I wouldn’t expect that to last long though, a lot of reviewers still haven’t played enough of it to give it a rating so right now the sample size is pretty small. Even IGN hasn’t submitted their review yet, and usually they’re early. The game is just really big.
I agree with a lot of your post - but it started at 92, after a few days it was 95, then 2 weeks after release its 97. If anything, more reviews will mean a higher score.
That assumes everyone is going to be rating it in the 90s, which is far from a guarantee even for games that absolutely deserve it. Especially when the cRPG genre isn't exactly an industry darling.
People downvoting you is fucking hilarious. I hate to break it to them, but both movie and game reviews were bought out quite some time ago. Watch gameplay, read multiple reviews not from the critics, but from real people who actually tried to enjoy the game instead of doing some mediocre checklist.
I think if it was not the case we would have seen a lot more failing grades lately. I mean some of the titles did not even work on launch yet somehow 9/10?
Exactly. The same critics they are desperately waiting for their approval are the same ones who will give a trash and micro transaction bloated piece of shit game over a 90, but then a well developed and labor of love below a 90 because the better game was indie and didn’t pay them for the review.
For those that live under a rock, Pokémon heavily relies on a weakness/strength system based on 'types'. Both the Pokémon and individual moves have types. Hitting weaknesses will wreck faces, while hitting strengths is practically useless. This is an important preface to my point.
In the regular land terrain, you can find Pokémon of pretty much all types, which forces you to change up your own Pokémon to adapt.
In water terrain though, the Pokémon you'll find, both in the wild and on trainers, is 99% water as a main type, and it is here where we come across the real problem.
Without any grinding, you can absolutely blitz through any challenges in those areas with a few reliable Electric or Grass types or even moves, to the point where it's just not fun to do.
But at the same time, you have to go through these areas to progress, and the game heavily encourages you to use Pokémon/moves that hit weaknesses. It's been teaching you to do this the entire time. which means most players will experience the drag and not set their own fun to counteract this. That is a legit negative.
I think they just summed it up really badly. At the end of an IGN score, you've got compliments and criticisms at the bottom, summed up in short sentences.
'over-reliance on Water Pokémon' or 'some routes are boringly easy' would both be infinitely better sentences than 'too much water', which on the face of it, and without context, does sound like a bullshit bullet point.
The “too much water” was intended to talk about too many water pokemon, as well as the poor navigation of water levels.
To me, when people try to discredit ign because of “too much water” I immediately know their opinion is worthless because they didnt read the review and couldn’t piece together what the criticism was in the first place.
'too much water' was a summary negative point in the IGN review of Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire games.
On the face of it, that complaint sounds fucking ridiculous, but is actually very valid due to the way those games handle waterways; they are the only terrain filled almost entirely with a single Pokémon type, with all others having wide varieties.
This makes large sections of the game a pathetically easy and boring breeze even by Pokémon standards; one reliable Electric or Grass type and you're set.
However, that sentence was in the TL;DR bullet points of the review, which sounds fucking ridiculous without context.
However, there are:
• Jumping puzzles dependent on either high strength or specific spells.
• Inventory management is critical, particularly grabbing a few emptied crates/chests/backpacks and dumping them into your personal storage chest so you can quickly sort.
Both of those, based on previous reviews, make a decent score from IGN unlikely.
Absolutely, I remember seeing the original preview trailer with the tag line “Release Date: When it’s ready.” And I was like wow mad respect this is gonna rock. What a fucking bait and switch that was.
I can say I am replaying it now on the exact same PC setup I used 3 years ago and it is a completely different experience. No crashes, no glitches (so far), no random naked T posing on my motorcycle (which is kind of sad, that shit was hilarious). The skills system is totally reworked and I put it to hard difficulty and the enemies now put up more of a fight (AI is still kind of dumb tho). Cops actually chase you, you can finally shoot out of your car (there’s also new skills in the skill tree for improving vehicle abilities). Sooo it’s worth revisiting even if you don’t buy the DLC, IMO.
IIRC, CDPR had delayed it a number of times for just that reason, but were eventually pressured into releasing earlier than they wanted. On PC, there were some minor issues that were quickly patched, but none that negatively affected my playthrough.
I think he means the developers were pressured by CDPR's upper management. The devs were saying that the game wasn't ready, but management was telling them it had to ship, anyway.
