None, because if I don't like a game or am not interested in it I just don't play it.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're lucky you've made your research before playing a game. 👍🏻
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, that is the least I can do. It is my money I'm spending and it doesn't grow on trees. Sure can't afford to waste on games I don't like and will never play.
Comment has been collapsed.
A wise choice! I sometimes buy games from series that I hope they are good like the predecessors and I don't listen to opinions until I form my own.
Comment has been collapsed.
<Insert name of asset flip game here.>
Yeah, yeah, I know you said to pick just one, but I don't really have a grudge against any single game. Its publisher/developer/whoever-was-responsible-for-the-fuck-up, sure. But even the worst games are a learning experience... even if all we learn is that you can't trust anyone. XD
Asset flips on the other hand are not even games. They are just... nothing. A scam at its purest form, wearing a flimsy mask with a video game's likeness haphazardly drawn on it with crayons. Nothing is gained, no-one learns anything, all you can do with them is to pull them behind the shed and put them out of their misery.
Comment has been collapsed.
To add insult to injury, Digital Homicide's asset flips keep coming back. Even though they're gone from Steam they're somehow churning out thousands of Steam keys from a third party website all over again, if you see "The Hit Squad." The grand abomination of their absolute turds never ends. And don't forget how they tried to sue everyone who ever said anything bad against them, and Valve for banning them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never played or head of Postal until I discovered Steamgifts 3 months ago. I've seen the changes in the 3rd though. Looks so weird compared to its predecessors.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes, Have a look at the FAQ of Postal 4 it's hilarious
https://store.steampowered.com/app/707030/POSTAL_4_No_Regerts/
Comment has been collapsed.
XCOM. While fun and good looking it dumbed down the original X-Com games and now almost every single game in the genre copies it.
Comment has been collapsed.
As a fan of the XCOM 1 & 2, I don't know how it used to be back in the days. But I would really like XCOM to maybe become even more complex. Old players have a wider perspective of improvements or not for some series. How was it before?
I really don't mind the copy, because I get to pick others as well. I enjoy the turn base cover system in the games.
Comment has been collapsed.
They made it extremely linear, you can´t have more than the one base, away team or dropship. You have infinite ammo, soldiers have no inventory, grenades, rocket launchers and the like are considered special one time items, you can only do 2 things per soldier per turn instead of having action points to use as you wish for as many actions as you can, the aliens don´t invade your base (forcing you to defend it with whatever people where currently there -including scientists-), there are no destructible structures, etc.
If you want to play a proper X-Com but without going all the way back try Xenonauts.
Comment has been collapsed.
I had no idea of the game existing. Thank you! 🥰 It looks like Xenonauts 2 plans to be release at some point.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a sad truth nowadays that most developers tend to design games that will reach a wider audience instead of making them really good. I mean XCOM is decent, but yeah....it's really dumbed down compared to OG X-Com.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've never experienced the complex version of XCOM. It's a shame. 😥
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I´ve been waiting for it for ages, but I´m not sure my 10 year old PC will be able to run it.
Comment has been collapsed.
It might struggle with the XCOM 2, but other than that it should work.
XCOM Enemy Within has:
- Minimum Requirements:
- OS - Windows Vista
- Processor - 2 GHz Dual Core (Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz or Athlon X2 2.7 GHz) CPU
- Memory - 2 GB
- Graphics - 256 MB Video Memory NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT / ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT
- Storage - 20 GB
While XCOM 2 has:
- Minimum Requirements:
- OS - Windows 7
- Processor - Intel Core 2 Duo E4700 2.6 GHz or AMD Phenom 9950 Quad Core 2.6 GHz
- Memory - 4 GB
- Graphics - 1GB ATI Radeon HD 5770, 1GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460
- Storage - 45 GB
Comment has been collapsed.
