Recent comments in /f/gaming

1mStillStanding t1_j691n4w wrote

Norse of war at the end of the day has worse story pacing, less intricate gameplay, dumbed down puzzle design, and infinite amounts of self indulgent slog compared to the Greek classics.

Sony, Norse of war developers, and general fans need to stop dismissing the Greek originals story and gameplay, and for the love of God Sony can we get the classic Greek series on playstation 4 and 5? All we have is GOW 3 and shitty online stream play only options.

2

PolyZex t1_j68yku3 wrote

Epic will make deals with people for various reasons, timed exclusivity is one they practice. Steam used to as well but for some reason stopped doing it a couple years ago. Then, like I said, if your game is made in the unreal engine they offer additional benefits. It would be hard to pin down an exact amount you would be paying without taking all that into account. 30% is just what it costs by default.

1

pchadrow t1_j68vj3y wrote

There's quite a few games/companies that seem to almost exclusively cater to the demands of popular streamers. I don't know if I'd say it's always bad, but I think they have a greater influence on the development or success of some games than they should

2

ngh2b t1_j68v154 wrote

Nobody cares if you beat a 'hard' game nor how you beat it. Most 'hard' games out there are not really THAT hard and are often more tedious or have poor design choices masking as 'hard'. A lot of the challenge is self-imposed anyway and a waste of time.

They're just video games in the end and turning them into an obnoxious identity to lord over people is just pathetic.

2

Sabbathius t1_j68uld6 wrote

Currently playing Metro Exodus, and while *technically* it's not totally open world, it's very open-worldish. In the same vein, Dragon Age, Divinity: Original Sin, etc., also can feel quite open world (large, open areas) without actually being a true open world. Because, technically speaking, even Witcher 3 isn't open world, not really, it just has huge open maps, but they're still separate maps (White Orchard, Velen, Skellige, etc, you can't seamlessly travel between them).

Also I feel some MMOs fit the bill, especially the ones where you can play solo. Elder Scrolls Online is amazing, if you liked Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim. Most of the content is easily soloable, all quests are fully voiced, and while it's technically not open world, the map is HONKING HUGE, individual zones are huge, etc. Many of the quests are pretty weak, but quite a few are really well done. And the content of the expansions for it are usually self-contained to that new zone, with an overreaching story arc, which is nice. And even WoW, when played solo, can be nice if you get sucked into the lore and read all the text (I wish WoW had voice acting like ESO does).

And there's also survival games where story isn't their strong point, but the story is still there. Such as The Forest (sequel coming in February).

2

Sabbathius t1_j68tdgv wrote

Somewhat disagree on remake/remaster. As long as they're TRUE TO THE ORIGINAL, I think they're really good. It gives people who missed the original an opportunity to experience it. And people who experienced it sufficiently long ago to revisit it without hassles, and taking advantage of modern tech. These are also not mutually exclusive with new games, we can have both.

My personal hot button is people taking liberties with the "MMO" tag. Whenever someone says something stupid like "Destiny is an MMO", "The Division is an MMO", "Diablo 3 is an MMO", etc., it really gets my goat. EVE Online is an MMO. Fallout 76 is not. EVE has battles with 2,000+ players, Fallout 76 server holds a max of 24 players (iirc). If Battlefield 3, with its 128 players per server, is not being called an MMO, then there's no way in holy hell that Anthem is an MMO. Learn the difference.

Another one is that paid games should have no cash shops, at all, of any kind, including cosmetics. DLCs are OK to be sold separately, but they must only contain SIDE content, not continue the main story of a core game (i.e. not "ending sold separately"). If you want to sell that stuff, that's fine, but the game must be free. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This is mostly because when a game is made with cash shop in mind, its mechanics usually suffer. It is intentionally made painful to get you to spend money to skip the pain. So paying for that, on top of paying to skip, is double-dipping that I refuse to support.

1

Slayer1215 t1_j68lmdn wrote

Social media is turning communities into complete hive minds with opinions going one way or the other, with little to no in between. Everything has become so binary. When a game is released it either has to be an amazing masterpiece or a complete dumpster fire. Nothing can just be okay anymore. Forspoken has had mixed reviews and I’ve genuinely seen so many comments across Reddit and Twitter saying they’ve never seen something like that before. Seriously?!?

Unfortunately this isn’t just gaming, it’s pretty much everything. I always felt like 10% of life was black/white and the other 90% is lived in the grey area. The last couple of years has felt the complete opposite, which is sad.

3