Yeah, the series s was a great decision in the short term, but was always going to create a lot of problems as the current generation progressed. Because while it kept consoles on shelves during the initial launch and chip shortage, and pulled in people who would ordinarily balk at the cost, the promise of next Gen support for the series s was always going to come back and bite Microsoft in the ass when more games started to push the consoles limits.
In this regard, Sony was way smarter in just extending the ps4 lifespan since developers can just drop it any time without the existing user base feeling like the got scammed since the ps4 never had promises of running concurrent to the ps5 like the series s does.
I wouldn’t expect that to last long though, a lot of reviewers still haven’t played enough of it to give it a rating so right now the sample size is pretty small. Even IGN hasn’t submitted their review yet, and usually they’re early. The game is just really big.
I agree with a lot of your post - but it started at 92, after a few days it was 95, then 2 weeks after release its 97. If anything, more reviews will mean a higher score.
That assumes everyone is going to be rating it in the 90s, which is far from a guarantee even for games that absolutely deserve it. Especially when the cRPG genre isn't exactly an industry darling.
People downvoting you is fucking hilarious. I hate to break it to them, but both movie and game reviews were bought out quite some time ago. Watch gameplay, read multiple reviews not from the critics, but from real people who actually tried to enjoy the game instead of doing some mediocre checklist.
I think if it was not the case we would have seen a lot more failing grades lately. I mean some of the titles did not even work on launch yet somehow 9/10?
Exactly. The same critics they are desperately waiting for their approval are the same ones who will give a trash and micro transaction bloated piece of shit game over a 90, but then a well developed and labor of love below a 90 because the better game was indie and didn’t pay them for the review.
For those that live under a rock, Pokémon heavily relies on a weakness/strength system based on 'types'. Both the Pokémon and individual moves have types. Hitting weaknesses will wreck faces, while hitting strengths is practically useless. This is an important preface to my point.
In the regular land terrain, you can find Pokémon of pretty much all types, which forces you to change up your own Pokémon to adapt.
In water terrain though, the Pokémon you'll find, both in the wild and on trainers, is 99% water as a main type, and it is here where we come across the real problem.
Without any grinding, you can absolutely blitz through any challenges in those areas with a few reliable Electric or Grass types or even moves, to the point where it's just not fun to do.
But at the same time, you have to go through these areas to progress, and the game heavily encourages you to use Pokémon/moves that hit weaknesses. It's been teaching you to do this the entire time. which means most players will experience the drag and not set their own fun to counteract this. That is a legit negative.
I think they just summed it up really badly. At the end of an IGN score, you've got compliments and criticisms at the bottom, summed up in short sentences.
'over-reliance on Water Pokémon' or 'some routes are boringly easy' would both be infinitely better sentences than 'too much water', which on the face of it, and without context, does sound like a bullshit bullet point.
The “too much water” was intended to talk about too many water pokemon, as well as the poor navigation of water levels.
To me, when people try to discredit ign because of “too much water” I immediately know their opinion is worthless because they didnt read the review and couldn’t piece together what the criticism was in the first place.
'too much water' was a summary negative point in the IGN review of Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire games.
On the face of it, that complaint sounds fucking ridiculous, but is actually very valid due to the way those games handle waterways; they are the only terrain filled almost entirely with a single Pokémon type, with all others having wide varieties.
This makes large sections of the game a pathetically easy and boring breeze even by Pokémon standards; one reliable Electric or Grass type and you're set.
However, that sentence was in the TL;DR bullet points of the review, which sounds fucking ridiculous without context.
However, there are:
• Jumping puzzles dependent on either high strength or specific spells.
• Inventory management is critical, particularly grabbing a few emptied crates/chests/backpacks and dumping them into your personal storage chest so you can quickly sort.
Both of those, based on previous reviews, make a decent score from IGN unlikely.
Let’s say that’s something Microsoft would even allow, it diminishes the ability to compete with the PS5. Why would I get a Series X if there’s a chance that some big game launches will have less features than other current gen platforms?
Microsoft really hamstrung this generation of consoles by releasing the S and demanding it runs feature parity with the X.
Hey guys, you should get a Series X because BG3 is coming out. Sure it will be missing features that you’ll get on the PS5 like split screen, but you guys understand we need to support the Series S and have parity between our two consoles.
So even though you spent more money on a Series X, that’s capable of running the full game that the PS5 is getting, you should just be happy that you’re getting the game at all. Don’t worry about having paid for a console that’s capable of more.
