Damn that’s heartbreaking. Genesis was not only my first console; the earliest conscious memory I have of my life is playing Sonic 2 with my Mom. I know it’s probably different people at the company making these decisions, but retro SEGA means a lot to me and my journey as a person.
Don’t let stuff like this tarnish your memories please. Many of the clothes we wear, food we eat, and products we purchase most likely involved some form of injustice during production or shipping.
It’s not your fault that you were born into a broken system. You found joy in spending time playing with your mom. There is absolutely nothing more innocent than that! Try to be a decent person in your local community and don’t internalize this kind of news too much. Anything else is guaranteed to be a recipe for a miserable life.
GTA is out of touch with the times. These days it’s all grand theft catalytic converter and leave your car in a shit state where you don’t know what’s even wrong with it if you aren’t a mechanic.
Kinda gives me suspicions that the next console won’t be backwards compatible. They couldn’t market another Mario Kart, or Smash Brothers while I’m at it, if you could just play the old one… unless it’s a significant upgrade.
I sure hope the next console is backwards compatible, or I aint buying it.
I mean… mk8 is from the wiiu. This is the exact situation you are describing, it already happened. They just resold that game and many others and people bought them in droves
This is true, but the slight difference is that the WiiU extremely undersold. A significant number of people who own a Switch did not own a WiiU-- I myself did own a WiiU, and was bummed to not be able to play Mario Maker, Splatoon, Mario Kart 8, 3D World, and so on… but most of my complaints were met with re-releases and sequels. I can’t say I entirely disagree with the decision, again since the WiiU was a major flop, but it would have been nice to have my WiiU library brought over. But for most people, they didn’t care. I mean, MK8D sold more copies than the WiiU itself.
But this is a different ball game. The Switch is a success. Many people own a Switch. The Legend of Zelda games on Switch are among the highest rated video games in history. If this catalog is lost when transferring to the next console, Nintendo would absolutely be shooting themselves in the foot. Historically, Nintendo is somewhat on board with backwards compatibility, but not always, so we’ll see.
There’s a lot of room for improvement. The physics change from each major entry, and I’d like to see more realistic inertia to everything, and less floaty. Having to generate speed (or control it) to make a jump or stay on course would change the feel of the game and make things more interesting.
Thanks for posting the link and also for taking the correction in stride and fixing the submission removing the reference to summoningsalt. None of us are perfect and I’m always glad to see people work to conduct ourselves in a dignified, honorable manner.:)
I think F-Zero 99 is way for Nintendo to gauge the temperature. If the this game ends up getting a big player base and it stays consistent, then they will likely see that proper F-Zero game should be developed.
I remember a while back hearing Nintendo higher ups stating that they weren’t sure the popularity was there for a new game. This is there way to checking.
I thought the same thing but it sucks because I really want a new F-Zero but I can’t see myself playing this a lot. It’s fun for a little bit but just too chaotic for me.
I think that is highly wishful thinking. I’m sure Nintendo has been going through the whole back catalog to find ways to make a battle royale of a game. Once someone saw the risk/reward that F-zero had with boosting depleting your life energy, it becomes a big an instant click. Plus, the racing environment allows all 99 players to interact in a way that none of the other games allowed (the other games were merely sending garbage to the other player.). F-Zero 99 is a good concept for the developers of the 99 games to try and apply. It wasn’t designed as a test to see if the community actually cared about the franchise.
Miyamoto has said that the reason we haven’t seen F-Zero again is that the developers haven’t found a way to differentiate the series in a way that will attract players. Although I feel like any of us could come up with a way (HD, Online play, randomized equipment drops,), Nintendo is convinced that these are not strong enough to justify the development cost.
For what it’s worth, I thought it’d be horrible from the reviews and ended up trying it anyway, and I actually really enjoyed it. shrug Rather feels like I played a different game than everyone else.
I’m sure it’s partly the difference between starting with rock bottom expectations vs starting with Prey/Dishonored expectations, but I think even without that I’d like it.
Also, it has no micro transactions! Zero. Not even for cosmetics - those are just unlockables. Credit where credit is due.
Anyway if you liked the look of the trailer and you have gamepass, it’s worth at least trying, imo.
Wasn’t the whole thing with Redfall that it was Bethesda mismanagement? I’m not going to put that on the Redfall team. Does make me completely disinterested in buying any Bethesda games that aren’t mainline TES though.
What worries me is that one of the leakers who was leaking shit about Redfall prior to release who was 100% correct about everything, also said he saw Starfield and it was in worse shape than Redfall was. It’s obviously coming out later, but not that much later.
While true, the state of Redfall was far worse than the expectation for a mainline Bethesda RPG (comparatively), even as bad as they have been in the past. So saying Starfield was in worse shape still has some hefty weight to it, if the leak is true. It will have at least had more time in the oven for things to be fixed up a bit more in line with normal expectations. And that’s my hope.
That’s upsetting. I was never going to play Starfield, but I want games coming out to be good. We don’t need another dumpster fire like the CP2077 launch was.
Seems too soon to be announcing a 3D Mario or Zelda for holiday release, but I could see them announcing something for spring release in hopes of boosting holiday sales.
Tbh I think TOTK and BOTW have enough legs, especially with the Switch 2 releases, and I suspect the next Zelda will take some time because it’ll be a much different installment than the last two. But goddamn if I’m not ready for a new 3D Mario.