I meant Xenonauts 2
System Requirements
Minimum:
OS: Windows 10
Processor: i5-4690 (or equivalent)
Memory: 4 GB RAM
Graphics: GTX 770 (or equivalent)
DirectX: Version 12
Storage: 20 GB available space
Recommended:
OS: Windows 10
Processor: i5-7600 (or equivalent)
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: GTX 970 (or equivalent)
DirectX: Version 12
Storage: 20 GB available spaceBasically because of the video card, mine is an HD 6870 with 1 Gb, even though judging from the screenshots asking for more than 512 Mbs sounds excessive.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the rest of the requirements are above or equivalent, they might sustain the game, but you can expect frame drops. Since the game looks the way it does, you can reduce the resolution and all graphical requirements to a possible playable scenario. Although that may not be the case, you can run a test.
Tell me what your PC has as specs and I can run a test for you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you have access to the early access build of Xenonauts 2 to run the test? Because at least from Argentina it is available for purchase.
These are my specs (taken from Speccy):
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
CPU
Intel Core i7 2600K @ 3.40GHz 66 °C
Sandy Bridge 32nm Technology
RAM
8.00GB Dual-Channel DDR3 (9-9-9-24)
Motherboard
Intel Corporation DZ68PL (LGA1155) 36 °C
Graphics
Asus VA249 (1920x1080@60Hz)
1024MB ATI AMD Radeon HD 6800 Series (Sapphire/PCPartner) 46 °C (HD 6870)
Storage
931GB Seagate ST1000DM010-2EP102 (SATA ) 37 °C (System drive)
1863GB Western Digital WDC WD20EZRX-00D8PB0 (SATA ) 33 °C
931GB Western Digital WDC WD10EVVS-63E1B1 (SATA ) 37 °C
15GB Philips USB Flash Drive USB Device (USB )
Optical Drives
TSSTcorp CDDVDW SH-224GB
Audio
Realtek High Definition Audio
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you have access to the early access build of Xenonauts 2 to run the test? Because at least from Argentina it is available for purchase.
No, but I can check online and see how that works.
There are ways to get the Beta from a couple of websites and test it out yourself. I don't know how functional they are, but you can ask for access and hope for the best to get it.
Comment has been collapsed.
That´s a thought, though they change specs a lot with betas. The other day I was going to buy Tactical Combat Department from my wishlist, it listed a Vega 8 as minimum for video, so I googled benchmarks between that and my HD6870 and mine came out ahead in most tests. The next day when I go to add it to my card the minimum listed had changed to a GTX 960, which my 10 year old card can´t hope to match in anything. :(
Upgrades are out of the question, I´d love to get a new computer but I can´t afford it.
Oh well. Thanks for the idea though.
Comment has been collapsed.
You could be right, I never did play games much in Beta and cared about specs. If it works, I'll play it. 😄
Comment has been collapsed.
If you haven´t already and like the genre them you definitely need to play the first Xenonauts.
And also highly recommended (though older), Jagged Alliance 2 (one of the best ever), Fallout Tactics, Silent Storm, Warhammer 40,000: Chaos Gate (lates 90s).
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for this. I didn't know that Jagged Alliance was good. I've got them, but didn't pay attention to them lol. 😅
Comment has been collapsed.
Jagged Alliance 2 is not good, it is EXCELLENT, and I hear Wildfire (the expansion) is great too. All the other (newer) Jagged Alliance games are crap.
If you play it I recommend not choosing the sci-fi mode, and search for Patusco's Jagged Alliance 2 Strategy Guide, it will explain things you would probably never get on your own, especially crafting and enabling autosave in between turns.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for suggesting that. I had no idea that I've had such a good game in my library already and I just ignored it because I thought the graphics look outdated.
Comment has been collapsed.
TF2 for creating the digital economy in video games and starting the microtransaction plague.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not nearly as much as I played TF1. I wasn't a huge fan of the cartoonish graphics. It was alright though.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never played TF1 and TF2 looked alright for me, but I get what you mean. Everyone has a different taste in games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Buying a TF2 key - very bad decision I made.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm showing my age here but ....
