i picked your comment specifically for this reply.
i am so happy that you found a game that you love withe a great dev and a supportive community.
but i still can’t figure out why this game is so big.
i know, i know. and i feel like a dad trying to figure out why all these kids love the minecraft on their nintendos these days.
you might think i want you to explain or convince me. but i’m just happy knowing you love a game i’ll never understand the way you do. that’s actually really fucking cool.
Do you mean Stardew Valley or Haunted Chocolatier?
Stardew Valley is a combination of a creativity toy, a dating simulator, a soap opera and a security blanket. You’re actually able to return to a humble artisanal life, make absolute bank doing it, and beat the giant megacorp should you choose do to so. A decreasing number of places offer that kind of hopeful feeling in reality.
Haunted Chocolatier? I don’t know, didn’t really see the appeal when it was explained to me.
people are gonna hate me, but i never got into Star Wars. however - and i can’t explain why - Spaceballs was my favourite movie as a kid. i recoded it off CityTV on Beta.
The initial appeal for me was that I enjoyed harvest moon, except for how the old tech made the experience of playing it suck so bad, I couldn't replay it. It was annoying doing any of the basic tasks like switching tools iirc. so there was a huge opening in the market for a new harvest moon that wasn't annoying to play. And where you were allowed to be gay.
So the initial buzz came from that, imo. the people who wanted a new harvest moon game were like 'wow, finally!' and then word of mouth did its thing. these days, nostalgia for it specifically drives people back to play, along with extensive modding and occasional free updates keeping things fresh.
i think other people can explain better why the harvest moon formula itself is so appealing, but i just think it's interesting how an indie game can get so popular by just being like "what if i made this big corporation game people want a new entry from, but fixed the stuff in it that sucks?'
i don’t know anything about harvest moon, but you said something that stood out for me.
i thought it was neat that you could flirt with anyone in that game, but that’s as far as i got with that. i assume, though, that you can pursue relationships with anyone and that it’s totally not an issue at all. that’s the impression i got, and i thought that was pretty cool. didn’t come off as anything political when i saw it at the time, though, i just figured it was the inevitable evolution of characters in fiction. i miss my old naivity.
iirc, there was one old harvest moon game where you played as a woman and you could marry a guy OR live forever with your female bestie. i don't remember if that one made it to the english speaking world.
stardew valley really upped the game when the guy who made it decided it'd be no big deal if you wanted to pursue a same sex relationship in it. now it feels like a standard of the genre to let you do that, and it really wasn't always like that. other games did it, too, but it still felt exceptional back then.
(but, yeah, the gay thing was a big deal for me personally, especially at the time sdv came out. i don't know if it was generally a big deal for most players, but that's definitely a reason for it to catch a certain sort of player's eye back when it was first becoming popular.)
i thought there was something special about just making it that way and not making a point of it. it’s just the way it is. that’s just really cool to me.
Chiming in with why I love SV: While the game itself is a new thing (well 9 years old at this point), it really feels like a product of an earlier time. And not just the graphics, music, gameplay, and plot. It lacks all the dark pattern mechanics and monetization that’s nearly inescapable in modern games. It just feels good to play, but always feels good to put down.
I just find the game endlessly charming. Every time I pick it up it reminds me of my childhood playing SNES.
They should set themselves their own achievement to release another fucking SC game. Don’t worry about us, we’ve already played the shit out of these games.
As long as they make as good as previous SC games. I have a feeling that a new SC game would be significantly worse than the older games. When was the last time Ubisoft created something good?
I can imagine Shadows being decent and on the limit to good. Now I have not played any AC since Origins, but I can’t imagine it has changed much. Except that they have different seasons in Shadows, which is a nice feature. And it is fine if a game sticks to a concept, for example CoD have not changed much and they still sell plenty of games every year. However, if Ubisoft delivers good games, around 80 on metacritic, with their cash cows and they perform worse with other games then that does not bode well for a new Splinter Cell.
With that being said, of course I hope that a new SC is released and that it is really good.
And also patching in their spyware they just got fined for, which will likely mean they have to patch the game again soon to remove it or add a disclaimer for it
Patch for poorly implemented gamepad in SC Blacklist, SC Conviction, Far Cry 4 and 5 still not available, but who would want that - getting achievements with effed up controls is even more satisfying. Good job Ubisoft.
They ought to patch out the need for Ubisoft’s launcher. Same goes for EA’s back catalog, for that matter. At least EA’s newest releases don’t come with the launcher.
Even when you buy their games on Steam, there’s an EA launcher there in addition to Steam. This is the case for It Takes Two, for instance, but not for Split Fiction. Split Fiction only uses Steam if you bought it on Steam.
