I don’t have a problem with low-resolution artwork; I think that it’s often an effective way to reduce asset costs. But when a game makes it big, as Balatro has, I’d generally like to have the option to get a higher-resolution version of it. For some games, say, Noita, that’s hard, as the resolution is tightly tied to the gameplay. But for Balatro, the art consists in significant part of about 150 jokers. That’s not all that much material to upscale.
EDIT: And specifically for Balatro, I think that it’s worth pointing out that there’s a whole industry of artists who make (very high resolution) playing cards for print.
That’s a large variety of competently-done, high-resolution artwork.
Now, granted – Balatro doesn’t use a standard deck; it’s not a drop-in approach using existing decks, the way it might be with a typical solitaire game.
But it seems kinda nutty to me that there are artists out creating decks, but only selling them in small volume, and also video games that sell in large volume but don’t have much by way of card artwork options.
they DID add those crossover decks recently, and the dev has indicated that there is more additional content coming. Idk, I think having the cards in HD wouldn’t look right, because the entire game has a specific kind of pixel art. Even the smooth, swirly background has a pixel art filter on it, bc that’s the vibe that the dev really wants the game to have. Mixing them would be like when pixel art rpgs have super hi-res fonts. It just doesn’t fit right.
Yikes, kinda expensive on mobile. I already repackaged it from my Steam copy and side-loaded it on to my phone so I’ll stick with that. It would be nice if I could keep my progress from one to the other though.
I continue to be a little perplexed by views like this. If the game is $15 on steam, why is $10 on mobile viewed as expensive?
I understand that mobile games typically are cheaper or freemium, but I feel mobile games would be higher quality overall if people actually wanted to spend money on them
Because I already bought the game. Why should I have to pay more based on where I play it? That’s ridiculous. If I buy it, I should be able to play it how and where I want.
I mean that’s fine. Like you said you can continue to use your version that uses the steam files, that’s the version you paid for. But the game sold on another store is cheaper than the other. I don’t think that makes the game too expensive
Truthfully, all sorts of players are asking for all sorts of things, and you’ve got co-op story-driven games still coming out from other sources. Systems-driven games are way up my alley, and I’ll happily take one of those even without co-op. Besides, if a PlayStation game came out with co-op, it wouldn’t be offline co-op.
Yeah. I personally love open world games. Obviously does not mean that every open world game is good but a good open world game can hook you for a much longer time than a linear story based game.
They said "a lot" of player freedom, so I'd definitely expect quite a bit more than just some dialog choices or whatever. ND also kinda tried to get into more open worldy stuff through their failed multiplayer projects, so it would not surprise me if they took that into a new format.
There are still a ton of ways to allow for a lot of player freedom without being open world. In fact, I’d say lots of open world games lack the freedom that a much smaller game like Streets of Rogue has, for instance. But yes, Naughty Dog has toyed with open world-ish designs in the Uncharted 4 era and Jak before that.
For Naughty Dog? They have a solid track record of great games. I’m more enthusiastic than pessimistic, but it sucks it’ll likely be a PlayStation exclusive for a while.
I’m mixed on it. They just cancelled their multiplayer game because it wasn’t their ballpark, now they want a studio known for linear story-driven experiences to make an open world game (I assume). Could go either way.
Counter point: it’s a studio who made a groundbreaking open world series (jak and daxter) who only later became known for linear games returning to their roots
I feel like when developers have a good pedigree, they can apply their concepts elsewhere.
Blizzard hadn’t made a shooter before Overwatch, but definitely got it right in so many respects. Bloober team had some mediocre horror games, but was steadily getting better before they made the Silent Hill 2 remake. Valve made just shooters before Portal and then DOTA 2. Heck, easy to forget The Talos Principle, an existential puzzle game is made by the people who made “Uber DUMB MACHO SHOOTER Serious Sam”.
Oh yeah, and survival horror team Tango Gameworks making cartoon rhythm combat game Hi-Fi Rush.
Player freedom doesn’t mean open world. Crysis for example spoke a lot about player freedom because it gave you a ton of different tools to go through the levels as you wanted. But it was still a linear single player game
Alright, can’t really get hyped without anything else to go on.
I was pretty fine with the way Last of Us 1 and 2 were handled, did a pretty good job at telling a story, without making it feeling like a linear corridor game. More freedom in a similar type of game would be nice, but generally it just seems to mean more downtime traveling between objectives occasionally interrupted by random encounters. If that is what they mean with more freedom, and not something else like character creation or branching storylines or whatever.
Reading the article, he refers to Elden Ring. I personally hate that kind of story telling though. I know a lot of people are absolutely lyrical about the game, but that’s probably more thanks to the gameplay. The story in that game is just being dripfed without much context and they are being intentionally vague about so many things. It’s more like a passive way of revealing little bits of the world without ever fully explaining anything.
There are certainly people that specifically like that kind of storytelling that puts the onus on the audience to do some digging. It’s why Malazan Book of the Fallen is popular, for example.
It didn’t do as much for me in Elden Ring, but I enjoyed it in Dark Souls 3 and it’s why Demon’s Souls has one of my favorite moments in gaming. Wouldn’t have worked with more explicit narrative.
Naughty Dog did some solid storytelling in TLoU. It would be great if they could figure out how to apply that well to a game that isn’t on rails.
“I think some of the best storytelling in The Last of Us – yes, a lot of it is in the cinematics – but a lot of it is in the gameplay, and moving around a space, and understanding a history of a space by just looking at it and examining it.
I do appreciate this in game worlds, although this alone is not a substitute for storytelling, and not enough to make an open world fun. The world has to be interesting and diverse, full of unique things, characters, places, and situations to discover, so players will want to spend their time exploring it. Evidence of the world’s history is great for adding background depth, but I’ll be bored quickly if that’s all there is.
Here’s hoping Naughty Dog makes something brilliant in this genre that they aren’t known for (have they ever done an open world?) rather than repeating the mistake other studios have made by churning out another open world of monotony.
videogameschronicle.com
Najstarsze