Superman 64
Worst game ever .... yet I still own a near flawless (but unboxed) copy of it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Metal Gear Survive, because it basically murdered the metal gear franchise.
Comment has been collapsed.
Have not played it except back in the days, when PS2 was a think. But I get what you mean. 😁
Comment has been collapsed.
Mentioning one game with pic as it is a requirement in this topic, but just because I wouldn't enjoy a game not means other won't enjoy either, so I don't have a real entry here. The decision for this game: My guild leader in WoW kept telling to the whole guild, that if someone cant focus then should go play this game instead, after some heroic raid wipefests
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't chose between Call of Duty or Genshin. Both for basically the same reason (companies copying each other 1 way or another): 1 is such a successful franchise that a whole genre tries to copy it with their own spin to it, those who don't tend to become niche or short lived. The other is such a success that I worry what kind of effect it's going to have on the industry (namely the predatory business model of gambling).
Comment has been collapsed.
Rocket League. I invested almost 1000 hours into it, and I don't even know how much money. I've basically bought every DLC. Then it was bought by Epic, and the game is just pure feces now. Years, money, fun... everything lost.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha, no reason to, I haven't played it since March 2020, and it gave me time to play so many other games that I probably woulnd't, if I kept playing RL. There is a little bit good in a bad thing after all.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's what I've been doing since 2019 since I dropped League of Legends. I still like the game, spent a lot of hours and some money in it, but it's too time-consuming for me and I am missing out on so many great games I wanted to play.
Comment has been collapsed.
Removal of all DLC, replaced completely by a lootbox system in which the same cars that I've spent about 4 bucks for, were basically triple the price, and they were only featured once in a while. You also needed an Epic account on top, even if you played on Steam, and apparently they now changed the casual standard mode for something else, I dunno know exactly what. But there's enough shitstorm in the Steam forums about that. It's just not the same game I loved.
Comment has been collapsed.
I only played Sacred 1 & 2, didn't jump for Sacred 3, was it that bad? 🤔😲
Comment has been collapsed.
FlatOut 3
The same that happened to Postal 3 happened to FlatOut here.
Comment has been collapsed.
A single game? Can't think of one. Studio, however.....bethesda should never have existed. They crap out overpriced, buggy, glitch filled messes that somehow get worse with each new game and rely on modders to fix them. The game mechanics are going downhill as well, just compare Morrowind to Oblivion, and Oblivion to Skyrim, each new game gets dumbed down more than the last. They've also ruined Fallout so turd howard can "pleasure" himself with a cattle prod.
And let's not forget the horse armor debacle. I mean, come on.....
Comment has been collapsed.
Lots of mixed opinions on the company. I wonder, is it as hated as EA and Ubisoft at this point? 🤔
Comment has been collapsed.
Ragnarok Online so I would have a few years of my life back ><
Comment has been collapsed.
I remember the alpha and beta 1 tests.....good times, good times.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oooh, Ragnarok Online was probably one of the only MMOs I invested time in as a teenager and loved it. It has a special place in my heart.
Comment has been collapsed.
Didn't play that one in my previous years, I was too busy playing other MMO's.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am surprised by some choices, but oh well, someone might be surprised by mine too.
I'd say Fallout 76. I'd argue that Bethesda games dont even need multiplayer to begin with as they were better off strictly singleplayer. We dont need every franchise to be... "multiplayerised" (is there even a word like that, what have I done!). But I realize this is a fairly subjective statements, as many people WERE indeed hopeful when Bethesda announced a coop Fallout game.
But come on, from the get go, the revealed, suspiciously close release date and Todd's over the top promises were as good as a giant WARNING sign. They released a monstrosity that was close to unplayable at release (even for Bethesda standards, which says a lot), not to mention uninspired, boring, overpriced, an obvious attempt at a cheap, greedy live service cashgrab overall.
