For multiplayer, look at Steam charts for most active players. Any of the top 20+ games are probably worth playing, even if old.
I recently got into The Division 2 and that’s YEARS old. There isn’t much multiplayer until you reach endgame (very quick for essentially an MMO) but then there’s a decent community still.
I wonder where a union draws its power from in an industry where there are so many people desperate for work right now.
Trade unions make sense because there’s such a shortage of skilled workers in total, much less scabs. How does a union for such a well known legacy game developer sustain itself in an environment where I bet scabs would be in abundance?
I did no such thing lol. People had to be surprised by this turn of events based on the response to it in this very thread. Whether or not people are forced to continue paying for it has nothing to do with anything I said, speaking of straw men.
The divine beasts are in fact visually identical. The only real difference between them is which animal they’re vaguely shaped like. As for the overworld, I found all of it. It’s just that “all of it” was for the most part just copied and pasted over and over with minor variation.
Breath of the Wild doesn’t have an equivalent to dungeons. There are only four divine beasts, and just like the shrines they are extremely short, and identical in appearance. They were just slightly more complex shrines with an animal theme. And the overworld doesn’t realistically have a whole lot to find, by design. Since the game is entirely unstructured, you can’t put anything to find in the game, because you don’t know where the player will go and nothing to stop them from going anywhere. Thats why nothing amounts to anything more than a fractional stat boost or a temporary weapon. The outfits and the master sword are the only things worth actually finding in the game.
As a shit your brain off and run around a pretty overworld type of game, it excels. But it doesn’t delivery anything a typical Zelda game does.
This is broadly true, but I think that many older games that were much simpler, with a narrower focus and more fleshed out presentation have a spot on the leaderboards that won’t be knocked off any time soon. One example is the Legend of Zelda series. With Breath of the Wild and its sequel, it did some pretty innovating things. But in the process it sacrificed much of what made the earlier Zelda games great. We figured out how to make a game with “more dungeons” but they were uninspired and they all looked the same. Gone were the huge, sprawling, uniquely thematic dungeons with memorable bosses and iconic music. The overworld got much larger and they crammed more overworld activities into it, but now those activities were just the same four or five things copy pasted to every inch of the world, none of which did much individually besides making one of a few numbers go up by a tiny fraction. New technology allowed them to make huge sprawling worlds to explore, at the expense of the ability to effectively fill those worlds with stuff worth exploring for.
New games innovate in what is technically possible, but they move backwards in other areas that don’t get the same attention. It’s more than just “These old games were good for their time”. In many cases they are still unsurpassed by modern games because the focus changed.