Unity is done for. Nobody is going to start a new project with their product. Devs are risk adverse. Making a game that is original is already a big enough risk for any studio. Why add an infinite amount of risk but building your game on an engine with unstable management. It is even worth retraining people to use a different engine.
I don't mind encumbrance, unless it's painfully low. Stalker is a bit annoying with it, though it makes sense. Then when it's so high it becomes a non issue is also annoying because eventually I hit the cap. The one in bg3 is fine with me. I tend to choose my companions to carry specific items, so it's evenly spread out. Then I take breaks to go sell off my junk, usually every few in game days. I think I gave only hit cap once, I gave Karlach all the weapons I find and she was overloaded. I don't mind encumbrance most of the time.
Actually I think I'm the opposite. I hate encumbrance more when it's massive. When I played survival mode in Fallout NV, I found it so much more fun to only pick up essential items. I would commonly pick up water bottles and food instead of valuable weapons or ammo. I was usually way under my low encumbrance because I had a mindset switch to only pick up stuff that will allow me to survive the desert.
I am also kinda upset that people can't post reviews on steam, it feels like cheating the system. The game is out, over 200 000 people are playing it, why can't we see its score? How is it different from any other big launch? Should all early access games not be reviewable until they are out, meaning some can't get a score for years and years?
As someone who started with Morrowind, I prefer Skyrim over Oblivion. The Oblivion setting is better but the scaling just made it SUCH a slog.
However, I hated Fallout 3 and didn't even bother with 4 so I agree bethesda games have become less interesting over time.
One’s a company’s pride and joy and the other is a crutch because they don’t want to spend the money to move forward. Good comparison of a bad example.
*Apparently they actually modified Creation for this game. Color me surprised.
Exclusives are a cancer. At least if you made them, i could somewhat understand. But paying third party developers to not sell their game on certain platforms is stupid.
What if you only bought the expansions that speak to you though? I don't need the content creator pack or the K pop radio station, but I did want Green Cities and Mass Transit, for instance.
I'd rather that basics be part of the game from the start. Mass transit should have been there to begin with. Looking at a lot of these dlc it seems like they should've been there by default.
So then what if you waited until it had all of the features that you consider necessary and then buy those on a sale? You're a far cry from $2k spent in either case.
I shouldn't have to spend anything extra for basics. It should be there already. So I'll just not pay anything and pirate it if their monetization scheme is going to be this fucked.
Who determines what's a basic and what's expanded content then? You know what's in it when it comes out, and you can buy it at that price or not. If they do extra work, it makes sense to sell it as an add-on. If you were happy with it before they added night clubs or weather features, were they really that essential to be included in the base package? If you weren't happy with it before they added those things, wait until they add those things. They sell a good product at a fair price, and they're forthcoming about what's in it. They don't try to keep you hooked with weird psychological tricks or gambling mechanics. Nothing about this is fucked.
I used to be perfectly happy with Paradox's "slew of DLC" business model... until they raised their prices.
Before that, I would buy everything as soon as it dropped. No biggie. Now I only buy DLC when it eventually gets those deep discount sales. I'm open to their experimental "subscription" & "seasonal bundle" models, though... so long as they include everything and they don't get cute with exclusions.
Just because the DLC exists doesn’t mean you need it. I bought the original Cities Skylines, haven’t bought any DLC, but still had a great time. It looks like this time around they’ll also include more features from DLC into the base game. Evaluate the game based on what it is. Is it worth the money? Then buy it. Is it not worth the money, then don’t.
Sounds like Nintendo wants to go on a litigation spree.
A related patent defines a mechanic that prevents Link from grabbing an object he is on top of using Ultrahand, which also seems rather intuitive. The patent does, however, go into details such as the mechanic also blocking Link from using Ultrahand on objects which have been joined to an object he is on top of.
The word “obvious” comes to mind.
“a game processing method capable of enriching game presentation during a waiting period in which at least part of the game processing is interrupted” and consists of filling up the loading period that ensues after the user inputs their fast travel destination with a sequence in which an image of the starting point’s map transitions into a map of the destination. After this sequence, the character is placed into the virtual space of the destination.
Thankfully, we can appreciate things that are obvious or aren’t novel without granting a society-funded monopoly on them. In fact, both those criteria generally disqualify them from patent, for good reason.
Good point. Don't get me wrong, I am definitely not in support of them getting a patent for it, and I'm against patents in general. I'm just saying I loved it more than I expected, and want to see it more.
Her videos about women in video games were mind-blowing. And I never forgot her Lego City vs. Lego Friends comparison. Smurfette-syndrome and damsel distress are words I didn‘t know before watching this channel.
Sounds like sour grapes and rationalization. The producer states that his complicated projects failed. If all of your complicated projects failed, then it may be that you struggle with making complicated projects, not that Americans don’t like complicated projects.
Plus, it sounds like he disproves his own point without realizing it. He simplified the Witcher and it still isn’t doing well. Isn’t that an indicator that maybe plot complexity isn’t as strong of a predictor of audience engagement as he thinks?
gaming
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.