So far Bethesada had minor hiccups in terms of business methdos already (the infamous horse armor, or the Creation Club, releasing Skyrim for anything that runs on electricity, etc.) but FO76 outdoes them uncontested.
I wish it never existed as it almost completely destroyed my long lived appreciaion towards the studio. Granted, even up until then, they were not flawless by any means, but they did release quite entertaining open world games, that, after the usual release-catastrophe, were pretty solid experiences, worthy of their price and of spending countless hours in their worlds.
But with 76, they unashamadly and officially took a path that unavoidably led their reputation the same way we tought of other greedy giants (like EA).Also, starting Fallout games by the bethesda titles, I did love them. 3 was pretty awesome, New Vegas downright fantastic, 4 was still fairly good. But 76... no, just no. Its a disgrace to an otherwise nice franchise, that, so far was rightly held in high regards, despite some minor critique.
To add salt to the injury, seemingly everything surrounding FO76 went haywire. It was a spectacle to behold!
While all of this makes me wish 76 never happened, part of me does not do so. This way, we were reminded that we should not trust giant corporations with our money and unwavering trust, no matter who it is. That one should always be cautious. That no matter our love for a franchise or company, we should not blindly support each and every direction they take, as the people in charge can easily turn their back on the loyal community or even reality...
And of course, the tragycomedi that unfolded upon its release, gave birth to some of the greatest gems of Youtube.
It would be a real shame if Internet Historian's video and the Todd Song by the Chalkeaters would not have come to existence. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it sends the wrong message.
Firstly it may mean for people in charge, that its okay to release a dumpsterfire if their greedy tactics ultimately succeed. "It will be good eventually"! But thats far from being the most likely scenario. I did not forget Anthem.
Second, when you lowered your standards towards a company so much, that "quiet good" seems like a major improvement, that speaks volumes about the reputation-loss.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was wondering who will mention Anthem. I liked the story in the game, but it was lacking a lot of elements that they promised upon. It was a game with a lot of potential, but didn't deliver on what EA and Bioware promised.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thats the sad thing about Anthem. It had potencial. The project looked promising on paper. Unfortunately, managament-failure ducked the whole project and sadly it was not the usual story of "just" EA ruining things. Yes, they had a part in it by enforcing the use of the Frostbyte engine and hyping up a non-existent game, but the majority of the failing was caused by Bioware leaders who were indecisive about the general direction of the game for years. When the time was up to show their progress, they had barely anything to offer.
Bethesda, Bioware, Blizzard... big names that once meant so much for gamers! Such a shame! All of them is very sad, but my heart staright-up bleeds for Blizz.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly, I am not sure what really is the case. Is it because gamers became more sensitive to BS and now we can notice the mistakes or is that once they produce a couple of games in a series and try to fix things they end up making them worst.
It's very strange how it works. I would love to be able to see how gaming industries actually work and what their true objective is. I can't be the only one thinking how disappointed you can be to work on a project you love to see it be burned down by players who absolutely hate it or compare it to your previous work. It's quite demoralizing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, tons of talented people work on even mediocre games. Programmers, artists, various creative people who do their best, only to be part of an ultimately subpar product. Its sad to think about. As complex as game development is, its just the natural order of things. So many details, little kogs have to be in perfect union, to provide the desired experience! But this also means that failing at one such detail may affect other parts of the project.
Returning to Anthem, Bioware had issues long before that game. Their games were trough most of their development cycles disorganized messes, only coming together at the late stages of development almost miraculously. This resulted in insane stress and overwork for the staff, leading many to serious physical and mental exhaustion. Even Dragon Age: Inquisition was like this. People working on it were so desperate to end this unhealthy practice, that they were secretly hoping that DA:I would fail, so Bio leaders would finally realize that this toxic practice, which was weirdly held in high regards (bizarrely even named "Bioware magic" at the company), is not a practice they should upkeep. To their disappointment, Inquisiton was a critical and financial success.
How bad it may have been, if the success of their passionate creation brought misery to them, instead of happiness and satisfaction?