I can’t confirm for Steam, since I only have the game on EA app, but the game’s wiki page on PCGW shows the same DRM-free info (with correct launch steps).
I believe it was added after launch. I distinctly remember trying to play this game on the Steam Deck on a train with no internet, and the EA app complained about it and wouldn’t let me launch the game. It’s quite possible that this can be sidestepped by specifically putting the Steam Deck in offline mode, rather than just severing the internet connection, but I didn’t know to try that at the time, and it’s definitely DRM.
So just that I understand this correctly: I need steam to buy it, but after that it launches without steam after I download the installer? Like on gog?
If yes, holy shit, I would have never expected this from EA!! Last time I checked this company was pure scum, but this is a surprisingly nice move!
Only the newest ones. They haven’t gone back to remove the requirement from their back catalog, but Dragon Age: The Veilguard and Split Fiction don’t require it now. Meanwhile, Madden 26 still requires it, so I guess it isn’t universal.
EA’s games that released on Steam after Origin was a thing still launch a mini EA launcher when you press Play on Steam, much like how Ubisoft’s does on Steam. That’s at least how it seems the last time I tried it with Fallen Order.
Right, but that extra launcher causes problems, so I tend to avoid games that still have it. It’s why I still haven’t played A Way Out but played Split Fiction.
Ubisoft always had such a team for AC at least. AC Origins had a pretty good story and AC Odyssey was alright. Haven’t finished or played the newer ones yet so I can’t judge those yet but if there’s one thing Ubisoft does right, it’s that.
AC Origins was a return to form for them, since the Brotherhood days (great story, glitchy climbing and parkour). They trusted that their main historical protagonist would thrive, so the story they told was solid. AC Odyssey had issues because they didn’t trust in Cassandra being the historical MC; Alexios felt like an added on character because they thought a female lead wouldn’t sell well. The more recent games were mid because the narratives felt kinda messy; I watched a play through of Valhalla in parts it wasn’t great, Mirage had a lukewarm response, and AC Shadows had some writing issues (two MCs go from having beef to suddenly trusting one another two hours in). Ubisoft’s Assassin’s Creed team has fallen asleep at the wheel, the storytelling isn’t quite up to snuff with the latest games.
I feel the modern world story should’ve been resolved, as it interferes with quasi historically accurate storyline (one can only approximate in these situations, we will never have the full truth as it’s lost to time). The modern world story has dragged on for far too long and needs to be put to rest; we need a game set purely in the modern era, to resolve what is happening. I’d love to see AC games that spin into exploring approximated history, without the burden of a world ending in slow-motion…
Valhalla is such a weird beast in the narrative. I just completed the base main story and then end was kinda… awkward.
At the end of it I still havent uncovered the leader of the order, hell I think less than half of the members are part of the main story. I like that each region was its own thing and the pacing was fine though in writing nothing was really groundbreaking. Replacing side quests with the smaller mysteries was also a good decision but OH MY LORD, can we be done with the modern world or maybe get a team to release a walking sim that resolves it and just go make “historically” - based games with checklist open world.
Yeah, when I was watching Valhalla I noticed the strangeness of the narrative…They did try something different, making each region a self-contained story. The pacing wasn’t terrible either, it’s just that they didn’t try hard enough to make certain areas of the game better. That’s what hurt Valhalla in my opinion, the wealth of very average writing; the fact they had smaller mysteries could’ve been awesome had it been better executed. Ironically, that’s similar to how Odyssey handles the cult; you don’t figure out the leader until the post game, after killing cultists who weren’t part of the main story. I feel Valhalla’s story structure was inspired by Odyssey, most regions have their own self-contained story that connects to the overarching story. Except Valhalla goes for smaller mysteries in place of the overwhelming amount of Side Quest that Odyssey has (still not finished with half of them, thankfully they can be done post game).
I feel the modern world story should be handled with a bit of care, to make that a particularly memorable experience. Going out with a bang is better than ending on a whimper. Walking sims aren’t bad in their own right, but Ubisoft wouldn’t let a writing and dev team handle it with the care it needs (not until they figure out why Larian Studios is so beloved).
But at the very least we can see that the same developers who worked at Ubisoft are better than they are allowed to be. Clair Obscur Expedition 33 deserves the same love that this got and features mostly Ubisoft employees (only 30 people in total) and shows the company truly hinders how good a game can be.
That’s why I fault Ubisoft itself…The developer team is only as good as Ubisoft allows their devs to be. Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 is a breakout hit, as that is an example of a dev team that is free from the oppressive weight of a corporation. I’m going to be buying Clair Obscur because I want to send a message that more games from their team would be appreciated!