Your comment makes zero sense. The decision not to release on Xbox at all is not Microsoft’s. It’s Larian who rather sacrifice an entire hardware base for a niche feature. You obviously didn’t read the article. It’s spelled out there.
While there would be some variance in technical capabilities between consoles, feature parity between the two would remain the same. It would remain the same because Microsoft would demand it remain the same, from both its own studios and third parties.
Wow, I’m amazed on how bad you’re at grasping the basics of what I wrote.
I 👏 DID 👏 NOT 👏 WRITE 👏 ABOUT 👏 CUTTING 👏 SPLIT SCREEN 👏 FROM 👏 SERIES S 👏 ONLY 👏 BUT 👏 ALL 👏 XBOX 👏 VARIANTS 👏 SO 👏 THE 👏 GAME 👏 CAN 👏 LAUNCH 👏 AND 👏 NOT 👏 LEAVE 👏 XBOX 👏 USERS 👏 IN 👏 THE 👏 RAIN!
The article is about feature parity between Series S and Series X and not about how all Xbox variants can’t have feature disparity with PlayStation. If Larian were to cut split screen for all Xbox versions, the game could launch just fine.
Where did Microsoft or Larian say that was an option? Where did Microsoft say that they would be happy to have features cut from the X to keep parity with the S?
I pointed out how poor a business decision this would be if Microsoft would allow it. It ruins their offering for the Series X. How can it compete with the PS5 if they start allowing developers to drop features from Xbox games? The entire point of the article is that Microsoft has boxed themselves into this corner. And your suggestion isn’t a good solution.
Where did Microsoft or Larian say that was an option?
That is an option because exclusive features come to one brand all the time. Everyone with even minor insight in video game business knows that.
Where did Microsoft say that they would be happy to have features cut from the X to keep parity with the S?
It’s not about happiness, it’s about what the rules allow and since there are exclusive features on other consoles all the time, it’s obviously allowed. That’s how the Spider-Man character ended up being exclusive on the PlayStation version of Marvel’s Avengers. Golden Eye 007 has online multiplayer exclusive to Nintendo Switch. Those are well-known facts and if you don’t know them: That’s on you.
I pointed out how poor a business decision this would be if Microsoft would allow it. It ruins their offering for the Series X. How can it compete with the PS5 if they start allowing developers to drop features from Xbox games?
Yeah, you’re such a great business genius, you think not launching a game at all is better than cutting a niche feature barely anyone cares about. Yes, you totally convinced me.
I guess you gonna vote me down again because you cannot stomach that I’m right and you’re wrong.
I think you are misreading, they are refusing to launch because of the feature parity but, that’s because they are consciously deciding that split screen is a hard requirement for the game to launch, whereas with other consoles(steam deck) they just removed split screen and called it good.
I used to play Q2 competitively, so I’m a little opinionated:
Not all games are eSports-ready, nor do they need to be.
Why: eSports need to be fair. Everyone has to start at the same place, and the majority, if not all of the performance has to come from player skill.
E.g: Imagine modern football where certain players running on the field could just randomly teleport or fly, but most can’t.
Class-based (hero arena, etc) shooters are inherently unequal in the same way, because that’s the point of classes (e.g: Heavy having more HP than Scout, Spy being able to cloak and so on).
If you’re about to make the argument that “TF2/OW/LOL/WTFBBQ” requires plenty of skill despite the abilities/imbalance: save it.
There’s an enormous gulf between what the audience and casual players + enthusiasts perceive as being inside of an eSport and what’s actually going on mechanically on the top-level.
Players optimize and engineer the fun out of a game.
eSports players/pros engineer the game out of the game.
Very strange argument. It seems like you’re bad at those games and created some elaborate theory to rationalize it. Class based games require just as much, if not more, skill than non-class based games. As the number of classes increases, the total amount of knowledge required and variety of techniques available also tends to increase.
Professional players do optimize the fun out of a game, but that’s totally unrelated to the point you were trying to make.
You've gotta start turning kinda early to avoid running into walls, and the c and v keys (brake right and brake left) will help you on really tight corners
Never got used to the handling of the ships in Wipeout as a kid. Enjoyed F-Zero X a lot more. Didn't really care for the combat aspects either.
I wish there was a good anti gravity racer for the PC with extensive ship customization and lots of unlockables though (as in playing to unlock, not paying). There's pretty much just small indie titles and most of them aren't even particularly good.
Man, I used to love futuristic racers when I was a kid. I put in some serious hours into the Xtreme G and the N64 version of Star Wars Podracer. Freaking Jetmoto... man, those were the days!
games
Gorące
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.