Comment has been collapsed.
Returning to Anthem, Bioware had issues long before that game. Their games were trough most of their development cycles disorganized messes, only coming together at the late stages of development almost miraculously. This resulted in insane stress and overwork for the staff, leading many to serious physical and mental exhaustion. Even Dragon Age: Inquisition was like this. People working on it were so desperate to end this unhealthy practice, that they were secretly hoping that DA:I would fail, so Bio leaders would finally realize that this toxic practice, which was weirdly held in high regards (bizarrely even named "Bioware magic" at the company), is not a practice they should upkeep. To their disappointment, Inquisiton was a critical and financial success.
How bad it may have been, if the success of their passionate creation brought misery to them, instead of happiness and satisfaction?
This is why I can't never directly hate a company for the things they do. I have played Anthem and honestly, I've had some fun, because I've played it with my wife. You can skip flaws as long there are not so many visible bugs that impaired gameplay. If there are visual glitches I personally can forgive and get over them, because I'm aware they can be fixed.
I am considering the team working on the project. I don't consider the corporation that forced them into slavery to deliver a game that felt so unfinished. So, what I'm trying to get at is not Bioware, but EA who gave them a deadline, provided not enough funding and pressured them to do the things.
I wonder though, can EA redeem itself? I have played some games from them that are honestly really liked by the community. Titanfall 2 was an excellent example. Another one, that I personally didn't play was Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order. But they are just far in between. I believe EA needs to really change the way it operates and start doing what's right in order for people to start trusting the company again.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some things are required in the world so new greater things would arise I should say.
I've played Fallout 76 most recently and I personally didn't encounter any major flaws to make me despise the game, but as you've said, I am perfectly alright with games being single-player experiences. Heck, I'd rather have a co-op thing, but not more than that, so I can enjoy the exploration together with friends or family. Look at Borderlands, it should have taken more than that approach I think.
What do you think of Elder Scrolls Online then? Do you think it's a wise approach? I honestly think they saw a good start with the Online and tried it on Fallout, but didn't work from the get-go.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think ESO and FO76 are two very different approaches, so I am fairly sure that they did not come up with it inspired by ESO. I've heard they got help from Zenimax after the release's s***storm, but that was a tib bit late to avoid the PR-catastrophe.
ESO is more of a traditional MMO. As I said, I am not a big fan of most multiplayer games, but if we ignore that, ESO seems like a decent title. It knows what it wants and it was fundamentally designed to be an MMO, starting with the engine. And it shows ( I've tried and experienced it, but again, the genre is mostly not my cup of tea so I left it after the initial trial).
FO76 on the other hand was obviously forced to have a multiplayer mode. The Creation Engine was tailored to drive singleplayer games. Nothing more. Its also outdated like heck. Thinking that an abysmally rushed, short development period would be enough to come up with a working multiplayer framework... by a "B" studio... for an ages old singleplayer engine... is mind boggling to say the least.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right, there's a big difference between the two. Maybe they will not continue with this trend on Fallout, but keep the ESO going.
As long as people still are playing the franchise, I don't see why they would terminate the FO76 services. It's weird, because I always saw these 2 franchises as a single-player experience and the most multiplayer thing I personally wanted was a COOP. It's not a requirement to have Multiplayer, because you meet all kind of opinions.
What do you think?
Comment has been collapsed.
The thing is, FO76, as the result of a relatively cheap and short development, did not cost that much as Anthem did for example. Even in Anthem's case, EA did not let it go, despite two years of obvious struggle. Playerbase dwindled almost continuously (with some short exceptions and occasional, but ultimately small rises in interest), which, for a project of that size, meant that it would not be profitable. In practice it must have been a massive sinkhole that gulped money. They tried to get as much out of it as possible, hoping that the greedy microtransaction-tactics would ultimately outperform the initial losses. As we know by now, Anthem was meant to get a complete remake to remedy its failure, but EA cancelled it this spring. Their patience was over.
