To populate the community, maybe, but QuakeLive, original Q3 servers and open alternatives still have people. And what I love about them more than the idea of a remaster is that they aren’t gated by software or hardware. This possible remaster may require a W10-11 and lots of powerful hardware to show all these fancy things you, by default, disable to participate in competitive Quake.
Quake Champions (or how it’s called) is what current gen have instead, while old people don’t care having old Quake 3 Arena things running.
Am I crazy or is europa universalis just a worse version of crusader kings? Love crusader kings but mever tried EU because it just seems like the same game with less features?
It’s the same engine, but the focus is different: CK is about the ruling dynasty, EU is about the country itself. Time period is also different (EU4 goes from 1444 to 1821),
A good example of that is that in EU4 your country can be the junior partner of a personal union, where it needs to fight against its rulers to get independence. You won’t see anything similar in CK3, because you are the ruling dynasty.
I guess, idk that seems less fun to me lol. And in CK3 you can absolutely be a vassal of a larger kingdom and fight (or negotiate) for your independence.
And in CK3 you can absolutely be a vassal of a larger kingdom and fight (or negotiate) for your independence.
Yes but you can’t be a junior partner of a personal union, since this means that you (the dynasty) would be fighting yourself. On the other hand in EU4 this works fine since you’re the Senate government/country/state itself, not the king or the dynasty. It was just an example on the different focus, mind you.
On EU4 being less fun than CK3: personally I like EU4 better because I care far more about groups in Modern times interacting on a global level than individuals in Mediaeval times interacting on a regional level. And EU4 always involves some sort of “if I did this in real life I’d be a monster” decision, that actually makes me understand a lot of the shit that governments do, such as culturecide or backstabbing/Realpolitik.
But there’s no “right” choice, it’s different strokes for different folks.
Since you’ve played it, I do have a couple of questions.
1). I haven’t played really any JRPGs before so is this game friendly to newcomers or not really? It looks really beautiful and that caught my eye when I first saw it
2). Do I need to play the previous one to understand what’s going on?
The game is great and easily the best japanese fighting game experience for casuals. (Mechanically I prefer anime fighters though.) For once a Japanese game has all the bells and whistles instead of almost purely focusing on the multiplayer.
The cosmetics are what they are. At least it’s not p2w but it’s up to consumers to not spend if they don’t agree with paying more in a game they already bought.
Edit: downvote me all you want but the truth is that street fighter 6 was a very big step forward for japanese fighting games in terms of what they offer consumers. The fgc hasn’t had games that can truly appeal to and bring in new players so I can’t help but be happy for it. The only exceptions would be NRS’s games and smash.
I’d say that’s okay if only the company is credited by name, but the execs names were included. If they’re including names, include all the names. It’s not a long list from what I saw on Twitter.
Usually ones that come with an upfront cost, but yeah. There’s actually a lot that are pretty good, like Monument Valley 1+2, or Stardew Valley’s mobile port.
What if Chuck E Cheese was in your bedroom and it was marketed to make you feel like you were missing out if you didn’t have the thing your friend’s had, but you can’t buy the thing, oh no that’s too easy. We’ll let you buy the chance to own the thing.
I’ll give you the proximity point, it is easier to access loot boxes when they are in a game.
But as for the missing out part, yeah that’s how it works. Your friend wins something from the claw machine or gets a bunch of tickets, now you want that. That’s part of the fun, your parents could just buy the toy but that’s lame
But your parents can’t just buy the toy. The only way to get the toy is through the element of chance - sometimes with a near zero win chance - by spending real world money.
The only reason it’s not de-facto gambling is that there are consolation prizes, but in most peoples’ view that doesn’t make it morally okay to push on children, nor does it make it completely not gambling either. It’s just gambling with consolation prizes.
I disagree that most people view it as bad. Arcades and stuff have been around forever, and are still being used by a ton of people. Just because you don’t want send your kids to chuck E cheese doesn’t mean most people agree with you
You keep relying on the Chuck E. Cheese anology, but it simply doesn’t work. At Chuck E. Cheese the prizes are a bunch of toys that your parents could otherwise buy, and the fun is in playing the games themselves which pay out tickets toward earning those prizes. That is in no way the equivalent of gamble boxes in video games.
Gamble boxes contain prizes that can’t be bought outside the game, and in nearly every case contain prizes that can’t be bought with the “consolation prize” (i.e. “tickets”) that are dropped when you otherwise win nothing or very little compared to the actual prizes. And there is no inherent “fun” in clicking an “UNLOCK BOX” button compared to actually… playing a game in order to earn prizes. Not comparable at all, really.
If you’re going to try to convince people they’re not gambling (and you have quite the uphill battle to fight), you’re better off likening them to blind bag grab-packs of card games / collector cards / toys, etc. - Pokemon, Magic the Gathering, sports cards, blind-bag toys etc. That is their closest real-world equivalent. Many would argue that those are also a form of gambling, as well.
games
Najnowsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.