It very much is a difference. If you’ve ever worked a corporate job, the relationship between devs and execs is exactly the same as a publisher and studio relationship. The devs did not want to release the game yet, nor do I think they wanted to support legacy consoles, but the shareholders forced that on them.
But that does not matter to us as consumers. The product was intentionally released half baked, whether the decision was made by someone within CDPR or outside, it is the same.
I don’t care about their company organisation, I care about the product.
Anecdotally, I played on PC at launch, no mods or fixes and had a pretty good time. The most buggy things I encountered were people clipping into my car when driving and forcing me to hit them. Random stuff, but nothing too bad IMHO, not like game crashes, awful lag/latency, save corruption, etc.
Definitely not bug free, I ran into those often, but I felt like they were mostly trivial. As another concession, I did have an above average rig so I didn’t really fall into any of the terrible optimization problems.
I also enjoyed it playing on GeForceNow. I didn’t build up any game specific hype. I only looked forward to the next CDPR game and avoided most trailers and footage. Going into the game without expectations likely helped a lot.
I mean and there are a ton of people who are super into the far cry games even though I see them as generic games. Like sure people can find the game fun but I was expect CRPG levels of details but what I got was CDPR's version of Far Cry minus the pointless filler with capturing radio towers (thank god for that) but filled with all the other filler from those games. The story writing was pretty good and that was its big advantage but the AI was pretty brain dead, which made the fighting rather dull. Add on top of that on launch you could literally stand in the same exact spot and clear a section of the AI and then repeat ad nauseam. I haven't kept up with far cry since maybe 3 but I have played the Division 2 although that game has many failings one of its biggest pluses was the AI was pretty smart compared to most other AIs in the modern day and I would hope the other "Tom Clancy games" would use a similar AI but who knows.
Like having cyberware only be useful for combat, just feels like a pointless thing. We should have RP/world moments with them but at least in 1.0 there was none. Just the game is filled with so many missed opportunities. The og trailer for this game was sold on the importance of Cyberpsychos but in the game they are just some filler quests that you can get some lore on before you fight them but vanilla you got nothing unique for doing it (apparently in 1.2 you are now given a proper reward for it but it shows how sidelined that "questline" was). Very little destructible terrain. Like I'm not some fanboy who watched every trailer before release. I only watched the 2013 and the E3 gameplay premiere for it before buying the game whenever it released (after seeing it was scored pretty highly by reviewers). It was just a deeply disappointing game where they basically showcased the prologue showing how "reactive" the world was but beyond the prologue the world really doesn't take in account of the things you have done. There are some things but its alot smaller than what was showcased.
Lol you can watch YouTube videos to see how shit it was. There’s really no reason or basis to argue this with the monumental amount of evidence that proves it. Sony pulled it from their online store because it was so bad.
“Walked right into that UC ambush, same as us and that thief over there.”
“That’s Solomon Freestar! The true High King of Skyrim!”
And the dragons are just space ships and the souls you absorb are just… uh… radiation I guess from damaging the reactor. Or the magic space civilization from Starfield originated from here, so that’s why everyone has magic.
I’m not backing down from the space ship dragons though, that part is just brilliant.
You know what, I’ll bite. For this to work though, let’s agree on two things. First, the game they’re selling shouldn’t be a hot pile of garbage on day one. Second, I don’t want to even catch a whiff of microtransactions or subscription based models. If we can nail those down, I would be fine with a price increase. As it stands, the sticker price is just the cost of entry in the vast majority of games. They are still bringing in cash well after the initial purchase.
That works for consumers because they don’t have nothing to lose. Smaller devs will still gravitate towards Unity because the various fees don’t apply to them, but any big studio won’t touch it with a ten feet pole. Immagine putting the salaries of a full studio in the hands of a company that might decide out of the blue to ruin your business model, it’s a nightmare scenario for any CEO! More so when there are viable alternatives
"I’ve had numerous conversations with the LT of Nintendo about tighter collaboration and feel like if any US company would have a chance with Nintendo we are probably in the best position. The unfortunate (or fortunate for Nintendo) situation is that Nintendo is sitting on a big pile of cash, they have a [board of directors] that until recently has not pushed for further increases in market growth or stock appreciation.