You are in for a treat if you enjoy RPGs with modern takes on an old system. I have been playing games for over 30 years and lately haven’t had the funds to buy much of anything in the past year, but I made an exception for this and it thankfully was a good as I was hoping it would be. Holding my interest is getting harder as well, but thankfully, due to this game and a few others, I am starting to realize it’s most likely because I crave something different and unique sometimes.
I can’t wait…Though I got a backlog of games that currently are in progress, so I won’t be playing Clair Obscur immediately. Modern games are simply hit or miss, if it’s made by a big studio…Often it’s a blueprint of what’s trended a few years ago because games are so much bigger, it takes a while to make them.
I feel Indie devs have the most freedom to do something unique, interesting, and fresh without super long development times. I’ve been choosing to play cozy or indie games as of late because a lot of the mainstream games haven’t caught my attention too. Hell, right now I’m playing Oblivion Remastered, and it’s got me in a stranglehold of nostalgia. It’s basically the same game but with a prettier aesthetic (there are some graphical issues that need resolving due to the quirks of Unreal 5). Nothing that Bethesda would be able to produce today that’s a right mix of banal, goofy, lore heavy, and fun.
I also can’t wait to play Oblivion remastered as well. I just couldn’t see picking up yet another remake/remaster over something original first. I figured the small team could benefit way more from as many sales as they could, plus I just wanted something new, haha. Can’t wait though, I haven’t played it since like 2007.
As I said: Nostalgia has me in a stranglehold, that’s the only reason why Oblivion Remastered was first on my list. I had a craving for Oblivion again; Clair Obscur being priced reasonably means I can buy it this payday! Though, I will finish Jedi: Survivor before starting a full playthrough of Clair Obscur.
Great time to plug that revolt.chat is coming along nicely! The Android app is being reworked and is in rough shape at the moment, but the biggest feature missing from the desktop app (where I figure it matters most) is screen sharing. Otherwise it’s an entirely serviceable Discord clone that is FOSS and would benefit greatly from additional support. I, for one, will be taking the money that was paying for my Nitro and donating it to Revolt instead.
The desktop app has a donation button in the settings. There’s also links to their donation pages on their github, but I do think in both instances they should have their donation link more front and center; it’s proven to work out well for multiple other FOSS projects.
I don’t believe so, and honestly I don’t think it needs to be. It’s already FOSS. And honestly self-hosting would just complicate the process more for normies who apparently can’t figure out Mastodon as it is. Maybe if we have at lest one thing that’s dummy simple and familiar that’s FOSS, maybe it’ll be the foot in the door to getting them more comfortable with the FOSS world and out of the corporate sphere.
And honestly I just really want my friends off of fucking Discord, and the more Revolt continues to literally, in every way be “Discord but open source,” the better the odds of that happening is.
Whenever there is a single party controlling critical infrastructure, there is a potential for enshittification - even if it starts as a FOSS endeavor.
Ability to self-host a full copy of the service is the best protection we have so far.
While that’s true, the nature of it being FOSS also ensures the potential for forking and going our own way. So for right now, maybe it’s better that it’s not self-hosted, long enough to get a large number of Discord users on-board, then fork it if it does enshittify and make the fork self-hosted. At the very least, again, this is an opportunity to get a large number of normies to see the value of FOSS projects and enter the FOSS world. And that has immense value not just for Revolt, but for the FOSS world as a whole.
And I do see yours as well! I agree self-hosting gas greater resistance to devs going rogue when all the hosts can just stop participating. But the beauty of Open Source is that if it’s ever truly so bad, the project can always just fork.
Does it have e2ee messages (even in group chats) and calling? One reason we never used discord is because it lacked that (except in calling towards the end).
Also we disagree as not all groups on even discord are public since many require invites or accepting requests to join.
Edit: Also, even if they are public I’d rather the server not be able to see my messages even if the users in any given group can. Yes, I know it’s a minor difference but I can probably trust the other users, I cannot necessarily trust the server.
I certainly won’t say no to additional privacy! But until I see cryptography experts call it secure, I’m going to continue to treat it as a public forum.
I’m watching it from a distance to see how things go. I’m a fan of the Dune books and the new movies as well, so the world would be interesting to explore. Unfortunately everything I’ve seen of it gives me the feeling that it should have been a single player game instead.
What they mentioned about the player built houses was the first thing I thought of when I heard you could build your own. There’s going to be huge amounts of clutter everywhere you can build!
pcgamer.com
Gorące