m76

And Ford outsells Bentley 1000:1 that doesn't mean anything. Different market segments, with tiny overlap. Sure if you define the console wars as merely the units sold then nintendo is doing well in that department. But the fact still remains that Nintendo has far inferior hardware and some of the biggest franchises are not even on Nintendo platform, while others are released years later on it with compromised graphics and performance. Sorry no matter how much it hurts fans, Nintendo is not a key player, they have their own market segment that they cover well, but they are not competing for the same piece of the pie as microsoft and sony.

They are never finished There is no final, complete version of a live service game. As they are ever changing. Content and features are added, removed and changed on short notice. Yeah, changes are generally seen as an improvement, but there are always people who enjoy a game more before a change. So why take that away from them? They try to organize your time for you Live service games demand the player to log in at specific intervals, to get access to some benefits. They also force them to play certain content within a specified time frame. I think if we consider gaming addiction a problem, then this is a big driving force for that, as you are encouraged to play even when you normally wouldn't want to. "Oh, I'll loose my XP boost if I don't login every day" They are not a fair transparent transaction When you buy a regular game you see exactly what you get for your money. With live service games it is not clear. Whether you get your money's worth out of that season's pass is anyone's guess. Which basically makes it a gamble. You gamble on getting content that's worth your while. The sunken cost fallacy After paying for games as a service, you feel obliged to play them even if you don't enjoy it that much. I experienced this first hand when subscribing to either a live service game, or even just a service like games pass or EA Play. I played more than I'd normally, in the hopes of getting more out of the deal. This might also be bad for those prone to addiction. The eventual abandonment It is only a question of when, not if a life service game gets abandoned by its developer. So games preservation is impossible. They sometimes operate on live support for a while, but the servers are always shut down eventually. This might even be illegal for games that you purchased as retail, and not just free to play. But that never stops them, it's not like anyone is going to sue a company worth billions for loosing access to a $60 game. Trickle fed content This might only be my gripe with live service content, but after I play a game I forget all it's quirks and controls within a few weeks. Then when new content is released I have to spend time re-familiarizing myself with the game, only to play a mission that often takes no more than 15-20 minutes to complete. It's like if a restaurant only gives you a sample of the food, and says, oh, the next bite will be 2 months from now, cheers. But you already paid for the full course.

If they don't try to pull something stupid again like trying to lock down modding in favour of microtransactions, or put it behind a paywall.

They don't cover the same market. Nintendo is seen more as a toy, than an enthusiast gaming console. No use getting offended by this, it's just the truth. Nintendo vs. Playstation can happily live and let live by the other. Unlike XBOX vs. Playstation. Even when you look at gaming influencers, they rarely talk about nintendo, they talk about playstation and xbox, and maybe PC. It has nothing to do with how large or small the company is. They just cover a different segment of the market, with little overlap between them. And as such I don't think either Sony or Microsoft sees Nintendo as a threat.

Nintendo is just the third wheel, that nobody takes as a serious contender in the console wars.

I don't remember any dick jokes, the whole customize your junk is a frivolous pointless gimmick in the game, it has no reason or rhyme for existing.

What game sequels do you know that were worse than their predecessors in one or more ways? For example Deus Ex Invisible War, featured maps that were a fraction of the size when compared to the original game's maps, to make them fit into the XBOX's limited capabilities.

Gran Turismo 7 System Shock Remake Test Drive Solar Crown Starfield

Source? I could imagine them being inspired by real wordl radio calls, but not actually using them.

The first one was a Quake2 port on the original PSX, and it was truly horrible compared to the PC version. I played it at one of my wealthy schoolmates house, as only the 1% could afford a console at the time here in Eastern Europe.

I played Cool Spot, it is actually a pretty good game, some say it's one of the best platformers.I didn't even know at the time that it is a brand game. Others I've played are Guldkorn Express The latest I remember was BMW M3 Challenge from 2007.

Well it depends if they were commissioned by Lego, or the developer just licensed the Lego brand.

Branded games are basically advertisements in game format, they are games designed to promote a commercial brand. Not to be confused with games that feature licensed brands. Have you played any game like this, and were they any good?

I don't like horror games, or movies for that matter. Jump scares and scripted events annoy me rather than entertain me. That said horror games could be made better than using those cheap tactics, but rarely are. The only exception that I enjoyed was Alien Isolation, because of it's reliance on its unpredictable AI rather than cheap jump scares.

Most sequels feature better gameplay usually. But the ones that has the biggest improvement are probably: Mass Effect 2 The Last of Us 2

I started playing it but abandoned it after 5 hours, too much backtracking, and the weapons breaking all the time is really annoying.

Can it even be called playing, when you are doing something for money and not for fun? I feel that if there is an opportunity to earn money in games then they loose their purpose of being escapism and become part of the grind. If someone offered me to money to play my favorite game, I'd refuse. Because I know it would ruin that game for me.

In an interview Nicolas Pouard, VP at Ubisoft's Strategic Innovations Lab, had expressed frustration over the pushback they experienced for the launch of their NFT scheme "Quartz". But he also reveals that they very well knew this will be the player reaction but they went ahead with the rollout anyway. - Shows how much they care about gamers. The most egregious part of the interview is however where he says that gamers just don't get NFTs. "So, it's really, for them. It's really beneficial. But they don't get it for now." https://www.finder.com.au/ubisoft-interview-nfts

We ate drank and smoked weed. But not at the keyboard but during the pauses between rounds.

I'm surprised that Mass Effect 3 was released 2 years after Mass Effect 2, and Bioware also released Dragon Age 2 in between those two.

HA!, I'm one tenth of a millimetre to the left of you 😛

https://www.politicalcompass.org

So you're basically asking is it OK to kill innocent people? Since no matter how extreme the example you bring, before committing the heinous act they are innocent. Even genocidal dictators like Hitler or Stalin were at some point innocent. It's not justifiable to go around killing people who we suspect will do something bad in the future. This sounds very much like the witch burnings to me. Which is a very nasty can of worms.

It was not over the top enough to make the game bad, but I expect the sequel to be worse in this regard. And it's not only me who says it is loaded, but many left leaning publications ran articles on how it is a feminist game when it released. It's also against having family values. The worst part to me was how the game condemns Olin for trying to protect his family. I like strong female characters, but I don't like that every male character stands on the back of a female in the game. And those who don't are either evil or completely useless. It's very jarring. I don't think it's helping feminism to present all male characters as either stupid dudebros or as helpless inept and weak. I think it would be much better if the female hero could be seen as competent next to respectable males, instead of these caricatures of extremity.