stayed away from HK, and I will be staying away from Silksong too. Game looks great but I won’t be able to beat it and I won’t have any fun failing to do so.
I think the big difference is that HK had a smooth difficulty curve as you slowly unlock new abilities. Silksong by comparison picks up where HK left off and is immediately hard which makes it hard to approach for new players. Early game areas feel as hard as late game areas from the first game. That's throwing everybody off who is either new to the franchise or hasn't played Hollow Knight since it came out checks notes 8 years ago
Early game areas feel as hard as late game areas from the first game.
Are you sure about that? It's been a while since I played Hollow Knight, but other than Hunter's Marsh I think Sillksong has been comparable to or slightly harder than equivalent parts of the Hollow Knight. The enemies are tougher, but you also get more tools to deal with them so it evens out. Mostly thinking of the projectiles here, but the mobility difference also can't be understated; you can abuse dash attacks in Silksong in a way you never could in Hollow Knight. Also I haven't quite (or at all really) gotten the hang of it but the game might've been designed with parrying in mind, which would allow you to avoid a lot of damage because many of the harder enemies are warrior types.
Ya, Hollow Knight's first areas like forgotten crossroads and greenpath were a lot easier. There werent any mechanics you have to worry about other than jumping and attacking, and most enemies you faced just walk slowly towards you. Bosses were also fairly straightforward.
By comparison Silksong has you fighting tougher enemies that could deal 2x damage, and quick bosses right off the bat like Bell Beast which kills you in 3 hits. Healing taking your entire bar also makes platforming more difficult because newbies will often be low HP and not have enough silk to heal.
Yes, Hornet is way faster and stronger than the knight but that kinda assumes you're good at dashing and pogo jumping, which many people fail at in the start.
I have to agree. Although I would have said “the real easy difficulty is realizing that not every game is for you”. And sometimes that includes really popular games, ones that everyone else seems to be enjoying. And that’s ok.
That’s fair, but I also don’t see a problem in voicing criticism about aspects of the game I don’t like. Especially if I do like the game as a whole. People should not see that as an attack on their personal enjoyment of the game.
Sure, and as a consumer of a product, you are within your rights to do so. But I think that a lot of times there’s an underlying thread of entitlement that comes with a lot of the criticisms. The tone suggests more ,“how dare you make something I can’t play” and less “I’m not suited for this challenge”. There’s surprisingly little in the way of complaints about the game design that read as things that fit the theme and game vision. There are a few, but most aren’t.
And full disclosure I’m speaking from the standpoint of someone who while interested in a lot of the “git gud” genre games, can’t cut it 90% of the time. It took me realizing that I just wasn’t who those games were for before I was able to look at some of my options and realize they were just me and my sour grapes.
Yea. I wont dismiss this criticism as hate, but I will dismiss it as dumb. The game was designed to be a challenge. Not everyone is up to that challenge, that’s fine. The game isn’t meant for you, then.
My friend can’t play the Dark Souls games. He’s really interested in the setting and has given a few multiple attempts, but the difficulty curve just isn’t for him, so he just doesn’t play them.
Not everything that makes the game harder or more challenging to play is good game design though, and a game shouldn’t get a free pass just because its developers stated “well the game being hard is part of our artistic vision”. It’s fine to criticise things, even - or actually maybe especially - things we like. We don’t have to be binary about things, we can like something while still recognising its flaws.
Excessive runbacks for example is something that is primarily concerned with disrespecting your time as a player and even FromSoft seem to have realised that they’re not a good addition or a fun way of increasing difficulty seeing as they introduced Stakes of Marika in Elden Ring. Hell, even Ninja Gaiden went away from boss runbacks starting from the second game, and that came out in 2008!
I can’t say I’ve gotten to some of the examples people have mentioned as “annoying; bad design”, so I’ll leave judgement until I get there. But there’s nothing inherently wrong with runbacks if it’s part of the design and the boss is the culmination of that.
Stakes of Marika are definitely there to appeal to a wider audience. I personally don’t care for them, as for most areas in DS I enjoyed trying to claw my way back to the boss unharmed. It was like a puzzle.
It’s fine to criticise things, but I personally think “make checkpoint outside of the boss” the criticism is not a good one. At the end of the day, that’s all personal opinion.
A lot of DS1 runbacks were true runbacks where you could just run past everything. Once you’d worked out the running, they weren’t too irritating, but some were a bit long. In DS3 a number of runbacks had unavoidable enemies on the way where you could mess up and eat a hit and then be down an Estus charge.
The main two problems are:
boredom. Punishing you for failure by forcing you to walk through a section of level again for a couple of minutes isn’t fun for anyone. It’s not “stakes”; it’s boring. Repeatedly dying to the challenging boss is not boring because you are constantly trying to improve, learn its moves, and beat it. Running through the same path is boring. Anything boring is bad game design.
