I’ve been playing Prey. Just finished replaying Dishonored a few weeks ago, which led to playing dishonored 2 and death of the outsider. So, I was feeling a stealth sim and decided that after several years of owning the game I should give it a shot. It’s been fun so far.
It’s interesting. It’s more of a linear adventure game that doesn’t really give you a ton of wiggle room but it’s got a pretty unique story that combines well with some gameplay mechanics. I also really liked the visuals.
Ugh. I can’t believe we waited all this time just for them to lie about local play, add a premium cash store where one skin can cost over the price of the game, and LOOTBOXES in a premium game. What a disappointment.
I’m looking forward to playing it again. After BG3. And in between Tarkov. After Starfield. I guess by that point Elden Ring DLC might be out. Also need to play RE4 remaster. . Also didn’t a Harry Potter game come out recently? Also Atomic Heart had a DLC. Still need to try Hell Let Loose…
Ya I’ll probably bump it up ahead on the list because I loved the game so much. But I know what you mean, I’m way behind on games. I just beat the FF7 Remake and am in the middle of Horizon Zero Dawn (ya, the first one).
Yes, its not a souls game anyways, just a hard mech game. Which is kinda the staple for mech games.
Also though you can suck at soul like games but still enjoy them. Honestly the first step into getting good is figuring out which type of cheese you prefer. Ive always been partial to big sticks turning enemies into pancakes. It works on most games that are similar. Havent found a weapon to do so in lie of p yet, but thats a good thing for me since it changed my play style.
If you’re a fan, I’d say the beginning when you’re in Hogwarts and Hogsmeade is worth playing. But as soon as the plot takes you south, just stop playing.
Starfield is…a Bethesda game, no doubt about that. You’ll probably like it okay if you like their games, just don’t expect to be impressed or anything like that.
If you’re not familiar with the “gold” term, it means the game is complete and ready to be submitted to Sony’s online services and be printed to discs
Am I the only one who has never heard this term before? I always thought going Gold referenced a sales threshold, similar to the music industry. The term as the article defines it is pretty dumb and useless.
Going gold for a video game means the game is finished and ready and can be printed into its Gold Master Copy.
The games industry, while note sales thresholds, do not reward sales thresholds.
Xbox at a time would re-release titles that were large sellers on the original Xbox and Xbox 360 as “Platinum Hits.” Which may have helped your confusion on the topic.
This term has been used for a long time but it’s largely irrelevant these days since games are patched continuously, sometimes with extremely large day one patches. It used to make more sense in the old days because it meant the game was complete and ready to ship.
Realistically it’s entirely possible it took more platform specific work to make the switch version viable than anything else.
It’s possible, but that’s wild speculation, and I think pretty unlikely.
It’s not their fault it’s lesser hardware.
It’s their fault for releasing a 70$ game on “lesser hardware” while not spending the time to get it working and looking well-enough. They didn’t have to release it.
It's not wild speculation. The CPU is 20 tiers worse than dogshit and getting anything that's even a hint of demanding to even function at all on it is a lot of work.
the point isn’t that it should cost less, it’s that it shouldn’t have been released to begin with AND it costs more than most games. the price isn’t really the problem, it just compounds on it to make it all seem worse.
No, it is wild speculation. Turning off graphical effects etc. until you get acceptable frame rates isn’t hard and doesn’t take long, definitely not as long as implementing them for the other consoles.
You don’t need to rebuild the game because the CPU is slower.
Graphical effects have never been the problem. They're completely irrelevant and not even sort of part of the discussion.
CPU performance is exactly the entire problem, and yes, you absolutely do have to make fundamental changes to make it functional. The CPU is the reason the majority of last gen games are straight up impossible to port in any context, and current gen games are much worse.
Graphical effects have never been the problem. They’re completely irrelevant and not even sort of part of the discussion.
What? This whole topic is about the lower quality of MK1 on the switch. How is the CPU involved in the graphics of MK1? You’ll need to share a source that this is the problem.
CPU performance is exactly the entire problem, and yes, you absolutely do have to make fundamental changes to make it functional. The CPU is the reason the majority of last gen games are straight up impossible to port in any context, and current gen games are much worse.
