I imagine what makes it more of a grumble-fest for developers is that these days, a high majority of players will be coming from consoles. While cheaters do exist on consoles, they’re far less common, meaning that a majority of your playerbase is using game clients they can’t plausibly modify - meaning MOST of the clients can be trusted. So, signing on with something like EAC is really only resolving a cheating gap for a smaller percent of players.
There have even been situations with cheat-heavy games when console players will request the option to disable crossplay in order to assure they aren’t matched with cheaters, who are often on PC. Sea of Thieves may have been one such instance.
It’s unfortunately a case of developers being required to stay “on mute” because of their inherent power - much like being rich, male, and white.
I play a lot of Dead by Daylight, and many friendly content creators will offhandedly say comments like “If you can’t outrun a Hag who’s not using her traps on Garden of Joy, you should probably uninstall.” It’s an exaggerated sentiment, definitely in a mean spirit; but unfortunately that brand of sarcasm won’t work with everyone, and in the case of most people, they could react with “Well, fine, I don’t care about YOU - surely the developers agree with me.” But people feel MUCH more powerless when developers speak, even if it’s for a topic the community has consensus on. Even Dead by Daylight had its period of outcry when the developers effectively stated through changes “Camping survivors that are downed is not fun and we’d like to discourage it.”
I remember an incident in Red Orchestra where we were on a tank map. A teammate hopped in a tank. So, I did too. He jumped out of the tank and into another; so I joined. He jumped out and started shooting at me, basically insisting I get my own tank. Apparently, his level of tactical sense and reflexes in a tank vastly outweighed the value of having a second player in the gunner’s seat; even though the game was realistically meant to depict tank crews cooperating.
OneShot is very much based on its story and immersion. Contrary to the title’s implication, there’s not so much potential for risk during play, even if it’s themed that way, but it does feel like any efforts to repeat the game would ruin some of the immersive thoughts present.
That’s actually a very fair point. I don’t play fighting games, but this is a common theme for many multiplayer games now. A lot of developers have worked to make the newer character options “fair”, but even when they work to balance new with old, just having confusing tactical options that some players can’t play as is enough to mess with someone’s strategic skill development.
That’s definitely a fair opinion - just unfortunate that enough people wouldn’t agree, or wouldn’t be able to afford $100 games, that that will probably never happen.
The other issue is that developers these days keep working on games after their release - often using information gained related to launch reception.
One other thing I think people forget about older games is that they made a lot of sequels. They have the assets for a mid-sized game and a lot of unused ideas, so to put out more content they remix what they have in new ways for a shorter development cycle. That kind of thing now becomes more suitable for an expansion pack; but whichever way it’s sold, the timeline for its release would never have made it to the first game’s production deadline.
If you go by standard inflation, games purchased in 1998 would now cost over $100. And, given reduced visuals, those games needed much fewer people to finish.
Selling games for $100 is one idea, and some publishers have even shifted that way. But, that’s not so fair for low income gamers (especially since even since 1998, the minimum wage hasn’t really gone up).
The solution they came up with is changing the entry fee, and giving semi-pointless extras on top. What I’ve generally seen is that the things games sell within them are in no way “Half the game’s content”; usually things more like skins and cosmetics. Levels, story, and gameplay items are very commonly accessible to everyone. There are expansion packs, just as there were in 1998, that usually represent significant development efforts, new voice acting, and new levels.
Skins are not “nothing”, so I understand the frustration of having them unavailable, compared to old days when they were unlockable by doing a kickflip between the schools in Tony Hawk or something. But in those old days, games effectively cost $100. Which would you prefer?
My experience in ROR2 was, in the tutorial, I was told “You did it! Now head to the teleporter that takes you to the next level.” I had no idea where it was or what it looked like, and could not consider the question for 10 seconds because the level quickly built up with more and more infinite enemies.
I hate roguelike games in general because that randomization leads to some very, very uncontrolled and uncurated experiences where it throws the worst shit at a new player.
I liked the card tactics, but I got very quickly bored of all the story conversations; given the way they seem to be connecting to the most obscure Marvel comic lore and characters. I’m sure it’s amazing to some people, but I could not give less of a shit who the “Original Midnight Suns” were, or even the lore behind my playable character.
Maybe when I return to it I’ll just start skipping any dialog not related to the core story.
I’ve been playing Division 2, finding a lot of fun gear that promises skill enhancements to the team on various activations - but it ends up feeling irrelevant when most players you team up with use rush tactics that dump everything into damage, meaning there’s no time to process those.
I really like the feel of action games that punish players for acting too quickly; rewarding more deliberate gameplay (even if the net result isn’t really “hard”). I wonder if Helldivers would meet that, but I didn’t like the first game and it sounds like they have server issues.
I enjoyed what I played of it, but…ran into a game-breaking bug. Not sure what else to say. They’re probably right that if city builders are best on mouse, you can’t easily enjoy that on Switch.
It’s a big stretch on the definition, but try the Hitman Trilogy. There are tons and tons of solutions to achieve the kills without trying for tricksy, difficult stealth challenges - just by recalling a bunch of hints you’ve seen/heard by wandering around the region, and combining them in fun ways.
Basically, if you see that the target is inside a complex guarded by two armed men, you shouldn’t be trying to flick a coin to see if you can turn a guard just long enough to use your garrot on one, and hide him around a corner, all in 10 seconds. You SHOULD, instead, look for options like:
Find a pizza delivery guy, get him alone, knock him out, take his uniform and pizza, and greet the guards so they let you in
Set off an alarm in a nearby room that causes a guard to go shut it off
Call the target on the phone and tell him you want to meet about his secrets. Then, he leaves the complex himself with one bodyguard to your proposed meeting spot “right underneath the suspended ornamental anchor”.
What’s often misleading about the games is they orient themselves around all this equipment you can bring in, but the best way to explore a lot of levels is with no equipment at all (sometimes not even a pistol). Granted, the game changes in speedruns and other challenges, but it DOES feel like playing a Monkey Island game at times.