- 0 Posts
- 11 Comments
“FromSoftware is based AF, Bethesda you could learn something from them” or something like that.
Um, please no. If Elder Scrolls VI is a Souls-like, I won’t play it. But with regard to IP law, yeah, that’s all fine. But Bethesda is part of Microsoft now, and they were bad enough before with Fallout 76 and Elder Scrolls Online and the mod storefronts for Skyrim, Fallout 4, and Starfield… so yeah, probably gonna get a lot worse.
Not a fan of Rockstar in particular.
GTA (as in, the first one) was a wonderful gaming experience. GTA 2 changed the game in some interesting ways, yet it remains the black sheep of the series for some reason. 3, 4, and 5 were iconic. Then 4 came out again (oops, the OG 4 is actually just Vice City, it’s not the fourth game but it’s also not DLC, not sure how that works. Interestingly while GTA 4/VC and GTA 4 were in different cities, GTA 5/SA and GTA 5 both took place in San Andreas (and surrounding areas). Anyway, I couldn’t get into the new GTA 4. GTA 5 was better, but I never finished it. Then they paused GTA to do a sequel to their Red Dead games, neither of which really went anywhere (popularity wise) but whatever, RDR2 (sequel to Red Dead Redemption, itself a sequel to Red Dead Revolver) ended up being a massive hit. Wasn’t for me, but I enjoyed what I played (the intro and maybe a couple hours after).
I don’t think GTA VI will be worth $100. I’m not interested in paying more than like $40 for it, tops. But, that’s just me. I know even at $100 it will break records and then everyone will think they can sell their games for $100 each. I don’t like it, but it’s going to happen.
Borderlands. The first one. The game is amazing by yourself and slightly better with friends. It’s not meant to be worse either way. It’s just a lot of fun.
The later BL games were made the same way, but I haven’t found any of the sequels (/“Pre-Sequel”) to be as engaging as the original. They are bigger and more ambitious, though, with BL2 being a fan favorite. I just really like the Soldier (Roland) from the first game. The other games don’t have a character I like playing as much as him, so I’d rather join the original rather than settle for a lesser character.
Actually, the best co-op game is Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons. It’s played with your left hand and your right hand. I’m being a bit of a smartass, but technically it does qualify as co-op because two characters on the screen are being independently controlled and they must work together. But it is specifically designed to be played by one person. Your dominant hand should control the older brother, with the analog stick moving him and either trigger doing the action, whatever that may be (it’s basically a one-button game, plus the stick). Your other hand controls the younger brother, same thing. So naturally the older brother runs straight and does what you expect but the little brother tends to stumble and waver. All intentional. Also, don’t bother with the remake. It breaks a few things and honestly doesn’t look much better. Different art style, not better. Just play the original. You can get it on GOG on sale all the time for like $2-3. Also, it’ll take ~4 hours to complete and you’ll probably never want to play it again (but recommend it to everyone). I actually bought the remake (mistake) and had my wife play it. For the hell of it, I speed ran both of them (this was on Xbox) for the achievements. Then I did the same on the original. Interestingly, you do not have to complete the game to get all the achievements! You don’t even have to complete the final fight, or do the climactic scene before the final fight. Before you’re even aware the climactic scene is coming, you sit on a bench and blip, there’s the last achievement, if you’re doing an Achievement% run, that’s when you call time. (I’m not a competitive speed runner. I just did the runs to pop the achievements before uninstalling them.)
I love how everyone dumped on the Switch 2’s pricing when it was announced (not here — this was on another site/community) but as soon as it launched, the sales numbers exceeded expectations.
Honestly Nintendo didn’t price it high enough — it was clearly not priced as high as the market would bear. It’s making such good sales because people consider it to be a solid value for what they expect to get out of it.
If I hadn’t just gotten a Switch 1 (OLED) 9 months prior, I might have gotten one. As it is, it’s a minor upgrade and I see no reason to upgrade at this point. But a lot of people are.
Fortunately, the game I play, Animal Crossing, isn’t hard coded to the Switch’s limitations. I think it was always meant to be used on an upgraded console. Playing it on PC/Mac, people have gotten it up to 8K without modifying the game in any way, just running it on a more capable machine. (Macs are particularly good for emulating Switch as they both use the ARM64 platform, like your phone probably does. PCs do tend to have more powerful GPUs, so they can mitigate the additional emulation, not just going from Switch to Windows, but from ARM64 to x86-64. But Macs are already halfway there.) I can’t do 8K… my monitor and my MacBook both do 1440p though, which is 4X the Switch 1’s native 720p. It doesn’t look that much better (the textures are optimised for 720p) but it does perform better. Loading times zip by. If there’s a Switch 3 and it does 4K and it still has backward compatibility to Switch 1, I imagine Animal Crossing will do similarly well on that. Though, I kind of hope they make a new Animal Crossing title entirely.
Been wondering this, or something like this.
I used to be good at Mario 1, but I cannot play it on emulators. It feels like there’s a delay. It feels a little like Mario is on ice, much like the ice levels of Mario 2. Mario is running, and I want to jump or stop, but there’s a noticeable delay and it makes me feel like my old ass has lost my touch. But playing any modern game, my reflexes are good enough. In a Nintendo to Nintendo comparison, I play Animal Crossing on the Switch, and sure enough, if I’m running and pull back on the stick, my villager skids at exactly the time I want them to. But on that same Switch with the same controller, I can’t control Mario in Mario 1 worth a damn. I do just fine in Super Mario Wonder, though.