Risk of unrelated mistakes. This is more subjective, but for me there should be some separation between different challenges; there should be a feeling that after you have convincingly solved one challenge, you shouldn’t have prove yourself against it again too much. Doing so is, yes, boring again, but also frustrating. Things that are frustrating (to some) can be good game design, but I don’t want to be frustrated. Whiffing a roll you’ve done successfully many times and being set back on an unrelated challenge is, to me, annoying.
You’re getting voted up for your opinion, and I’m getting down for mine. Strange. Things you say are unfun for you are fine for me, like I said in my post, I do believe it’s personal opinion.
I’m not denying that there has to be design intent in here, but I take great issue with people stating “runbacks are unfun” as a matter of fact. Again, if it’s taken into consideration with time and how the boss mechanic works, that’s simply how the game is designed. I respect everyone’s opinion and their thoughts being the opposite, but I don’t think it’s a universal truth that must be upheld with every game.
Again, maybe I’ll feel differently regarding Silksong specifically as I get further. So far I don’t take umbrage with it’s runback design.
I think he’s being upvoted and you’re being downvoted because boss runbacks have been around for a long time and both the industry and community have since come to a consensus that they’re just objectively bad game design. They don’t add anything of value to a game and their existence is a detriment to the experience. I don’t think you’ll find a single person who holds the opinion that they’re fun. People like yourself may tolerate them, but a tolerable inconvenience is not the same thing as fun. You’ve actually gone exceptionally out of your way to avoid calling them fun.
Like with anything, not all personal opinions are going to be held in equal regard. And your take here is going to be an outlier so I wouldn’t be surprised if you continue to get this reception.
I haven’t gone out of my way. While I haven’t used the word “fun”, I did say I enjoyed most runbacks in Dark Souls as a sort of puzzle. Being downvoted for a subjective opinion is absurd, especially when the person I’m responding to also has a subjective opinion. But nice to know my opinion has less value.
Anyway, I don’t really want to go in circles with this since I feel like both sides here have said what they want to say.
I’ll just leave with an example of a mechanic I find unfun and wish would go away, as a sort of olive branch of understanding that opinions are opinions. In Breath of the Wild and similar games, I hate the weapon/item degradation mechanic. I understand their design goals with it, and I understand how removing it from those games would change quite a bit of how they want the game to run, but I’d be much happier if it were to disappear completely.
I haven’t gone out of my way. While I haven’t used the word “fun”, I did say I enjoyed most runbacks in Dark Souls as a sort of puzzle. Being downvoted for a subjective opinion is absurd, especially when the person I’m responding to also has a subjective opinion.
I think we all know that the up/down votes are people agreeing or disagreeing with you. So having more downvotes than upvotes means that more people disagree with you than agree with you.
Also, if you complain about downvotes, that usually deserves a downvote from me.
It’s only subjective in that it’s not entirely impossible for at least one person out there to enjoy the mechanic. However at the same time there has been a general consensus made that it’s not a good mechanic. Your opinion may be the equal of any one other persons opinion, but what I think you’re not understanding is that is that it’s not the equal of the many opinions of the majority of people. If you expect your one opinion to hold the same value as the collective opinions of everyone else, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment.
as a sort of olive branch of understanding that opinions are opinions.
That’s not a great example to your point because the weapon degradation mechanic of BOTW is also widely regarded as a bad mechanic. It’s the most disliked mechanic in that game.
The thing is, there is no reason not to add accessibility settings.
Hollow Knight and Silksong are beautiful games with an intriguing world, great characters and lots of areas to explore. There’s no reason to gatekeep games like these from people that just can’t beat them because they are too hard.
Just add a simple accessibility menu where you can scale health, damage and loot drops. It’s almost no work to implement, players can still try the regular difficulty and turn it down when it’s too much and speedrunners can make their lifes more difficult. Everyone wins.
The thing is, I can’t personally think of an accessibility setting that would serve the intended function without removing the sense of having finally met the challenge. I struggle with difficult games too, and I don’t always complete them. That struggle and uncertainty is part of the journey though to me and if there was a difficulty tweak available as soon as I got frustrated the first time, it would erase those stakes (for me).
I mentioned Celeste as a positive example. I did feel a satisfaction with completing that game, but if not for the highly emotional personal journey of the narrative potion of that game I don’t think it would have been as satisfying. At every point I knew there was an easy way out, and staying frustrated and gradually getting better was a conscious choice without any real stakes attached to it other than my own self-satisfaction. The was never any worry that I’d fail to complete the game. Those stakes do make eventually winning feel real.
So I just can’t think of any suggestions for this. It’s elitist or ableist I realise, and I’m not happy with that. The creator certainly was aware of games like Celeste, and they had plenty of time to consider those options. Before casting any judgment or making suggestions on their behalf, I’d be really interested to hear what they have to say about the choice. Do they think the struggle has to be as firmly set as it is for the triumph to feel as elating? I can’t read their minds, so if there’s an interview where they address that I’d be all ears.