Please share a source, or at least a detailed description of what exactly the CPU is too slow for to run MK1 with higher quality. It sure as hell isn’t involved in shader execution, which is where most of the graphical fidelity comes from (if you’re developing a game post 2000).
The lower graphics quality is because the GPU can't do math. There's no way to mitigate that.
It's also absolutely none of the work involved in a port. The work on a port is entirely making the actual mechanics function on a CPU that was terrible for mobile years before the switch launched.
The lower graphics quality is because the GPU can’t do math. There’s no way to mitigate that.
Yes, which is why the CPU isn’t the problem. It’s the GPU.
It’s also absolutely none of the work involved in a port. The work on a port is entirely making the actual mechanics function on a CPU that was terrible for mobile years before the switch launched.
Please share a source for this. A game like MK1 doesn’t need a lot of CPU power, because there just isn’t anything complicated happening. It’s all GPU that’s missing.
I spent like 15 minutes looking up and comparing the minimum requirements on PC for mortal Kombat 1 (a game I have no intention of ever playing) and the CPU and GPU of the switch, pointing out that the GPU and CPU of the switch are both so far below even the minimum requirements on PC (which are pretty low tbh)
Am not an expert but i think particles and physics are both calculated by the CPU. Both very intensive tasks. Graphic wise, from looking at the screenshot above, it seems they only lowered the quality of model and it looks awful because they went for realism. The not so easy fixable problem is the characters design, Switch games look cartoonish for a reason.
Physics are calculated by the CPU, but a game like MK1 doesn’t have many physics to calculate - almost everything is pre-made animations. Particles are updated by the CPU, but rendered by the GPU.
And yeah, that’s why my point was that it’s not the CPU that is limiting the graphics.
What's your point? It's absolutely possible to make fun games that are simple and not demanding.
It's also extremely limiting. The vast majority of recent games can't possibly be made to run on anything anywhere close to as underpowered as the Switch.
I am just annoyed when people say the switch hardware is shit. It’s not shit, it’s just a completely different approach, that’s all. Also it’s annoying you’re using one of the shittiest ports ever to push this idea. They could have built this game from the ground up for switch and had something that looked and ran good. But that wasn’t their plan. The plan was a half assed port.
But it actually is obscenely underpowered, even for mobile, and the CPU is a massive limitation that keeps the vast majority of last gen games from being possible.
It changed the space by showing low end open world games on handheld were possible, but it hit its ceiling extremely quickly. There's a reason most AAA games didn't support it, and it's because it isn't capable.
Yeah I am a switch owner and also play on my Mac and on Windows with virtual machines, and the majority of switch ports are just garbage and should not have been released. I paid for the outer worlds on switch and it was awful, just a loading screen simulator.
Yes in a world that expects hardware to always get better and software to always be written sloppily and/or assuming those constant improvements I guess it makes sense to be angry at one of the greatest game consoles ever created
Remember when games used a few KB of memory and they did smart things to make that work? No you probably don’t because you’d be angered by that hardware’s existence
Right which is why first-party titles, which are built for the stupidly underpowered hardware found in a switch, run and look pretty damn good for the hardware inside. They are building the entire game around a singular shitty-ass chip. It can be optimized perfectly for just that.
But a developer creating a game for PC, Xbox, Playstation, potentially other platforms, AND Switch isn’t going to change the design of the entire game to accommodate the Switch’s dinky-ass hardware.
And yes old consoles and games used clever tricks to run well on slower hardware and it was amazing. But I guarantee that every single title you could think of as an example was either a first-party title, or in the case of something like Crash Bandicoot, was exclusive to that console.
You’re delusional if you think that third-party devs should be able to meet Nintendo’s level of polish on their console while creating graphically demanding games for current gen.
And yes it makes sense to be angry at “one of the greatest game consoles ever made” (okay fanboy) when that console was underpowered when it launched 6 years ago, has TERRIBLE controllers (joy cons are literally the least enjoyable controllers I’ve used, ever, and have serious drift issues), and has held back game development and caused headaches like the situation at hand for devs - they’re essentially in a no-win situation here.
Who's angry? It's not game developer's fault that it has 10% of the power needed to run a modern game.
