m76

Celebs should stay away from videogames, we don't need them, their presence in my opinion is detrimental to games. For example Cyberpunk 2077 was extensively re-written to give an earlier entrance and more significant role to Keanu Reeves. Which I think has made the game much worse than it could've been had they stuck to the original pacing of the story. Celebs are bad for gaming because: They take a huge paycheck that could be better utilized to make the actual game better. They stifle artistic freedom because artists instead of creating any character they imagine they have to re-create the celebrity's likeness in the game They hinder writing, because characters played by celebrities, get preferential treatment by the writers. They prevent modding, because most celebrities would not allow people to use their likeness in any non pre-approved way. They take jobs from dedicated voice actors who have been in the industry long before gaming become a multi billion dollar industry. While the advantage of having them is singular: Marketing value through name recognition That's it.

What do you mean? Vector graphics are based on geometry and mathematics instead of regular bitmaps. There are vector graphics editors like corel draw, but I've never heard about games made up purely of vector graphics. The peculiarity of vector graphics is that it can be resized arbitrarily without loss of quality, which makes them great for printing. Commercial print shops usually only accept vector graphics formats. For example windows fonts are vector graphics too. As well as CAD drawings.

They actually know what's best for the people, and they are doing the exact opposite of that for profit. With NFTs things are no joking matter. It's not just games that are on the line. It's entire future of humanity, as people and companies continue to embrace the worst invention of the century: blockchain. At least with the hydrogen bomb we were wise enough to not use it. That does not seem to be the case this time.

You know that things aren't going well when even your own employees question what's going on. But that didn't stop Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot from flying down to the Studio in Paris to personally intimidate personnel about the fact that NFTs are not going anywhere, whether they or the gamers like it or not. Unfortunately the legitimate questions by the developers were brushed aside by the CEO, who apparently has the worst tunnel vision. This is made even more terrible to the devs, who has just managed to repair the reputation of Ghost Recon after the game's disastrous 2019 launch. Only for their leadership to eradicate any good will they managed to win with the fans, in a single announcement. If I was a part of that studio I'd feel terrible at this point. But what does ubisoft hope? That slowly boiling the frog will work, and if they keep pushing bad practices those would become accepted. Like all previous bad practices have, such as pre-order bonuses, early access, multi tiered releases, microtransactions, lootboxes, etc. Original article

It's not about the topic, but the intent. I apply the same standards as to comedy. If we can't laugh (make a videogame) about something, then we are not dealing with it, we are sweeping it under the rug and that's bad. Unfortunately some people nowadays think that some topics shouldn't even be talked about.

You can't help attacking me can you? I specifically said not to be confused with linear games, but you still went there. Is this how you get your kick, trying to vilify me all time? I did not even try to demean the game. I think an on rails game can still be fun. In fact I even loved some old school classic on rails shooters like the ones you are describing. I used on rails in broader terms, not literally saying hellblade is an on rails shooter, which is its separate genre in video games. "on rails" in of itself is not a gaming term. Being on rails means you can't control where you are going or what you are doing. You can only go where the game designer wants you to go and do what they want you to do at that point. Any attempt to do something else will lead to frustration, or be completely impossible.

Beavers, because you can build dams. If you go looking for it there are games made for almost any kind of animal you can think of. Some better, some worse.

Going in a straight line to your destination disregarding the beaten path cutting through mountains, private property and everything without much difficulty. Mastering new skills takes years IRL, in a game it takes one second Not worrying about basic life necessities like sleeping eating Healing wounds is instantenaous There are many things why it would be better to live in a videogame

Geez, I really hope not. Free to play games rely on other types of monetization, all of which are detrimental to the experience. Any monetization beyond the initial sale price is a problem, because it means buying access to features that should already be part of the game. Imagine a free to play movie theatre. You don't have to pay for the ticket but you have to pay for the seat inside the cinema hall, but you can't choose your seat you can only buy lootboxes that might or might not contain a seat. And then they ask do you want sound too? Then pay up! Shall we dim the lights? Then pay up! Nobody would tolerate that. IDK why gamers put up with such predatory monetization.