“I say “until recently” as our former MS BoD member ValueAct has been heavily acquiring shares of Nintendo and I’ve kept in touch with [ValueAct CEO] Mason Morfit as he’s been acquiring. It’s likely he will be pushing for more from Nintendo stock which could create opportunities for us.
Honestly to me the real shame is everyone’s retirement is tied up in Wallstreet, but no one is personally voting, that’s all done by investment managers. Even in the cases where people get their proxy votes, they mostly throw them away.
Retail investment is a quarter of the market, but only 32% of retail shares had their votes cast (vs 80% for the market as a whole), and on average only 12% of a firms retail accounts vote at all.
DnD 5e had a license for use that allowed 3rd party companies to make stuff for the game following specific rules, and they did so which of course helped with increasing the popularity of the brand. This license existed due to the backlash from players and 3rd party developers who did not like the 4e licensing which was ridiculously restrictive.
Then WotC/Hasbro decided they wanted more control and put out a draconian revision and also tried to invalidate the existing license using questionable legal logic that wouldn't stand up in court, but would be cost prohibitive for the 3rd party companies to fight in court. This revision also included licensing costs that would drive 3rd party companies out of business. Then they did a revision that tried to make creating a virtual tabletop that could be used with DnD a violation to try and corner the market for WotC's completely non-existent virtual tabletop.
Basically they tried to stop doing the thing they had in place for like a decade to milk an unrealistically high amount of money out of companies that were working with them and tried to force this on extremely short notice. So same thing as reddit and now Unity are doing.
Expect the next version of DnD to be a walled garden again like 4e was and most likely fade out of the public view again.
The true irony here is that TSR went bankrupt because they tried to mess with the community content licenses that were basically gentleman’s agreements at the time, allowing WotC to purchase D&D in the first place with 3rd edition. I hope they sell the property to someone that understands how to run that golden goose, without expecting unlimited growth.
Unity is mad that mobile game companies acquire millions of users in a few months as they transition from soft launch to global, and then sell their companies for millions - if not billions - of dollars.
They want a cut of that pie, and in true unity fashion, they chose the most inept way of doing that.
If you have developers of games like Cult of the Lamb feeling scared, you did it wrong.
You protect your indies, you protect the people making art with your product. The people who invested 3 million and are making billions in the mobile ads game? That’s your target.
How they could be this inept is astounding…
Also, I’ll echo the other commenter’s statement in saying the article is very well written. They just weren’t able to really answer the “why” portion very well. John Riccitiello wasn’t wrong when he said this plan wasn’t designed to affect 90% of their customers - but it also doesn’t mention how that remaining 10% makes more than that 90% combined.
They’re wet go, John Riccitiello! That’s why I recognized that assholes smirk in the thumbnail. He used to be president of EA. No surprise he’s brought those scummy tactics over to unity.
It’s days like this that remind me I’m not a typical gamer.
When Sims 4 came out, I put Sims 3 away thinking it was time for something bigger and better even though I’d had wishlisted DLC unpurchased. When Sims 4 clearly had basic content locked behind future DLC, I quit and didn’t go back to anything because playing the old version when the new version is out “didn’t make sense”. Went from being a Sims player to not a Sims player, not in protest but because their business model “failed to monetize” me. Obviously, if I were the base case, EA would have backpedaled.
Reminds me of the “mini-outrigger and story collection” thing with fantasy literature. I’ve gone from being a diehard fan to no longer even reading simply because I didn’t have the bandwidth and research hours to take it all in (Dresden and Iron Druid, lookin at you).
With the namedrops in the main stories on things I didn’t recognize and my not being able to keep up with side stories, my interest waned and I moved on. I still haven’t read anything after Peace Talks, and I don’t recall what’s going on in Iron Druid anymore.
I am cautiously hopeful for Life By You. My favorite thing in the Sims was to set up crazy soap opera dramas and see what happens, but Sims 4 sims are so docile and boring, it feels a lot more like just playing with dolls and decorating the house. I'm not judging if that's the part you like, but it's just not for me.
Ah. Yet another reason for game studios to turn away from commercial dev tools and turn to FOSS software like Blender and Godot.
And since game devs are, you know, developers, they can even contribute to these tools with heir dev time, improving them and accelerating the industry shift away from this commercial bullshit even more.