There is no amount of optimization that could make most modern games run on the switch. It has nothing to do with laziness. If you were a first party making games built from the ground up to be comparable to other modern games, it could not be done.
There's a reason Nintendo leans hard into simple physics and extremely arcade style sports games, and it's not just to be more accessible to casual fans. It's because it's literally all the hardware can do.
There’s a reason Nintendo leans hard into simple physics and extremely arcade style sports games, and it’s not just to be more accessible to casual fans. It’s because it’s literally all the hardware can do.
Yeah when they chose the type of games they’d be known for in the 80’s, it sure was specifically because their crystal ball told them:
They chose that hardware because Nvidia was offloading it dirt cheap, so they could make big margins on it.
Yeah when they chose the type of games they’d be known for in the 80’s, it sure was specifically because their crystal ball told them
Nintendo’s shift towards simpler games has absolutely coincided with their consoles being less powerful than the competition. And since we’re name-calling like children (bc some of us are fanboys who can’t accept valid criticism)… this has been apparent for the last 20 years, and I made the observation as a child during the Wii era, numbskull!
Nintendo is currently not known for their 80s catalog of titles beyond generally being associated with Mario and Co. - they are known for the games and systems that most people grew up with - and statistically, that’s overwhelmingly Wii/DS and newer.
During which time their hardware has consistently lagged behind other systems, and rather than focus on graphics, like Nintendo once did - when they were pushing the hardware envelope - with titles like Super Mario 64, Nintendo has shifted focus and decided to use commodity hardware for their consoles.
Now, as a shift in strategy, I’m not saying it’s necessarily wrong, but don’t try and deny what’s going on.
They absolutely chose the hardware for the switch because it was cheap. There isn’t anything particularly special about that Nvidia chip, it had been commercially available for two years by the time the switch came out, so yes it’s reasonable to assume Nvidia was offloading it cheaply.
Use your brain and maybe put away the Nintendo kneepads.
Yeah, the physics on botw and totk are so simple. It hurts my brain how basic those games are.
Two of the highest rated games of all time.
On switch
The most underpowered console of our generation.
But yeah mortal kombat couldn’t make the game look even slightly better because it can only be as good at totk. That really basic shitty looking extremely popular and highly rated game.
Yeah, the physics on botw and totk are so simple. It hurts my brain how basic those games are.
Half Life 2 had physics like that 20 years ago.
Also totk is a stuttering mess when anything sufficiently complex happens unless you overclock the switch, which just proves the point of how underpowered the switch is.
Also also, art style CARRIES those games’ graphics. Running those games at higher res (or just on a TV) really shows the constraints they had to work within to get the games to run.
Two of the highest rated games of all time.
Yeah, and I’m sure the loyal Zelda/Nintendo fanboys have nothing to do with that.
Don’t get me wrong, they’re fantastic games, but I don’t think they’d be nearly as popular/well-received if they weren’t Zelda titles.
If you need an example in the opposite direction, I don’t even need to look up which Pokemon game it was that looked like dogshit on the switch bc you know exactly what I’m talking about.
Your claim about half life 2 is bold and would need backing up. Im not going to just accept your assertion without proof. That’s not how this works.
Totk has some frame rate issues here and there, but when you give playes the power to do whatever they want with a set of tools, you will always overload a game engine. Name any sandbox game that players haven’t been able to overload and cause frame rate drops.
Also, there are AAA games that struggle with frame rate drops on PC, PS5, and Xbox series X. Which i guess just proves the point of how underpowered those are… obviously, the switch is the lower end of these. Im not deluded. But claiming some stuttering in totk when players have set up chaos means it proves the switch is underpowered is just incorrect. Any game that gives you a set of tools and the instructions ,“go” stutters when there’s too much going on.
The switch is 6 years old, im not suprisdd its showing its age now. I am suprised its remained relevant and has games that are rated to highly.
So art style carries the games? So what? Isn’t that just ingenuity? And dorsnt it prove the .ain point of this thread? That Mortal Kombat could have looked good with a tweaked art style for switch but was just a bad port? If the product looks bad on the switch, then dont release it on Switch, i guess.
