Nah, it wasn't removed for technical reasons; Sony removed it because CDPR went behind their back and blanket-offered refunds. Which was the right thing for CDPR to do from a consumer-friendly perspective and from a PR perspective, but they should have communicated with Sony more first seeing as refunds on PlayStation go through Sony's store. I thought it was a bad look for Sony, though, personally.
That's not to excuse Cyberpunk 2077's performance on consoles in any way - they deserve flak for that.
I just finished playing Cocoon. It was short-but-sweet - it took me two evenings to finish, so probably in the 5-7 hours range - but it was one of the most interesting and engaging puzzle games I've played in a long time. What's especially fascinating to me is that its controls are so simple - everything is done with one analogue stick / WASD and a single interact button - and it's a very linear game, yet it still feels so engaging to play. It's from the lead designer of Limbo and Inside, so it has pedigree.
I played it via Game Pass (ha...) so it's hard for me to say what the value proposition is like. It certainly isn't going to give you the most time for your money, and it doesn't really have much in the way of narrative or themes, at least beyond abstract ones. But it has a gorgeous aesthetic and some fantastic puzzles.
Despite some of the players complaining, a lot of the audience likes the pay-to-win mechanic. It's not a game funded purely by whales; a lot of average players will spend money on the loot boxes. "I like that it means I don't have to grind for ages, I don't have time for that" and "it feels like the sports trading cards I had when I was a kid" are a couple of the reasons I hear somewhat regularly. The idea that it could be designed to not be grindy in the first place doesn't even occur to them.
I wouldn't call myself a "good artist" at all, and I've never released anything, I just make music for myself. Most of the music I make starts with my shamelessly lifting a melody, chord progression, rhythm, sound, or something else, from some song I've heard. Then I'll modify it slightly, add my own elements elsewhere, modify the thing I "stole" again, etc, and by the time I've finished, you probably wouldn't even be able to tell where I "stole" from because I've iterated on it so much.
AI models are exactly the same. And, personally, I'm pretty good at separating the creative process from the end result when it comes to consuming/appreciating art. There are songs, paintings, films, etc, where the creative process is fascinating to me but I don't enjoy the art itself. There are pieces of art made by sex offenders, criminals and generally terrible people - people who I refuse to support financially in any way - but that doesn't mean my appreciation for the art is lessened. I'll lose respect for an artist as a person if I find out their work is ghostwritten, but I won't lose my appreciation for the work. So if AI can create art I find evocative, I'll appreciate that, too.
But ultimately, I don't expect to see much art created solely by AI that I enjoy. AI is a fantastic tool, and it can lead to some amazing results when someone gives it the right prompts and edits/curates its output in the right way. And it can be used for inspiration, and to create a foundation that artists can jump off, much like I do with my "stealing" when I'm writing music. But if someone gives an AI a simple prompt, they tend to get a fairly derivative result - one that'll feel especially derivative as we see "raw output" from AIs more often and become more accustomed to their artistic voice. I'm not concerned at all about people telling an AI to "write me a song about love" replacing the complex prog musicians I enjoy, and I'm not worried about crappy AI-generated games replacing the lovingly crafted experiences I enjoy either.
Oh absolutely, I agree! I just wanted to point out that CDPR's move was at least well-intentioned so it's harder to judge them poorly for it. But you're right that communication is important in these situations.
Yep, although at least that was a pro-consumer move on CDPR's part. It's very understandable why Sony wasn't happy about it, but it wasn't a shady move on CDPR's part. Whereas the same definitely can't be said for Unity right now.
You're welcome, of course! I'll definitely see about refining it and finding somewhere to post it, that's a good suggestion! It's given me some ideas to discuss in a more broad essay about complexity, depth and accessibility, too.
One criticism I'll add that I didn't mention in my above comment (because I ran out of characters and had to trim some stuff!) is the atmosphere of the game. It's not bad, and some of the level design is really nice, but the game doesn't have a strong tone, aesthetic or level of writing in the way Grim Dawn does, for example (although Grim Dawn is probably the peak as far as atmosphere and world-building in ARPGs goes, I think, so maybe that's not a fair comparison). Last Epoch has some interesting ideas relating to time travel, and it's pretty cool seeing some of the same areas in different eras (plus it's a clever way for them to reuse assets, I imagine), but I'd say it's weaker than other major ARPGs in the story/world-building/atmosphere department. Of course, most people tend to play ARPGs for the gameplay first and foremost, and LE does a great job with that, so it's a more minor criticism from me than it would be in other genres of game.
It was somewhat less of a knock when they first started making the game; it was a successful Kickstarter project ~5 years ago so it's been in development for a while. For what it's worth, I've got ~250 hours in the game and think it's shaping up really well (you can find my not-so-mini-review elsewhere in this thread).
I've played Last Epoch for ~250 hours (and counting) over the last year since I bought it, so I'll give a mini-review here. The TL;DR is that it feels like a brilliant middle ground between Path Of Exile and Diablo - it has depth and complexity but doesn't have the brutal learning curve that Path Of Exile does. It doesn't have the content variety that Path Of Exile has, but it's also an early access game right now so that's expected. It's a great foundation, their patches have been substantial, their communications tend to feel good, and I feel like they're a good development studio. A lot of the developer insights make it feel like they take very good approaches to problem-solving, too.
