When kid, I used to see these games (GOW, COD, battlefield,etc) and be impressed, saying to myself that i will play these great games one day but I never really had a computer or console that could be able to play these games and i lost that spark. Now, i don’t care anymore.
If you still feel that joy and happiness seeing these games enjoy this sensation, because it will one day dissappear.
Priorities will always shift as we move though the different seasons of life, and for sure the launch of a big marquee title that I’m interested in doesn’t have the same drama it did, now that I’ve lived though a couple-few decades of them. I have to say, though, that I still love the experience of being transported to a fantasy setting, or exploring a strange new world with friends, or testing my skill against other players. I’m looking forward to when I can introduce the hobby to my kid, and share that joy with him.
Take that up with Games Workshop I guess. The average Space Marine does wear one. Rule of cool I guess. That nonsense has been seeping into other races figurines now, and it is stupid imo.
Characters faces are sometimes shown to humanize the character, to help the player feel closer to the character, so the player is not confused about who that character is, etc.
Sometimes the character model uses the likeness of a real person, and the contract with that person dictates that the face must be visible for all or a large portion of the gameplay.
I don’t agree with the classification of 360 as “retro,” because I can think of multiple 360-era games in the top 50 charts today. The implication being that if the 360 is retro, so are its games.
And I can’t imagine going up to someone playing GTAV or CSGO and saying “bro this game is retro.”
Edit from deleted comment. I was talking about Disney’s ownership of the Futurama IP possibly giving this issues. That’s great the original devs support it but any C&D would not come from them
Hell any of the voice actors could get this shut down because they used AI voices for placeholders
Gaming is a luxury. I hate paying more for games but the best part of the current market is there are so many avenues to gaming.
Due to the surplus of so many games available we have the ability to buy sparingly and avoid buying at launch. We can support the companies and titles that are truly worth our dollar.
Personally, I’ll only buy titles I feel I must play as they release as the feeling of waiting is painful. Often it depends on the backlog of games I already have. Although, I do have a switch 2 and have barely played it (I’m ashamed). I do plan on Metroid Prime 4 soon and possibly some other titles. Overall, I’m not the biggest fan of Nintendo’s business practices but I’ll buy their games that I enjoy.
Obviously, Nintendo isn’t evil nor are any of these gaming companies. They are selling their product and the folks keep buying. If I never played a Nintendo game in my life cause it was outside my budget I think I’d be more than fine.
I assume they’re talking about the DLC as well. All together, the game + DLC over here is $140. I assume it’s closer to $120 for America, but haven’t done the conversions.
Probably because neither Sony nor Microsoft are locking single player content behind their online subscriptions. Not to mention you’re strawmanning really hard right now. Those two do it. In PC circles you’ll hear it bashed all the time. Meanwhile, Nintendo is doing it worse than anyone else because they’re deliberately locking single player content behind a subscription, not just here but also for any of their classic library, which just isn’t available for sale. Meanwhile, I could go buy a digital copy of an original xbox game on the latest xbox and it’ll just play and if I owned a digital copy on a previous console it’s transferable.
Stop it. The things you’re arguing aren’t relevant and even if they were, Nintendo is STILL the worst offender.
It's not at all uncommon for games with an online component to have elements you need to play online to access. That's been a part of Pokemon since the series first added online play. Hell, even before that, Pokemon was conceived from the beginning to be a social game, built around the Game Boy's Link Cable if you want to see and do everything. It's never been exclusively singleplayer.
All I'm saying is that if you count online play as though it was part of a game's cost, you should be doing the same thing for games on other platforms too. You can't selectively pretend it only counts here.
I think these online subscriptions are proving to be a major factor in why there’s been a migration of audiences from consoles to PC. People are seemingly running the long-term calculus in their heads and realizing PC is cheaper at a certain threshold.
youtu.be
Ważne