Maybe I’m in the minority (doubtful since the switch is super popular) but I don’t need the Switch2 to be better than current/next gen as far as hardware goes. It’s portability, flexibility and funativity are what sells the thing for me. I’ve got a PC if I want to play fancy pants AAA games. One day, I’ll probably have a Steam Deck. I like playing Zelda and Mario, etc. on my Switch like it’s a the Super-Mega-Gameboy that I dreamed about as a youth. I sometimes play it docked, but probably 80+% of my game time on it is in handheld mode.
If the Switch 2 was basically a PS5-esque console (non-mobile, regular console), I’m sure I’ll eventually pick one up to play Nintendo exclusives, but mostly that would just hasten my purchase of a Steam Deck.
I absolutely believe that exclusivity can create a better product. A company can put more resources into a game if they’re more worried about making a system seller than a profit driver.
But I don’t think for a moment that it benefited the game by creating a focus for the developers by limiting the consoles.
Back in the day, console exclusivity meant you could take advantage of system-specific features such as the ridiculously powerful SIMD core in the PS3. Now, 2/3 major consoles have nearly identical hardware, and the third is an overclocked smartphone, so there's no real benefit to system lock-in.
Seriously, if they said this about the Switch, nobody would bat an eye. But it seems to be easier to simultaneously develop for PS5 and XBox Series than to develop for both consoles and PC, given how terrible a lot of PC ports are.
As a huge fan of MW19 and a fairly big fan of MW22, I won’t be buying or playing.
The monetization has gotten far too aggressive, realistic styled assets have gone out the door, and the studio behind this upcoming game made Vanguard, my worst purchase of 2021.
“By partnering with the Cfx.re team, we will help them find new ways to support this incredible community and improve the services they provide to their developers and players.”
Allow me to translate:
“By partnering with the Cfx.re team, we will help them find new ways to bleed the community’s wallets dry and force servers to pay a cut of their monetization revenue and offer nothing substantial in return.”
Story wise they didn’t leave much room for a sequel. It gets wrapped up nicely at the end. I didn’t play any of the DLC but the impression that I got was that a lot of possible sequel material was covered in them. The game was really good and definitely worth picking up on a sale price. It will give BotW vibes but don’t think of it as a clone. It’s got a good story and a nice little twist at the end. The boss fights were a joy if not painful at times. The puzzles were mostly good and not too obtuse. I think I had to use Google on a few of them. It is annoying with the extra clothing and style purchases that the game tries to get you to spend real money for. It tarnished an otherwise good game.
They’re really aren’t any other good game reviewers. They used to be Nerd Cubed but he doesn’t seem to do game reviews anymore. There’s Sid Alpha, but if he feels particularly frisky he’ll put out a whole two videos a year, so that’s not very helpful.
Special interest journalism is usually overrun by corporate interests and inflated reviews. Find someone who knows the history of the industry and was fired or left an organization for something like reporting a low review to search out integrity for individuals.
I’ve never remembered seeing quality video games journalism.
The tyypes that they’re describing as that always seemed hacky and liable to push very subjective opinions as facts.
Their scores almost always seemed wonky and part of that is probably because individual scores for something as complex as a game don’t really make sense. They rarely make sense for anything.
Instead what you want are scores in multiple areas with no single amalgamated score.
Anyhow, for the longest while video games journalism has been rife with controversy about pulling negative reviews for ad deals etc.
I think unfortunately written media is pretty much dying due to finances, and for video games, due to never being all that good in the first place.
The details I care about, like monetization, grind, and performance, are the details that most games journalists just completely skim over or they’ll glaze game companies while they perform awfully here.
My way of buying games is basically watching video reviews of someone playing and mostly ignoring their commentary to figure out those details for myself.
That and benchmarks of course… and figuring out whether they’re owned by the saudi government…
Anyways, yea, video content for games both makes more sense, and more money.
I can totally get this feeling for PC/consumer electronics hardware related articles and reviews, but for video games? Meh. I won’t cry.
Understandable. I just feel like amalgamated scores tend not to truly reflect the subjective opinions of the reviewer as sometimes games are more or less than the sum of their parts, and then it doesn’t represent anything close to objectivity because it ignores that different people value different things more or less than others, therefore making this score not all that useful for them.
