Given the significant changes between trailer and gameplay, as well as the delays, I’m guessing the hero got reworked and simplified a lot during development. In his current state, he seems far too simple given the dev time. Still interested to see how he plays around though.
PlateUp can be fun in 2 player co-op. If you’ve played Overcooked, its basically a clone of that, but turned into a roguelike. Its not the longest or deepest, but its still solid, and the price is very fair IMO, esspecially if you get it on sale.
The vehicle challenges were definately the weakest part, but on average, I still enjoyed them. In particular, a lot of the wingsuit courses and land races were fun, and actually took advantage of the game’s strongest elements.
At least personally, its a lot of the shorter, gameplay-focused games that always leave me wanting more, or wanting to further improve, without having some unbeatable new-game++++++++ mode or anything overly RNG based.
A couple games I’ve 100%ed that still have significant bonus/optional content outside the main plotline include:
Inscription - Willingly played through the story twice and spent nearly as many hours on the bonus new-game+ mode. Super solid gameplay, that while well explored in the base game, leaves plenty of room to further experiment and perfect your strategy.
Just Cause 3 - while there is a ton of bonus content, its not overly hidden, and the core gameplay is solid enough that challenges feel fun and rewarding, while travelling around gathering collectables is satisfying in a chill, podcast-listening, but not unengaging way.
Hotline Miami - after completing the game, I wanted to go back and get a A+ on every level because the gameplay was fun and I felt I still had more room to grow. “The puzzle” wasn’t as fun, and I did use a guide, but I was just happy for any reason to play through the game again.
Wolfenstein the New Order - again, just a solid gameplay loop that made me want to keep playing, with bonus objectives that worked as an objective rather than a chore. Also, unlike later ID shooters, it doesn’t have the “beat the whole game without dying” achievement, which just feels too punishing over mistakes that may be minor or downright unfair.
I like both, but as others have said, the apm focus in RTS games really puts a cap on my enjoyment of the genre. In theory, I should love the genre, and I usually like the single player Campaigns or skirmishes against bots, but as soon as apm becomes a significant factor, I lose interest. Maybe I should learn some with a pause function, so I can see how I feel about those.
Honestly, even those are pretty overkill to make a competing storefront. All you’d have to do is to offer lower prices and/or take a smaller percentage while matching at least a fraction of Steam’s functionality (unlike Epic) or actively working to screw over customers (also unlike Epic). If a store sold games consistantly 5% cheaper than Steam, even without controller options, good support, a built-in forum, explicit Linux support, ect., I’m confident it would be reasonably successful. Just look at Humble and Fanatical. While they do (mostly) sell Steam keys, their prices are arguably what made them a success, not the features you get after redeaming the Steam keys.
Even beside that, the ideas you provided are all pretty minor. If you’re willing to throw more significant amounts of money at the platform, like many before have, you can go a lot further than that even. For example, seeing as Steam’s discovery algorithm is one of the bigger benifits Steam provides, you could one-up them by providing off-platform marketing for games launching on your platform. This would be a way to bring devlopers and players alike to use your platform without screwing over either. Similarly, you could take a page out of Epic’s book and do giveaways regularly. Alternatively, you could use a less generous system such as “buy anything and get x game free” or “every $10 spent gives you a chance to win x game bundle” to make it more sustainable, and/or allow you to market specific underperforming games. It isn’t that hard to come up with ideas that would allow a competitor to do well. You just have to do that rather than putting all your resources into trying to take games away from players, and harvest their data.
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.