(Side note, more to do with Animal Crossing than older games, but I’ve noticed a wired controller, plugged into the Switch dock via USB, with the Switch on the dock, gets more latency than the Switch in handheld mode, which I’m pretty sure uses Bluetooth to connect to its controllers, even if they’re physically connected — not 100% sure on that. But for one example, fishing — even the five-star rarity fish — is quite easy in handheld. But, with the wired connection, I mash A as soon as the fish bites, and it still slips my hook. Maybe the latency isn’t from the controller to the dock to the Switch, maybe it’s from the Switch to the dock to the TV (and speakers since I close my eyes and listen for the sound, which most animal crossers agree is the best way to fish).)
This is the future of game development. Games cost more to make, so they’re going to pass the costs on to the consumer.
Right now games basically go for $70. There is a push for $80 and some developers are getting it (e.g. Nintendo with Mario Kart World). However, DLC will invariably push the game’s cost closer to $100. To stick with MKW, it’s not hard to see that not all the racers are in the game, who were in the last one. So the thinking there is they will probably be sold down the road for around $20 to get that game up to $100 total.
For a lot of gamers, the extra cost isn’t that big of a deal. Gaming is still a cheap hobby, and all three console makers are seeing good numbers with their more expensive consoles. The PS5 and Xbox Series X weren’t even improved, they just had their prices jacked up 10-20%. The Switch 2 is arguably just a minor uptick from the first model (and partially a downgrade from the OLED model) but it’s something like 30-50% more? And it’s selling like hotcakes, proving that gamers can afford to pay more, and will pay more. Not enough people are willing to put their foot down and declare that enough is enough when it comes to corporate greed. And with the costs of everything going up, it’s not 100% greed driving the price increases. Developers gotta eat too.
I liked the Rockband model. You bought the base game for like $60 (or more like $200-250, whatever it was with the drums, guitar, and mic, but those were reasonable hardware costs) and then you bought the songs you wanted for $2 apiece. With the first two, the on-disc songs were mostly great. With the third one, it was more questionable, but since you could export the previous games’ songs, it wasn’t as bad. The fourth one’s soundtrack mostly stunk, but then they gave us the ability to hide songs from certain sources, and by then we had over 150 songs from the previous 3 games (plus whatever DLC). Fun fact: Rockband is partially why console mods exist. Rockband 3 was the pilot program on Xbox 360, and to this day, you can load custom songs in it. It was never the intention to be able to do it for free, but the developers never cared that people were doing it. You could get uncensored songs, and you could get songs from other countries — there’s a whole “J-Rockband” scene of people playing Japanese music on it — that the developers were never going to chart/sell. Not only were the developers all musicians, many of whom made customs for the paid market, but they have been “caught” playing the free customs as well. (The developer, Harmonix, is now part of Epic Games and is responsible for Fortnite Festival, which is free to play, but you can’t use instrument controllers, and it’s a revolving selection of songs.)
I don’t mind difficult games. I recognise that they exist as a kind of pushback against mobile games and casual games that have risen in popularity. I don’t mind that they exist. Likewise, I strongly believe that gaming is for everybody, but not every game has to be for everybody.
I think it’s perfectly fine, though, to ask the question: if the game — any hard game, to include the Dark Souls game and its spinoffs (e.g. Elden Ring) and knockoffs (e.g. Breath of the Wild) — had an easy mode, where virtually anyone could win it eventually, would that truly make the game less fun for people who like hard games? What if the game were hard by default, and easy mode cost $5 extra? That way, you would never be presented with the option, but those who want it can get it for a slight upcharge. (Maybe less on a $20 game, I’m thinking the $5 would be for a $70 game.) Case in point: Final Fantasy XV was never hard. But for 49¢, you could buy a “DLC”/“mod” that made gas cost half — 5 gil instead of 10 for any fill-up — and also made hotels (which give a big XP buff) half price. So one early-game strategy was equipping a ring that would not pay out experience when you camp, and saving your XP (which is normally paid out every time you sleep) until you could afford a room at the XP-doubling Galden Quay resort hotel, gaining you several levels by then. With the DLC/mod, you could afford it much sooner, and you could actually do it a few times, setting you up for later parts of the game. It wasn’t an easy mode, but it did soften the grind a bit, and it wasn’t presented as an option in the game. You kinda had to know about it and go look for it.
I actually think there’s something to that. Making a game and selling parts of it never really goes down well with players. But most players can’t beat hard games. So what if instead of new games being $70 or $80, they were $50 or $60 still, but people who want help can buy things that will make the game easier. Let those players subsidize the ones who are good enough to beat it without them, incentivising them to get better. Ideally, to get better at that game so they uninstall the helpers, beat it without them, then when the next one comes out, they’re ready.
I don’t hate hard games. But I’m not going to pay for them. If they make their money off people who have that much time on their hands, that’s fine. It’s a sound business decision. But I also think a game can’t say “we wish we made more money” while intentionally excluding players who maybe have full-time jobs, families, or other valid reasons to not learn the perfect button combinations and ultra-precise timing some of these games require. I think if they could find a way to include those players while not putting off their base, they’d have a winning solution on their hands. And no, we’re not gonna quit our jobs or neglect our families to “git gud” like we live with our parents and are half our age.