Measuring games by hours has become an increasing less useful metric to me because I already have my grinding games that I can endlessly replay. When buying new games, I'd rather get something I'll really enjoy for a short playthrough than a long epic JRPG I can't bring myself to actually set aside time for - even though I do really love JRPGs.
There are very few games I would spend $80 on. Actually, at this point I don't buy a lot of new games to begin with, I'm mostly just grinding the same old favorites now.
But for the games I really care about, I'm willing to spend on games I know will be worth it to me. I've waited 22 years for a sequel to Kirby Air Ride and if I have to pay $80 for it, I will pay $80 for it.
I thought Game Key Cards, while not something I would ever buy, weren't the end of the world if they were just meant to replace the existing practice of code-in-a-box for games that won't fit on a cart. It's actually less bad than that, so I didn't get out my pitchfork just yet.
But the sheer number of games being released in this format is alarming. Code-in-a-box was rare, this is looking like it's outnumbering proper physical games. And many of these games don't even make sense to be key cards, they can fit just fine on a cart. There are ports of Switch 1 games that already fit on Switch 1 carts in here!
Yes, you do have to venture into the fog a bit sometimes. Not too far, if you click around to other grids you may uncover spoilers, but you can always interact with the grid you're currently on. Whenever you know you can put a digit somewhere, put that digit there, fog or not.
Only if they DON'T drop the classic turn-based combat. I actually hate the idea of a 'remake' that changes genre entirely.
1-6 recently got the Pixel Remasters, and before that 3 and 4 had the DS remakes. I'd like to see proper remakes of 5 and 6 myself, but that's unlikely to happen since the Pixel Remasters exist.
7, personally I'd play a faithful remake, but it'd be silly to make one since they already have the non-faithful 'remake'.
8 is the one game that could benefit the most from a non-faithful remake. It's a game that's worth remaking because the original was such a mess. But I feel like a bit of a hypocrite for saying that right after complaining about FF7. What I'd do is still keep it turn-based, but completely overhaul Draw and level scaling.
9 would be the most likely candidate as a fan-favorite that could be kept faithful and still hold up well. And rumors have been swirling around for a while that one may be coming.
10 and 12 already have the HD Remasters, and those are excellent. So no need.
11 is the most in need of some way to preserve it for future generations, but I don't know how that would even work. Could it perhaps be adapted in some way like they did with Dragon Quest 10 Offline?
13 onward, too new to need remakes. (And also I have no interest in the direction the series has gone since then anyway)
"Why is an old game good?" feels like an odd question. It would be silly to ask that of any other medium, wouldn't it? The most beloved classics being beloved isn't an indictment of modern stuff, especially when cherry-picking the greatest hits and ignoring how many flops existed back then too.
I loved the original and Second, but I played the demo for II and it did not click with me at all. I really disliked the change to how turn order worked, the original system dovetailed so much better with the titular Brave/Default mechanic.
Of course there's going to be one eventually, but if they're implying it's coming very soon that actually raises questions. Donkey Kong Bananza looks to have been developed by the team that did Odyssey, so if a 3D Mario was being developed in parallel, I'm curious who was on that project.
I bought a Miyoo Mini Plus two years ago and liked it so much I wish I'd bought a more expensive model with analog sticks. I keep looking at all the shiny new stuff on the market and feeling the temptation to upgrade, but holding off because something better is always around the corner.
Well, guess I no longer have to worry about temptation now.
Is this a law that specifically only applies to AAAs, or are we just shutting down literally all of indie gaming? If the former, how do you legally draw the line between who is and isn't allowed to release digital-only titles? Even just basing it on the size of the company would effectively mean that large publishers may only release large projects and never smaller budget titles.