But drama almost never kills FOSS software. It just causes it to fork. FOSS software can become like an olympic flame that just keeps getting passed from dev to dev. Once there are people actively using something, those same people are motivated to fix any issues they have with it, or add any features they are missing. That then drives improvement of the software, which in turn drives adoption, which drives more improvement…
There was huge drama around Emby going closed source, but FOSS Emby simply got forked, becoming Jellyfin.
There’s an example just within lemmy, the lemmur app apparently stopped development due to some drama, but it got forked and Liftoff picked up right where it left off.
Yes. There can be drama around FOSS projects, and there often is. Loosely organized groups of volunteers putting together serious software don’t work as efficiently as a paid team of devs led by a visionary with final say. But FOSS projects are capable of becoming self-perpetuating in a way proprietary software can never do. Once they reach a high enough level of adoption, they are very hard to kill.
The only “drama” I recall is that one guy, who ran an unofficial forum, went on a weird rant about how Godot is a scam because he thought development was too slow or something. He then shut down his unofficial forum. That’s a long shot from “being destroyed”.
But maybe I missed something?
(Edit: I had misspelled “forum” as “form”. Sorry if that confused anybody)
Kind of the flip of the question but far cry 5 was particularly infuriating when it came to bullshit plot devices that override the players choices/skills. The boss fights were rigged with fixed outcomes regardless of what you hit the boss with. The fact that you could hit an unarmored human in the head with a rpg and see the explosion but the game was just like “yeah but the story says he’s alive so he’s alive. Also he is about to wreck your shit for… reasons…” drove me crazy…
This kind of stuff was what turned me off the Armored Core “Spiritual Successor” game Daemon X Machina. So many fights involved scripted foes where it wasn’t obvious they were scripted as undefeatable until I’d burned out half my ammunition.
That’s kind of normal, isn’t it? There are often immortal characters, that simply can’t be killed or lost or whatever. Like the dog companion in fallout 4.
It's not uncommon, but can be very grating depending on the circumstances. Dogmeat and the other companions are immortal because Rule of Fun - losing them would suck, which is why it's limited to the more masochistic (not that there's anything wrong with that) difficulty settings. Far Cry games generally try to seem realistic apart from some trademark trippiness, so when you blast someone with a rocket and they just ignore it, it's a bit jarring.
In-universe I think the idea is that you're tripping balls, it's a go-to excuse for "why is this boss fight behaving weird" in the Far Cry series.
Exactly this, Far Cry 5 did "ludonarrative dissonance" in a big way. Also, fake open world. 3 and 4 just had a bunch of annoyingly stupid story developments: you going into some Obviously Bad Idea or Diabolus-ex-machina shit - which is still really grating if you're otherwise playing methodically and cautiously, but they happened during missions and didn't intrude on the rest of the game. 5's stupid unwinnable kidnapping parties and stupid mandatory "drug trips" sure did, though.
Modding that shit away, it's still a reasonable game, but ye gods the story was terribly executed.
That is part of why I liked New Vegas so much, they were just like “yeah you can kill Caesar in camp, go ahead, the story is now differerent and you don’t get these quests but oh well, your choice”
I was under the impression that ludonarrative dissonance was when you purposely try to subvert the way the game “wants” to be played, rather than you trying to do what the game wants and the game failing to interpret your actions in a realistic or satisfying way. Like the people who try to be law-abiding pacifists in GTA V or people using armor stands to turn Minecraft into multiplayer chess.
It’s when there’s a disconnect between the storytelling and the gameplay. Usual example is Uncharted or the last Tomb Raider reboot: the main character wrings their hands over the possibility of having to kill a person, but the gameplay is you mowing down an army.
The open world itself is not fake, but IMO the game is "No True Open World Game" as long as it keeps hijacking you all the time. The world itself is pretty deec. If you're on PC you can try the Resistance mod, it lets you customize the game a lot including how intrusive the main quest is.
Duly noted, I’ll check that out the next time I get the itch to play. I disliked that about the game. It’s actually my main gripe. I didn’t like being careful of not blowing up too much stuff so that I didn’t hit the “main quest threshold” or whatever.
I just want to enjoy the outdoors and kill peggies.
Are there any weapon mods? I found the variety lacking, beyond the broken dlc guns.
Tons. I think some are included in Resistance, or at least you can tweak certain things to be less airsoft-y. Haven't played in a while. Nexus has a bunch of stuff anyway.
games
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.