I get what you mean but I would not describe that as being cinematic, the right phrase for that is on rails. And hellblade 1 was definitely on rails, you have no choice you move in a singular direction and every action and reaction is predetermined. It's not to be confused with being linear. In a linear game you still have multiple options on how to deal with enemies, how to solve puzzles, what items / weapons you use, but in an on rail game everything is decided for you, you either follow the prescribed path or quit.

I think they'd either ended up subservient to MS, or pingponging between who they actually sell their actual project to. Either way both the GTA franchise and rockstar would have less significance in the industry.

Do you need to play them? No. But you should, they are all great games, in fact I Enjoyed most of them more than GTAV, the only exception being GTA2 and the London one. Vice city, San Andreas and GTAIV are especially not to be missed. They are all far better games than GTAV.

I hold out faith that people will reject this garbage wholeheartedly. There is definite pushback on it, so that's good. Whether it is enough to make them reconsider is another thing. One thing is for sure. I refuse to touch any game that has NFTs attached in any way. Not surprisingly it is the epic store that had embraced NFTs with open arms, while Steam is banning them so far. Further reinforcing me in the choice to boycott the EGS.

I had thought the topic would be about what is your preferred way to play games. Tank, ranged, mage etc. I don't think any real world fighting disciplines are faithfully implemented in games, so there is no way to answer this question.

I have no problem with a cinematic experience in games, in fact I prefer to have long and deep cutscenes. What you describe however is when the game randomly takes control out of the player's hands for a minute then suddenly releases it. I hate when they do that too. The line between gameplay and cinematic should be clear and defined. The worst offenders are games where the cinematic starts to play and during these I usually relax and release the controls, then BAM suddenly a QTE is on the screen.

I don't really care if they do. I never needed them. It actually caused me trouble a few times when it has overwritten my newer local save with an older one from the cloud. Or worse caused me to loose all progress in one game, because I started playing it on another launcher when it was free but the saves were not on my computer, so I could not transfer them to the steam version of the game, costing me about 15 hours of progress.

I don't think so, it was a bellow average year. The best new game I played this year was Far Cry 6, and that says something, since it's not a particularly great game either. I might not even write a retrospective article for this year on my site, or it will be a very short one.

GTA1 and GTA2 were obscure little games with a bit of controversy attached to them. But it was GTA3 that made rockstar and vice city that cemented their position as one of the biggest names. I believe they'd be a shadow of what they are now had they done that, so if the story is true they owe a debt of gratitude to mictosoft for rejecting their offer. I think going for any exclusivity as an independent developer hurts your long term chances of making it big, but helps them in the short term. No developer should sign any kind of exclusivity unless it is life or death for the company. If you make a game that becomes big on one platform, remember that it could've been three times as big had you put it on all three major platforms.

I think if that were the case Rockstar would be still an obscure little company today, like say Remedy, who did make their game an XBOX exclusive

Seems like you took the list of controversies from the wiki page, you have to scroll down a bit for the list of actual games and expansion packs.

I view these kinds of articles as attention seeking. Either say something concrete or stfu. This coy "oh, you'll be disappointed" is asinine. What it really means is "I pretend to know something big, to boost my ego", lowest form of tabloid journalism.

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I wish AC just forgot the present completely and just be period pieces set in various times through history. I never liked the original AC games, the first one I liked was Odyssey which was the third I played after AC 1 and 2.

I feel like I'm supposed to guess what the level designer was thinking. And I absolutely hate that. Either all logical solutions to a problem should work, or the one they want from you should be obvious.

If a game has no direction I'm not interested in playing it. Except for simulation type game. The story / direction / intrigue is why I put up with the gameplay mechanics.

I expressed similar opinions many times, and surprisingly there are always some people who push back on it. IDK why. The availability of a character creator would not affect them if they choose to use the default character. I also hate it when I can't make my character in single player games personalized. And it baffles me that I Have to complete the game to unlock certain outfits. I mean what's the point of an outfit if it is unlocked an hour before the end of the game? I admit that I bought one of the WWE games just to play around with the character creator in it, I had no intentions to play the actual game.