Ok, but if there are zelda/nintendo fan boys it follows that nintendo are consistently making great games and that zelda games are consistently great… you dont keep enough people gushing over your games by releasing trash game after trash game. Also fan boys wouldnt be enough alone to get a game that highly rated. Remeber that this game only released on switch, meaning it didnt have all the pa5 and xbox owners to help boost its numbers.
So whilst im sure the fanboys had something to do with it, its likely that the fact that the game is good played a kuch bigger part.
People bought a switch when these games came out just because they saw how good they were and wanted to play…
Sorry i think i know what you mean but i dont play the pokemon games. Is it the one with the shit textures, was it online like an mmo, i seem to recall one like that. Didnt interest me because it looked shit compared to so many other games ive played on switch.
lmfao have you never heard of the source engine? Garry’s mod? HL2 was just the first game running Source that really showed some of the physics and creativity off.
While the physics on totk are cool, and the crafting system is impressive, especially for the hardware it’s running on, nothing it does is exactly revolutionary. Plenty of games have been doing similar stuff for a very long time, on much older hardware.
Not exactly the same, and they certainly deserve credit bc what totk has is impressive, but acting like totk was some revolution in videogame physic and one of the best games ever is a bit of a stretch IMO. It’s a fun, well-made, complete open-world game, that builds on the previous title’s map.
Also, there are AAA games that struggle with frame rate drops on PC, PS5, and Xbox series X
Yeah but their stuttering is dropping from 60FPS to 50FPS, or 180FPS to 100FPS, and because they’ve got actually capable hardware, they also support freesync, which greatly reduces how jarring FPS drops feel.
But claiming some stuttering in totk when players have set up chaos means it proves the switch is underpowered is just incorrect
Any game that can barely run at 30FPS (totk relies heavily on dynamic resolution scaling in denser areas, even without player contraptions) and drops to 20FPS when loaded with stuff built in game is a stuttering mess. Be it on PC, Xbox or Switch. Switch doesn’t get a break on a game being a stuttering mess because it’s weak.
That’s literally the whole reason ppl are criticizing the switch. It makes games like totk a stuttering mess, instead of allowing people to enjoy incredible games like that at a nice smooth 60 or 90FPS
My two-year-old phone can run games at beyond 1440P, 120FPS, with better graphics than a Switch.
Any game that gives you a set of tools and the instructions ,“go” stutters when there’s too much going on.
Yes every game is gonna have a limit to the physics it can crunch. TOTK’s limit before stuttering is pretty damn small, relatively speaking.
And dorsnt it prove the .ain point of this thread? That Mortal Kombat could have looked good with a tweaked art style for switch but was just a bad port?
No. Because that would have required the devs to literally create new textures for every single asset in the game, with new art style, which especially in a game that people are often very competitive in can cause massive headaches for the devs.
Ok, but if there are zelda/nintendo fan boys it follows that nintendo are consistently making great games
Andrew Tate is a good person bc he has a lot of fanboys, right? If that logic doesn’t follow, why would it follow for videogames? Fanboys are known for irrational support, not rational criticism.
fan boys wouldnt be enough alone to get a game that highly rated.
Remeber that this game only released on switch, meaning it didnt have all the pa5 and xbox owners to help boost its numbers.
Wow, REALLY?? Nintendo didn’t release Zelda on Xbox??? 🤪
So whilst im sure the fanboys had something to do with it, its likely that the fact that the game is good played a kuch bigger part.
I never said it wasn’t a good game. It’s a great game. Not my speed, but it’s great. I don’t think it’s anywhere close to top 10 tho, and the only reason it’s even in that discussion is because of fanboys who are okay with Zelda becoming just another open-world RPG with towers to climb and now crafting shit.
I have a PC, PS5, and Switch, and never felt like the Switch was underpowered. Samewise, my phone doesn’t feel underpowered compared to my laptop, because I recognise they’re completely different devices.
You don’t get a Switch to play the latest God of War, you get it to play Mario and Zelda games, and cute lo-fi indie games
Right… I’m not sure what your point is exactly with that, doom came out in 1993 and had extremely low requirements and looks as dated as it is. Of course it can run on machines like fridges or ATMs or calculators in more recently made devices because the power of the chips in these machines are better then PCs back when doom released.
Yeah I looked and idk what to say - it looks like a switch game.