I can completely understand just wanting a quick score at a glance from a favourite review or outlet though.
I listen to podcasts featuring people who used to score games in that separated way for Gamespot, and it frequently led to scores that were out of sync with what the content of the review actually said. Plus, who’s to say if the visuals of Clair Obscur are better or worse than Hades II when they’ve got very different goals and art styles? And does it matter how high the visuals score for Bye, Sweet Carole is if they’re leaving a subpar review for the puzzles? That’s what the content of the review is for.
How grindy a game is or how it’s monetized often makes its way into a review. Publishers can get slimy around it though and turn the knobs to be more nefarious after the review period, which people can call them out for, but much like how lies spread faster than the truth, updates spread slower than initial reviews. What I’d personally like to see make its way into reviews are how much ownership the game actually grants. So many multiplayer modes are not designed to last, and no one, often times not even the people updating the features list on the Steam store page, care to mention if a game supports offline multiplayer like LAN. Some games blur the line, like Hitman, on just how offline their game and its content can be. That’s what I’m missing from review outlets.
But all of this has only been about reviews, and games media also breaks news. Real change has been happening by way of reporting on unionization and crunch. Harassers are being taken to court or otherwise removed from their position of power in their companies. Sometimes we can actually get real confirmation that absolutely nothing is happening with Bloodborne and no one should get their hopes up for anything anytime soon. All of that is valuable, too.
I listen to podcasts featuring people who used to score games in that separated way for Gamespot, and it frequently led to scores that were out of sync with what the content of the review actually said.
This is my point about why a single number doesnt make sense.
Things are not a simple sum of their parts.
Plus, who’s to say if the visuals of Clair Obscur are better or worse than Hades II when they’ve got very different goals and art styles?
Also in support of what I’m saying.
How grindy a game is or how it’s monetized often makes its way into a review.
Before I completely gave up on written reviews, I feel like it was increasingly obvious that reviewers were purposefully just glossing over painfully obvious mtxs and marketting dark patterns to the point I felt like they were clearly being influenced by the fear of losing special access to ignore what they knew games companies felt strongly about.
Some ex media org folks have talked about the politics internally that went into pressuring people not to acknowledge problems like this, though I don’t recall the name of any specific source. I feel like there was a large group that split up and some of them talked about it. I want to say Jim “Stephanie” Sterling (I believe thats how they title themselves) has talked about it, but I can’t quite recall.
Anyhow, I don’t think the knobs being cranked can be fully to blame as I don’t think that happens all that often because they dont even need to. It has happened a few times infamously though and devs regularly try to boil the frog in modern games
So many multiplayer modes are not designed to last, and no one, often times not even the people updating the features list on the Steam store page, care to mention if a game supports offline multiplayer like LAN. Some games blur the line, like Hitman, on just how offline their game and its content can be. That’s what I’m missing from review outlets.
Definitely true.
Feels like the sort of thing movements like StopKillingGames would hope regulation would solve. Id love to see like, a mandatory nutrition facts label on games dictating a minimum amount of time from launch the servers will be active, whether you can play without servers, etc etc.
Real change has been happening by way of reporting on unionization and crunch. Harassers are being taken to court or otherwise removed from their position of power in their companies.
True and good, but with current admin, I think we’re going to see a lot of these positive changes reverting as we come to realize that crime is legal for those affiliated and who bend the knee.
It’s rare that I find a game that I want to buy anymore, so I’m probably often in that percentage. I’m still regularly playing games I’ve owned for over ten years now, and usually don’t see a lot of reason to keep buying more. I did buy two this year, one on launch and one on a sale. I also picked up a few DLCs for two of my long-time favorites.
God I hope so. My DS5 battery died within a year. It literally loses a full charge overnight, and even when it still worked it only reported battery percentage in 12% increments. My still-chargeable DS4 was still accurate to the 1%.
I still use the DS5 wired because screw e-waste, and ergonomically it's adequate. But the battery problem makes it the worst controller Sony's ever made, and I'm including SIXAXIS in that assessment.
Actually scratch that, the face buttons are mushy as hell and there's nowhere to rest your thumb. I miss jump inputs like I've never played a video game before. None of the every single generation of Dualshocks I've used had such sloppy buttons.
videogameschronicle.com
Ważne