I think Zelda is right at the boundary of Action-Adventure and ARPG, and some games fall on the RPG side (TLoZ, Zelda 2) and many on the action-adventure side. But many are right at that limit, using equipment and heart containers as progression.
Dark Souls is absolutely an ARPG. You have leveling mechanics, different builds with impactful player choice, and other forms of progression. Likewise for Witcher 3.
And yeah, what frustrates me a lot is that many people seem to mean “Diablo-like” when they say “ARPG,” which it is, but the genre is much larger than that.
Diablo’s effect on the market was significant, inspiring many imitators. Its impact was such that the term “action RPG” has come to be more commonly used for Diablo-style games, with The Legend of Zelda itself slowly recategorized as an action-adventure.
To me, ARPG means any game with strong RPG mechanics and a focus on the action instead of stats for determining player success.
They kinda did. They pushed out a sizable update that fixed a bunch of issues, but also upped the difficulty. People liked the improvements, but not the difficulty change, and my understanding is that they fixed that issue quickly but not before a bunch of people complained about it.
I get where they’re coming from, but I also don’t like them sking for positive reviews.
My understanding is they had a big update that fixed a bunch of issues people complained about, but also made the game more difficult, and people didn’t like that.
And what’s the big selling point behind why you would want to get a degree?
To work on interesting problems, that’s why most people get advanced degrees, no? I highly doubt most people who get a Ph.D are in it for the money…
Indirect funding is the much harder one to suss out
It’s also rarely directly related to R&D. For example, the company I work for produces chemical products, and innovations in that formulation is critical to our competitive advantage, but not particularly interesting from a national perspective. Our innovations merely help our products stand out from competitors, but competitor products are pretty similar.
If we get subsidies (haven’t checked), it would be for producing these chemicals with less pollution, using locally produced ingredients, or to improve safety of transporting them.
If you try hard enough, yeah, you could probably find some form of government funding. But that doesn’t mean the patents were produced as a direct result of public funding.
Anyone play it? I generally don’t buy early access, but the Ori games were great and I’ll probably like this too.
I have a love/hate relationship with ARPGs. I love games like Ys, Zelda, and Dark Souls, but I don’t like loot based games like Diablo II, and it seems like ARPGs either go hard on loot or largely avoid it. This looks like the second case, but I’d hate to get a few hours in and realize I need to manage loot for decent progression.
it’s usually the universities which own the IP produced
Which is totally reasonable. The student applies for a graduate program to get a degree, not get rich off a patent. Theoretically, any patent royalties retained by the university would go toward funding university activities. I don’t know how much this happens in practice though.
That said, there should be limits here. If a patent makes over a certain amount, the rest should go to the student.
it is well publicized and documented
Right, because it’s an outlier.
If you go to the patent office and look at recent patents, I doubt a significant number are the result of government funding. Most patents are mundane and created as part of private work to prevent competitors from profiting from their work. My company holds a ton of patents, and I highly doubt the government has any involvement in funding them.
Did Nintendo get government funding for its patents? I doubt it.
They usually get grants, and frequently the student will get hired to follow up on that research. A lot of the research ends up unusable to the company as well, at least on its own.
majority of costs are publicly subsidized
I think that’s a bit extreme, but I’ll give you that a lot of R&D is subsidized. The COVID example, however, is an outlier, since the funding was to accelerate ending the pandemic, which was critical for the economy as a whole.