If you bought a switch, which was an extremely underpowered when it was released 6 years ago, and then get upset when AAA games releasing on current gen consoles look like dogshit… You have nobody to blame but yourself.
Isn’t a PS5 vs Switch comparison kind of like a PS4 vs Wii comparison? They’re not even the same hardware generation, it’s a wonder they’re even dedicating resources to this.
It doesn’t look like a hardware issue. Yes, the less powerful hardware is what forced graphical changes, but it looks like an art direction problem.
The changes mostly fail to capture the essence of the original design. The characters look like they were ripped from the SIMs.
No one is expecting the same lighting, textures, or poly counts, but they do expect something that looks like Mortal Combat. That isn’t an unreasonable expectation.
You’re right that this may be a budgeting issue of sorts, but if they can’t set aside enough resources to make it look like some sort of Mortal Combat game, then maybe they shouldn’t have made the port.
I’ve been playing only RPGs the past few months with BG3 and Starfield, so I’m not in a rush to play Phantom Liberty right away. Looking forward to trying the free 2.0 patch today and will probably do a vanilla playthrough before I think about getting the expansion.
Either way, looking forward to PC coverage coming out.
I think they were specifically referring to the "2.0" because it entirely overhauls the systems. They suggest restarting so your progression feels natural and you can decide how to allocate skills as you learn them.
I didn't see anything saying the actual expansion benefitted from starting over. I was under the impression that it's a mid/late game area/missions.
im going to respec a saved game a few times just to see how some of the abilities function. like air jump. then use that to plan out a build and then restart
How are you enjoying Starfield so far? I somehow managed to play for over 30 hours before I realized that the story isn’t very engaging and that I’m not having any fun. The only entertainment I’m getting is from looting a bunch of junk I’ll never use, but I can do that in literally any Bethesda game. Just curious what you think.
no who you were asking but I don't want to progress from where Im at without making a based and the base construction thing sorta deflates my enthusiasm to play.
It’s a Bethesda game through and through. You probably know that already if you’ve checked out the reviews, but if you liked Skyrim or FO4, and you can stomach the loadscreens, you know what you’re getting. Personally, I hoped for more but even what’s delivered has been worth it for me. The main story drags a bit in the collection of the artifacts, but seems to be picking up. Outside of that, there’s plenty of entertaining distractions.
I’m actually a fan of the game because I can see the vision they had. I think people are more harsh because they see how great it, “could have been”. But to this day so many weird bugs, qc issues that are not even graphics related. Basic qc like overlapping dialogue, mission problems, things disappearing, etc. I’m rooting for the team to keep up improvements. But for them to tell me I’d have a better time starting over is a little annoying. If this is so much better what was I playing before ? Sure, more money, feedback and most of all time is going to make a better game.But they know there are things they could have done better if they are suggesting starting over.
They are suggesting you start over so you can enjoy the rebalance of the game with the updates. They aren’t saying you have to, just that you’ll get the most out of it if you do.
Not very. Negotiating and executing a deal of that size and complexity cross cutting major national, cultural, and business universes would be extremely difficult
I think you’re taking this wrong. They’re saying you can play it all again and the experience will be somewhat different with the new systems. They are saying you’re a loser if you don’t or whatever. Basically, they’re saying the update effects the existing game too, not just the DLC.
Maybe it’s because they view playing the game differently than you do. Personally I see it as a game you can ‘run’, sort of like a rogue-like. There’s different ways to execute missions, a few different ways to interact and varied builds for a character. I’ve played the game twice now, once as a corpo gun slinger and once as a street kid hacker. For this update I’m doing a nomad ninja.
I have waited till the release to play it. It’s still in its wrap. Is now the definitive moment finally? Do I get the DLC right now, or is that for later?
Maybe so! I had not heard that. So perhaps the best route is to play through a second time, with the update 2.0 patch and dlc, and play the dlc storyline after the main story has concluded.
So you bought the game on release and never played it because it turned out to be a broken unfinished mess, and now, without having played it again, you’re asking if you should dump even more money into it?
The downvotes, the jokes, I find it immature. Seems like lemmy turned out to be to have become toxic with the Reddit refugees.
