There are some very good games out there that have survived this; including most of Valve’s greatest games - Half Life 1, 2, and Team Fortress 2. Remains to see if the same can happen with this team.
Haven’t played either remakes, but I feel like the brevity (and, at its time, novelty) of the story/scenes in the original made them a bit stronger. Some of the dramatically lengthened scenes have kind of undershot their impact.
Plus, with text speech and tiny gestures from 3D models, your mind was filling in the details your own way, which could actually work well sometimes.
I think my first was Majora’s Mask (I joined the N64 age late) and I’m the same. I wasn’t even committed to buying “new Zelda” until I saw they were upping the difficulty and having players be more self-reliant, and I loved it. I still can’t categorize the exact mode of fun people associate to “dungeons” compared to wide-open exploration.
It’s been a challenge for devs to find ways to make each weapon pickup rewarding without constantly having ATK number go up.
Division 2: Every spare weapon can be dumped into the Specialization research for that weapon type. If not, it probably has unique weapon mechanics that are interesting if nothing else
Zelda TOTK: All weapons break, so even a duplicate of an old weapon will let you keep swinging that weapon type
People pretty often completely understate the Vita’s popularity/lifespan. Less than the 3DS for sure, but early metrics were stupidly counting hardware sales when it was moving early to digital.
In Japan it stayed popular long after the USA stopped talking about it.
That’s true; I tend to think of a private server hosting a single game session of 1-4 players, but I haven’t interacted with private reimplementing of large community interactions. Generally, the commercial implementation would involve many connected servers, so it’s perhaps a bit more complicated than giving a separate address in a launcher option, but becomes less of an excuse overall.
That said, while the game is alive and well, the only motivating reason for that option’s existence is to support piracy of their game. Depending on how much they care, it’s something they’d have to keep under wraps in a development folder until the day the game dies out.
As much as this seems like an obvious ask now, I feel like there’s a lot of tightly pressed popular indie games now where this would be impractical, and require constant maintenance to have a “private server” version ready for the game’s end of life.
Take Helldivers 2. Their lobby system (the ship) is wrapped up around this online representation of the global war effort. Sure, there’s ways to change the game for a simplification with a Join Server By IP system, but that’s UI development you’d have to do while the studio still has money to do it - before some decline towards expiration. Often, it would have to somehow elevate priority above other bugfixes and expectations that are taking charge during the popular phase, especially since it will involve the core networking problems.
So, like anyone, I want this; I found Knockout City fun and it sucks we don’t have it anymore. But realistically, I also understand how this situation can happen.
What would be cringingly terrible, but entirely possible, is if Will DID record lines for his character, but content pipeline faults/laziness or programming errors mean it doesn’t play ingame.
I even feel like that same circumstance has happened before…
I don’t really follow what “on the same balance” means; I guess it’s simply that the benefit far, far outweighs the negative? Or, that the negative should never be mentioned because it implies benefits behind something horrible?
I can marginally understand the latter. It’s a bit like trying to praise a piece of artwork on its own (because it’s a really amazing piece, and it could even inspire other people) while trying to set aside that its artist was a terrible person who deserves no recognition.
Part of the reason I bring it up is, I’d like to hear more vocalizations on whether these things should exist. Under a certain forward-thinking mindset, it could be that neither GTA 6 or Elder Scrolls 6 ever comes out - or they cost $100 and take 10 years, to adequately pay the developers and give them healthy time off. The math is never straightforward, of course, but it’s something of a thought experiment to get people to think about what they care about most.
Feels a bit like if they had DLC for ammo in a Resident Evil game. The design of those games is very clearly intended to be around partial ammo starvation, to get you to aim better, choose varying weapons, and sometimes run away. But, I can imagine a small team of publishers deciding “People want ammo? Let’s let them buy it!” It’d be very easy for players to presume the base game has been made worse as a whole, and that opinion will become hard to quantify - unless very nuanced reviewers can just pretend the DLC doesn’t exist.
I generally agree with that, and yet we have a lot of it around that people lament being “not perfect” or demand more of faster; so there’s societal pressure to keep it up. It also feels terrible to have appreciated something amazing, but then afterwards learn its creation process essentially involved boiling kittens or something.
“They” is far, far, far too encompassing a word. If you’ve worked in any organization such as this, especially these days, they involve so many different companies (yes, more than one studio works on a game now) with so many different teams all under a publishing studio whose head may never have even played any of this genre of game.
So, a developer in one studio is often just trying to make a good RPG in their debug build (and insists no/light fast travel for world-immersion reasons), and only hears over the grapevine “Wait…they took the complaints about no fast-travel and made it a DLC? That sounds terrible, gamers will hate that.” Multiple people across the credits can have varying intentions.