The combat feels absolutely fantastic. The animations are smooth and feel modern. It can feel a little "floaty" for some people, but personally I have no issues with the way it feels. It's paced in such a way that fighting regular enemies still feels engaging (unlike Path Of Exile's zoom- and dopamine-fest) but isn't a slog, and more powerful enemies can put up really good satisfying fights. There's a good variety of skills and the way you modify them with the skill tree system can change them significantly. The build depth isn't quite as crazy as Path Of Exile's, but considering most POE players just follow build guides rather than taking their own builds, I'd say that won't matter for most people. And for people who do like creating their own builds from scratch - which I do - there's still plenty of depth to Last Epoch's system.
It's very realistic (and encouraged) for new players to experiment and create their own builds. Respeccing is pretty simple, and the skill systems are simple enough that new players can work it out for themselves, but there are also some interesting combinations and min-maxy things for more advanced players can figure out and build around. Each skill has its own skill tree, and while the trees aren't super complex, there's a good variety of ways to modify each skill. Some of the skills also have interactions with other skills - for instance, Teleport has a modifier that means your next skill has no mana cost; Meteor has one where your Fireball has reduced mana cost for a few seconds after casting it. You can chain that into a skill rotation: Teleport > Meteor (which normally has a high mana cost) > Fireball spam and suddenly you're going to have a much better time with mana sustain, but perhaps need to work out a way to deal with the fact that your movement skill is being used offensively and won't be available for dodging. So the game sort of gently hints at some skill combos like that, but they never feel forced and you still feel smart when you put it all together yourself.
The loot system is good. It has the single best crafting system I've seen in any ARPG, and crafting is absolutely worth your time and a necessity if you're pushing your build as far as it goes. But you need good starting items to work with - you can't just take a terrible item and craft it into something amazing. Crafting lets you upgrade the tiers of modifiers, add new mods if there's space, and sometimes modify items in slightly more spicy ways if you're feeling brave. But items have a "crafting potential" which depletes as you craft on them, so looting items is important.
The legendary item system is also very good. Unique items have their usual fixed stats, but they can have something called "legendary potential", which rolls between 0 and 4. Legendary potential does nothing by itself, but it allows you to combine a purple-tier item with your unique item; the amount of legendary potential you have dictates the number of mods from your purple item that will be randomly added to your unique item. Non-unique items can have 4 modifiers, so being able to create legendary items with the unique stats and powerful regular item stats is a really good end-game chase.
Most unique items are target farmable in the end-game. That's not to say you can get them immediately, but you can target "unique rings" as a reward, for instance, or target a specific boss that can have a chance to drop the item you're looking for. So overall, I think it's a good item system!
I think they've taken a very good approach to problem-solving - their upcoming trade system, for instance, looks (on paper) like it'll fix the biggest issues with Path Of Exile's trade system and Diablo 3's auction house, while also having the benefits of both and while giving players an avenue to progress without engaging with trade at all. (Basically, players join either the trading guild or the "solo" guild. Traders can trade, solo players get a boost to their loot and can target farm things more easily. People can trade with their party/friends separately from this trading system so the whole guild system doesn't matter for co-op play.) It's smart, and that kind of thinking can be seen across multiple systems in the game.
Like I said, I've been actively boycotting Blizzard for years now; I'm not sure why you think I'd want to "slop on their dick". But yes, if a game is fine on a technical level and mediocre in every other sense, why wouldn't it be a 5/10? A game that runs properly and is otherwise unnoteworthy is probably already better than the average game out there. There's a lot of shovelware.
There's a reason review outlets like IGN rarely give scores below 5/10 - it's that almost any AA or AAA studio is going to be competent enough to get their game to run and have something to it. Even Redfall is a 5/10 on Metacritic. 5/10 games aren't generally worth your time, but that's only because there are so many 7+/10 games competing for your time/attention.
Even though I have no love for Blizzard as a company, and have never played Overwatch 2, I refuse to believe it's in the bottom half of all games ever. A lot of the grievances I've seen about it seem completely justified, but it's not a game that's truly awful. It's good on a technical level. It has good art direction. The characters are unique and identifiable, even to people who've never played Overwatch. I get that people don't like the balance, they don't like Blizzard's money-grabbing, they don't like the change to 5v5(?), and they don't like whatever else people are complaining about. But that doesn't make it the worst game on Steam, and it doesn't make every single aspect of it bad.
This is stupid. I have no love for Overwatch or Blizzard - I've been boycotting them for years, in fact. But there are far, far worse games on Steam than OW2. The fact that, to my knowledge, it runs properly, doesn't have crypto miners built into it, and isn't just made from stolen assets already puts it at like a 5/10 at minimum.
I'm all for consumers standing up for themselves and being critical or poor products, but I really wish people wouldn't get caught up in these hate bandwagons.
It's the second article from this site I've seen today - both posted by the same account - and they've both been horrific. The Cities: Skylines 2 one had some awful title gore, too.
Part of me wants to just block OP so I don't ever see this website again. But part of me doesn't want to because I want the news still, and I think there can be valuable discussion in the comment sections even if the article itself is awful.