Look, I’m looking forward on playing the game ever since release. I still respect cd project for what they have done with Witcher 3. I simply waited to play the game as my time is sparse nowadays and I have to chose consciously how I spent it. If the game gives me dozens of hours of a great time, I see no problem in spending the cash.
The worst thing about Stadia was the squandered opportunities. Had Google actually put some effort into marketing it, it could have really succeeded. The tech behind it worked amazingly well. I played Destiny 2 on it from launch to the service's shutdown, and it was a fantastic experience. The latency was nowhere near as bad as people (who often never even tried the platform) would claim, and it was also the best place to play Cyberpunk 2077 at launch, as it was somehow the most stable version of the game. Streaming to YouTube worked very well, and some of the integrated features with YouTube (where viewers could interact with certain games) were also kinda groundbreaking.
But somehow, Google couldn't be bothered to advertise the product at all. They ran 1 Super Bowl commercial which didn't make a whole lot of sense to the average viewer, and then basically zero marketing after that. They refused to inform the public about what the product is or how it worked or what stood it apart from its competition, which led to bad-faith reviews and rumors being spread about the platform, ultimately leading to most people who knew about Stadia being wildly misinformed on it.
It's such a shame. I absolutely loved Stadia. It fit my needs perfectly. None of the other streaming platforms I've tried have even come close, even today.
Yeah a product like that needs a Big Personality to be a sort of spokesperson for it. To go around and do the press circuit, and be the face of the product. Get memed, etc.
My guess is it was just a bunch of well meaning nerds behind this one, and no one wanted to actually go out there and bat for it.
But you don’t need PS+ for Spider-Man and Horizon? And you could buy and sell the console + games after playing the two games you wanted to play on the platform.
It’s not as convenient as just streaming the games, but it is possible.
I wouldnt call a PS4 e-waste, if the PS2 is anything to go by it will end up cycling about for a long time in some shape or form. Seriously PS2 parts are a solid mix of old new stock, newly manufactured parts, or spares taken from scrapped dead consoles.
Regular use is irrelevant so long as it doesnt end up in a land fill, what matters is that they get some continued use and survive in solid enough numbers.
Eh, I will still be able to play the base game of say far cry 4 or assassins creed black flag. I have the disks, and even then you could always buy the versions that have all the dlc. Nobody talks about the fable 1 dlc but they existed.
Unless its a multiplayer focused game there will always be games to play on it, even if ya dont get the DLC.
Would’ve loved a streaming platform that doesn’t cost a whole console in a year in subscription fees + makes you pay for the games
Stadia's subscription service wouldn't have cost more than a console for several years. It was only $10/month, and also not required to play the games or use multiplayer.
It would've taken over 4 years for Stadia Pro's subscription costs to reach the price of a PS5, not even including a PS+ subscription. And during that time, you'd have been able to claim ~150 free games. Realistically, Stadia had the potential to be more economic than buying a console.
I got one, was super disappointed with the functionality and didn’t like it at all. Returned it in less than a week. I got it after it’d already been steeply discounted and was so glad I hated it and got a refund when they killed it…
After committing to several Google services only to have them shut down I wasn’t willing to risk it again.
Did they refund the subscription fee? If I knew they’d refund it all, I might not have cancelled my pro preorder.
I was willing to potentially be let down again but once I heard you had to buy almost all your own games (again, if you already own them) to play them on the service I cancelled. I was aware that they’d give you Destiny (a game I have zero interest in, especially with a controller) for free. I didn’t seem worth sinking money into the service.
The subscription fee was for a gamepass-like access to a catalog of free games, so they didn’t refund that. The subscription fee also wasn’t required for playing purchased games (although it was required for 4K quality).
especially with a controller
I mostly used keyboard and mouse with the service, since the games I like to play tend to work better with keyboard and mouse. I had a dinky underpowered laptop but was playing AAA PC-oriented games through the browser interface. It was great.
I’m on GeForce Now these days but I find that it doesn’t work quite as seamlessly as Stadia did.
It was not advertised as a game-pass like catalog when I was cancelling my preorder. I literally cancelled because it wasn’t that. It was Destiny and 4k 60Hz with TBD games coming in later months.
I only had a gaming computer and a Shield TV so Stadia would have been pointless for me unless it was in the living room with a controller and some interesting games.