Wasn't a lot of the usual names from the 3d mario studio's last game (dk) missing from the credits? I heard someone say it's probably because they were working on a 3d mario in parallel... hopefully
Yup, this is why the $80 price tag doesn’t bother me. I’ve got a backlog of games I want to play that I probably already can’t finish in my lifetime. This will be $20 a year post release and in two years that $20 will get you all the dlc as well.
Yea. The only games I buy on release are fighting games, but that just because during the release window is some of the best fun you can have for the online multiplayer as a casual. After about the first month or so a meta gets established and then everyone online is just playing the same carbon copy of whatever the YouTube pros are doing.
Though these hands are getting old and I think this most recent release of fighters will be my last. Just can’t keep up anymore.
The Atari 2600 released for $190 in 1977. Or about $1000 today.
The best selling title, Pac-Man released for $28 in 1982. Or about $95 today.
Compared to so much else that has risen dramatically over time, vastly outpacing video games comparatively, I think it’s a bit hard to argue with the value proposition of modern titles.
I think looking at it through an “all else equal” mindset is a little misleading.
Back then it was basically space-age technology. Video games were leaps and bounds ahead of other forms of entertainment, techwise. You could somewhat justify the expense because there was literally nothing like it in existence.
Nowadays? People make video games for classes in high school. I can write a flappy bird game on my phone and play it there. Small projects with less than 50 people regularly end up as bestsellers on Steam. Thousands of titles release on steam every year.
Video game supply is through the fucking roof, yet companies go out of their way to overproduce and underdeliver. QA is nonexistent anymore because of day 1 patches and always-online. They realized a long time ago that when your primary market is children, you can be as absolutely shitty as you want because a parent will give their child anything to shut them up or help them fit in. You can exploit a child’s labor for profit and their parent will pay you just to keep them occupied (Roblox, cough cough).
I mean we all knew video games couldn’t cost $60 for all eternity, but watching the price hike an entire third at once (50% if it costs $90) I think has made people realize just how overvalued modern video games are in general.
You make a good point, and I agree. I wasn’t thinking that it was the only thing on the market and therefore the price is whatever a new technology costs.
I tend to think of video games - being a form of entertainment - as a great way to be entertained while also being an incredibly low cost option for the amount of time I spend enjoying them.
Buying a $600 console just to enjoy a single $60 title is an extreme example but to me, if that game provides 100 hours of playtime, that seems well worth it. Cheaper than going to a theatre or most other forms of entertainment.
To be sure, I don’t do this, but I’ve always viewed gaming through a $/h lens, and could never understand why so many people saw it as a waste of time. That’s what I was thinking when I wrote that comment earlier - it seems to me that you get more playtime with some RPG from this decade than you would playing Pac-Man. Though perhaps I feel that way because games like Pac-Man don’t appeal to me.
Thinking about it, your point might be valid again, with the Atari being a new technology, people were likely to sink far more hours into a title than they might do with modern games since we have so many to choose from now. I’ve never thought about it that way. Thanks for pointing this out.
Games at that time were cutting edge technology, distribution networks didn’t exist, physical units had to make it to stores, etc. The environment isn’t the same. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think $80 is terribly outrageous in our modern economy but at that price point it has better provide 60+ hours of entertainment. If outer worlds 2 is as good as #1 it’s worth $40 tops. I played that game end to end and can’t recall a single characters name.
I agree about everything in your first point. I hadn’t previously considered that the novelty of a new technology would necessarily increase have disproportionately high initial cost.
That said, I feel like any calculation of cost against how many hours played is entirely subjective. Your suggestion of $0.75 / entertainment hour is quite different than what I consider ideal. Games will vary genre to genre, person to person, platform to platform.
A person with limited time might exclusively play shorter titles, or maybe just multiplayer titles. A person with significant free time might spent hundreds of hours replaying an RPG.
To be incredibly broad, I would say that games shouldn’t cost more per entertainment hour than half of what any given person earns at their job - but even that is quite subjective and should be taken with salt.
It’s been so long I thought they had dropped the IP. The first game has some issues but it wasn’t as bad as people make it out to be. Hopefully they addressed the issues with the first game.
As far as I could tell, the “issues” people primarily had with it were that they wanted it to be bigger, but I also really appreciated its scope and how little time they wasted.
I had at least one quest which, when certain choices were made, would not complete. They never fixed it, but did release a cash-grab level-cap-increasing version later. Left a bad taste in my mouth. (There were other bugs and issues I faced that also never got fixed, but I don't recall what they were anymore). I mostly did enjoy the game, otherwise, and the size was fine in my opinion.
What issues? Who makes it out to be bad? As far as I remember everyone has always loved this game, it’s like saying “despite the issues with Fallout New Vegas, it’s not as bad as people make it out to be”, or Skyrim, or Red dead redemption 2, it’s the kind of game I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone complaining about it (except perhaps for the existencial dread caused by finishing such a good game and not knowing what to do next)
Its odd that you haven’t come across any complaints since almost everytime this game comes up in online threads that I visit, it’s filled with people criticizing it.
My main issue is a perspective thing - it felt like playing half assed fallout in space, in the sense that many questlines and stories felt very “been there, done that”. Its probably great if you haven’t played fallout 3 or new Vegas, but it just didn’t do much that was new beyond a coat of paint so I just got bored with it.
youtube.com
Ważne