Mmm yeah, The Berlin Interpretation is way too specific, things like the graphics/grid etc. If some game fits more than half the factors, perhaps that should be considered 'like' enough? But I do understand why people can get anal about some games being categorised as Roguelike when they are infact not very similar at all.
I think it boils down to genre being misused in general, there's games with large open spaces called Open World, when they are not really, games that are called MMO when they are not. RPG games that are not actually RPG etc etc etc. Rogue fans just made a bigger deal out of it.
It's fine if a game is categorised more specifically, the problem is people getting upset that something is a Roguelite and not a Roguelike.
It doesn't matter, no genre is better than the other, your game isn't by default worse because it's a Roguelite and isn't by default better because it's a Roguelike, it's just a genre definition to help people find similar games.
I get that some might think they are too similar, but in that case we should just keep Roguelike and then define Roguelite games in a different way. At the moment a problem is games that have the 'run' gameplay, but nothing else like Rogue and then call themselves Roguelikes, but that's like having a bonfire checkpoint system in a visual novel and calling it Soulslike.
Nintendo actually try something new with their consoles too, so that's at least good.
Everyone should be moving to PC though, you actually have freedom there. I think Steam machines would do pretty good if they came out now.
The only reason anyone wants to sell consoles is to get you locked in that ecosystem and sell you games. They don't make a profit on the hardware, Xbox game pass is their headstart into purely game sales, well a subscription and cloud service that everyone is trying to jump on right now.
Just looks crappy quality and uncomfortable. The Steam Deck is premium quality at a more affordable price, the point these 'competitors' seem to be missing while rushing for higher numbers on their spec sheets.
I knew about the Fallout 4: New Vegas endeavour, but this one went completely under my radar until now - holy shit, that is an insane amount of content.
People like Xbox would show off more games, from smaller devs, you can do a lot more in 3 days than you can in 3 hours. It was sad when they pulled out, that was the writing on the wall for E3, but its not even comparable to the game awards lmao, which is literally just a 3 hour ad break.
No, the players choose the player's choice winner and contribute only 10% towards the actual winners.
The games are nominated by a committee, the committee of 'game news organisations' is chosen by the 'advisory board' of the game awards, the board consists of Activision Blizzard, Ubisoft, EA, Sony, Microsoft, Valve, Nintendo, Tencent, AMD, Riot Games, Rockstar Games, Epic Games and for some reason Kojima Productions. So they have the choice to pick their favourable 'news' outlets, which in turn will pick the nominees and the winners of the awards. There's a lot of room for bullshittery to happen and with some past winners/nominees, I wouldn't doubt there has been.
Yeah if you just watch the big players' streams from E3 then I can see the similarities.
Games don't need awards, it's just all subjective anyway and just gives the cringe oscars vibe of 'patting ourselves on the back'. You know if a game is good by it's player reviews and how many friends have told you to play it etc, we don't need a random set of judges deciding for us behind the scenes what the best games are.