To each their own, I always think of difficulty and challenge as proportional and relative to the individual. You can just as easily turn the question around the other way: how can you feel any satisfaction beating a Souls game using magic and summons and level ups and items when there are people who have beat it at Level 1 hitless and using a dance pad instead of controller? What’s “appropriately challenging” is way too individual for the bluntness of a single difficulty setting.
And coming up with solutions isn’t even that hard. Add some sliders to adjust the length of parry windows and i-frames on dodge rolls and whatnot and you’re probably a good part of the way there. Gameplay intact, people still go through the same motions they just have a chance now even if they don’t have the reflexes or timing for frame-perfect inputs.
In a game like Hollow Knight (and Silksong), I can't help but feel such a crude setting would end up doing more harm than good. I mean, let's take health for example. Increasing your health wouldn't help much if you can't handle what the game is throwing at you; the few extra masks the game gives you only really help if you can handle the difficulty but need mistake tolerance, otherwise enemies will still hit you and you'll still fail at platforming and fall into spikes. Fundamentally the difficulty of a game like Hollow Knight comes from a lot more than just damage numbers, so a naive difficulty scale would only give an illusion of accessibility that would fade away at the first difficult part, and in that case it's better for everyone involved if the inaccessibility of the game is easily apparent.
the few extra masks the game gives you only really help if you can handle the difficulty but need mistake tolerance
Increasing mistake tolerance already increases accessibility, even if you still have to manage a tough platformer part.
Of course the options given are just examples to get it done quickly. Accessibility options can be a a lot more nuanced, even going as far as altering level structures to provide pathways for players that can’t platform.
The point of my post was that for all I care the difficulty options can go all the way to invincibility, one hitting every boss and skipping every platformer segment. It does not reduce my enjoyment of these games if other people can play the game in a way they want to.
I like the game, but I definitely think it deserves some criticism. I really don’t get the thinking behind not placing a bench directly in front of every boss arena. The run-backs don’t make the game harder, just more frustrating. It’s also something I disliked in older Souls games, but thankfully they realized the problem and fixed it in Elden Ring. And some mechanics are just baffling, like benches that are locked behind a paywall, which you have to pay every time you want to access the bench. Why on earth would they do this, with currency already being as sparse as it is?
The paid one time bench thing etc is for a narrative reason, the main point of the story as far as I played is about the church scamming people on every occasion. Money won’t be an issue once you reach act 2, I always have more money then I can spend even after buying out all merchants I’ve seen.
As for no benches in front of bosses it’s to discourage throwing yourself at the boss without reflecting on where to improve. The long runs I saw people complain about also were mostly like 2 screens. Worst bossrun so far was probably the judge which was only like 2 screens when you think about it.
I really enjoy the game so far, I’m about half way through act 2 I’d say so maybe it gets super hard later, but right now I think it’s very balanced between a bit challenging but not frustrating. I do feel that the game was created with players like me in mind, someone who did all pantheon, steal soul mode as well as all achievements in hk but is a little bit rusty from the long wait.
I think we don’t have enough language to talk about difficulty in a productive way.
You could keep all the boss mechanics the same in a game but add a 1 minute unstoppable cut scene at the start and the game is “more difficult” because it takes you longer to learn boss patterns and experiment with different strategies. But that feels very different to narrowing the windows to react or expanding the move set of a boss which feels different again to changing the values so you need to grind more/fewer levels or resources to pass it.
“Runback too long” and “git gud” sound a lot like people talking past eachother, but maybe thats just an artifact of the journalist reporting rather than the discussion itself
yea, that’s entirely valid. I love these games (Metroidvanias) because of the exploration and worldbuilding. The combat is a way to advance further into that world, but it’s just a means to an end to me. Make it too tough, and you’re preventing me from enjoying the parts I like.
I played a good 4 or 5 hours of Silksong so far and loving it. It’s a little tough though, and I think it could use a nerf.
I haven’t played this yet, so I don’t know anything about what difficulty settings it may or may not have But in general, I see difficulty settings as an accessibility feature.
I liked the way that Ender Magnolia did it, where, at a save point, you could adjust several settings to customize the difficulty. I was able to temporarily make it slightly easier just for a few bosses that I lost my patience for.
Mandragora had the exact same difficulty system, you could adjust enemy HP, Damage and even Stamina cost at every bonfire. Great accessibility feature.
Difficulty is subjective. Creating multiple levels of difficulty either takes tremendous effort to do well or, as is the case with most games, an adjustment to some numbers that is less an increase/decrease in difficulty and more an increase/decrease to the tediousness of combat.
Puzzle games with difficulty settings alter the complexity of the puzzles. Action games can alter the encounters themselves (how many, of what kind of enemies and their placement in the arena), or even changing the enemy behavior to be more/less complex. Yet this kind of difficulty adjustment isn’t common at all anymore.
ign.com
Najstarsze