I pulled them all from Google Takeout. Most of them are unusable unless I figure out how to convert them to a state that can be read by other platforms, but at least I still have them, for such a day.
But somehow, Google couldn’t be bothered to advertise the product at all. They ran 1 Super Bowl commercial which didn’t make a whole lot of sense to the average viewer, and then basically zero marketing after that.
Google is really bad at marketing despite being an advertising company. Most of the products they’ve launched then shut down I just never heard of, despite finding the ideas behind them really enticing after the fact.
In my experience it was pretty shit. While visiting family in Minnesota, I got a better experience using Steam remote play to my desktop in Seattle than I did using Stadia, both in terms of latency and visual quality. I’m sure it would have been better living in California or New York, where you’re closer to a datacenter. But Doom Eternal was just unplayable for me.
Despite Google being heavily invested in the advertising space, they have always been terrible at advertising their own products. It almost seems like the top brass don’t actually care about their non-search products at all.
Google couldn’t be bothered to advertise the product at all. Except, apparently, to me specifically. I must have seen the same handful of Stadia advertisements literally 100+ times while watching YouTube. I got very sick of it after a certain point.
“Hey gonks! Remember that game we released and was dirty as hell but you all gave up the eddies because we told you it was preem. We finally have the game we should have released just 3 years later. Go ahead and flatline your 200hr characters and reboot.”
Same. But I have wanted to explore other characters. My current one I made a baseball bat wielding, hard punching, aggressive nomad punk with a heart of gold, with some sniper secondary skills. Basically what I imagined a nomad would be like, with the skills I thought they’d have.
I kind of want to see what it’s like as full stealth or a corpo hacker or a street samurai katana wielder or knife thrower.
If you got 200hours out of release then clear you got your moneys worth out of the game and enjoyed it, promises not kept or not.
Personally the game could’ve been better but I certainly enjoyed the one 120ish hour playthrough I did and had no major issues other than some texture bugs or weird physics, I had a capable PC though not a last gen console trying to play at being modern.
And don't circlejerk over the dead horse that this game is unsalvageable because it had a shitty release. People forgave No Man's Sky, but the internet won't let this one go.
Shitty games with shitty releases go into oblivion, the game is obviously good.
I’m not criticizing the game, I’m criticizing the company and the billionaries that preside it and decided people swallow it all up if they launched a game in the state they did.
I agree but I think it took about this long from Cyberpunk released till there was a better outlook on No Man’s Sky and I bought both at release, I enjoyed both, but I’d say at release Cyberpunk was a better game at launch (I didn’t have any bugs I got lucky). NMS did much more work on content in the following years to where it’s barely the same experience. Has been awhile since I restarted Cyberpunk will do for 2.0 though. Maybe I haven’t caught much newer content and they added it but it seemed updates were tweaks / fixes than content.
if there was a movie that was 200 hours long and you chose to stay for the entire duration and not walk out, then you either enjoyed the movie or you need to learn about the sunk-cost fallacy
I did a heavily modded 90hr playthrough and loved it. Dealt with a ton of crashes though 😅 I’m planning on playing this vanilla finally, or very lightly modded for UI and stuff.
Yea I played vanilla release over 100 hours, then some ui/qol mods. Looking forward to a vanilla 2.0 and dlc run then maybe see what some of these overhaul mods are doing a few months after that once they’ve been patched up
PC launch play was mostly fine. Only Console launch, mostly caused by massive delusion about min. spec.s, was f'd up completely. The PC issues were also the easiest to fix and even when they could fix the Console issues, they had to convince the Console store's Owners that the relaunch wouldn't be a shit show. But then I play on PC and so expect similar to last time, once I buy it after it launches.
I’m actually a fan of the game. I’m excited to play it. I just find it funny they are saying they have made it so much better that they recommend starting over. My point is that they are saying they finally got a lot of things “right” in 2.0 that we were playing an inferior game with quite a few quaility issues. Probably due to deadlines, etc. I’m happy devs continue to improve based on sales and feedback to make it better.
No it’s a good game. I like it even with the qc issues because it’s ambitious. But the devs are basically admitting that they worked on it for 3 years to fullfill the original vision and it’s so much better that it’s worth starting over.
games
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.