I’d personally say its like a 7 or 8/10. Its probably the most mechanically varied and deep PvE focused survival game, but at the same time, it does really feel incomplete. Building lacks options, end-game content is often finicky or tideous, and performance issues can make the game near unplayable in enemy-dense regions.
I know in previous posts, you’ve talked about leaderboards and comparing stats to friends. For those who might be embarrassed by their stats or who would be anxious comparing stats, is ir possible to hide these menus and/or play the game without them? In particular, is it possible to play with other social features still enabled?
Honestly, I think the original. I know its inferior to most of the other games in most ways, but I’ve found a lot of the modern Zelda games feel pretty shallow and formulaec. Not to say they’re bad, but none of them really feel like they stand out to me either - they’re just good games. The original on the other hand, feels very different from a lot of the games since then. The world is kept a lot more foreign and hostile both in terms of aggressive enemies and in terms of tutorialization. Its makes the exploration so much more rewarding, and when you do find a new item, that much more special.
That said, worth noting that these launchers and complex storefronts aren’t really needed either, which is part of why I don’t have an issue with Steam. If you have a good game, you can just sell it on your own website like Minecraft, League of Legends, or Tarkov. Steam’s biggest (or at least most universal) utility for developers is just that it provides very cheap, very effective marketing.
I’ve intentionally held off on spoilers so far, but Im really hoping once finished, Sons of the Forest will be a nice step up from The Forest. The original was so great in so many ways, but also had so many massive incongruities - esspecially with the content so focused around violence and the enviroment that had absolutely nothing to do with the plot.
Its not quite a pirate game, but if you’re willing to expand your seach to include a nautical mystery game aboard a trading ship in 1807, than Return of the Obra Dinn is worth a look.
Or Pheonix Point, where Epic bought an kickstarter game that was funded under the promise of releasing on Steam, GOG and potentially other stores and promptly made it exclusive - and this was in the early days when their launcher/store was in a much worse state too.
I’ll treat it the same as every other, if after a couple weeks once the hype has worn down the game actually fulfills the general schtick and seems to have learned and integrated its NMS lessons, then I’ll consider getting it.
I got NMS for ten bucks at the NEXT update and feel like I’ve gotten far more than my money’s worth. This title hasn’t proven anything yet, and I’ll wait for the truth before purchasing it like I do with every other game. It’s been this way since like 2013 when the industry started pumping out incomplete live service nonsense with seasons and battle passes.
Thats exactly my point. We don’t know anything about the game, and are supporting it by just assuming that its going to be a great game and exactly whats promised from a studio that had previously lied frequently leading up to its last release. Thats why you don’t feed into another ridiculous hype train, and don’t pre-order or make day-one purchases. If they’ve actually learned their lesson and reformed, make them prove it before buying the game. I’m not saying don’t buy the game, I’m saying don’t buy in to the hype.
The same people are at the helm, and they’ve managaed to make a massive profit by making up a bunch of stuff, releasing a broken, unfinished game and fixing it over the course of nearly a decade. What’s to say they’re going to do differently this time. If anything, they’re more likely to get a pass releasing a broken game now since it will probably eventually be what was promised at launch.
Edit: and I also want to highlight the fact that by supporting Hello Games (at least until we’ve seen definitive proof that this isn’t a repeat) we’re very directly showing support for the practice of releasing broken games.
Not even just that. They approached games that has already promised not to be exclusives, including kickstarter games that had already been funded with that promise, as well as buying games and removing them from other stores.
They were paying to have the games removed from better stores so they wouldn’t have to compete. That is an example of anti-competitive practices, not just making a better product and charging more for it.
That feels awfully soon. I hope they can actually create enough new content for this, as Below Zero felt far too similar to the first. It felt more like a new game plus rather than a full-price sequal.
I’m not suprised. On one hand, there wasn’t exactly a lot of marketing around it. I didn’t even know it was announced until last week, and I follow gaming news and some VR news. On top of this, its an expensive, casual device - the sort of thing a kid will ask for after seeing someone else using it, not something people are lining up day-one to buy. At least something like the Valve Index, for all its disadvantages, very clearly targets enthusiasts who will go out of their way to seek out newer or better products. If Valve decided to release a Valve Index 2 (or for a more direct comparison, a Valve Index Pro) I’d be willing to bet their day-one numbers would look better, even if their overall market is much smaller.
Its a somewhat more story and gameplay focused than Cookie Clicker, but still pretty chill. I won’t say too much more, considering that it’d just spoil the fun of discovery.