To be honest, thats what I was hoping for with FO76. Not wishing anything bad for the players, but showing Bethesda that they should not set the bar at a subpar level for themselves. That they should value and honor their fans, not exploit them. But thanks to former Bethesda iterations of Fallout, that garnered the franchise immense popularity, there was a playerbase large enough to sustain the struggling 76 even if just a tiny fraction of those fans spent some occasional money on it. The rule of big numbers saved it. Which is certainly a big achievement as Beth literally did everything in their power to pile infamy on their lusus naturae of a product.
Bethesda knew they poured relatively little money into its making and they were not about to give up their "investment" so easily. Especially after some players indeed used their overpriced atomic shop and even bought their subscription service. After one and a half years of stacking failures spectacularly, Bethesda released the Wastelanders update, which fixed some of the major complaints of the playerbase. Since then, it seems to be stable enough to sustain itself. Mind you, the update did not do anything miraculous, just added some things back, that former Fallout games already had and were liked for, thus making 76 kind of OK. But as it seems, thats certainly enough for some.
Aside these, a coop mode may have worked if more attention and care were put into it. A small group of Bethesda fans were vocal about a coop mode for years prior, there were even mods aiming for this, so there was a valid demand. It could have been successfully fulfilled if considerable care and work were put into it.from the beginning. You mentioned Borderland which is a good example. With some changes, it would have worked with Fallout.
However, as a major difference, with 76 they wanted to do an MMO-like experience, with servers to be populated by players. Not a coop mode, hosted by a player and joined by another. I am not a game developer or expert at the area, but to me, implemetning a coop mode seems easier than a joint world where several players can "live". Their foundation was built with microtransaction in mind, not player-satisfaction.
So yeah, in theory, it could have been fine. But sadly, with today's gaming landscape, I would not rely on any company doing it right.
Comment has been collapsed.
I couldn't have said it any better. It's true what you're saying. I wonder if there are many AAA companies that actually are still reliable to true and go with. Each one has its flaws, but some are greedier than others and they have really upset the players who have been fans for so many years to some of the most memorable games out there.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thats a strange one to me! A lot of young gamers these days rely on games being f2p. I do hate the P2W games but you can blame the mobile gaming culture for bringing that to us.
Comment has been collapsed.
I get some F2P games are carrying microtransactions and paying for skins, but some of them are really fun and worth experiencing. Sometimes, some games that you need to purchase really do make a difference in what value they provide, but as we all seen, some of them are not delivering on what they promise and what people pay for.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, I absolutely include mobile gaming in my criticism. It's actually way worse there. Which is why I find Apple Arcade so refreshing. You may think of Apple what you want. But a gaming subscription service that bans all in-app-purchases and microtransactions - I think that's the best thing that happened to mobile gaming in years. Games are made to have fun again, not to pull money out of your pocket. Love it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think f2p games are a lot of what's wrong with modern gaming. They introduced alternative ways (other than the usual price of the game) to our games and altered their game design in order to get us to pay. You can be sure that at least 99% of the f2p games we have are altered in some way to get you to give them money. And I think that's the worst thing that can happen to any art form. You can paint a beautiful painting and then sell it later, and those two things have nothing to do with each other. But imagine a painter hiding suggestive messages in the painting that are designed to get you to donate to his patreon. Imagine him deviating from his original plan to paint the perfect painting in order to infuse elements that are purely of monetary intention.
I think that's exactly what's happening with f2p games. Game design is altered - the game is made worse than it should be - in order to convince the user to pay money. It influences the art we love in a worrying way. I think that's disgusting. You may say that there are also good examples of f2p, like Warframe or whatever. But I am pretty sure even the "positive" examples are usually worse than they need to be because of the financial model, even if it's to a lesser degree.
This model has been so successful that we see elements of it in full-priced titles more and more. Which makes it even worse. I prefer to just buy a game for a one-time fee and then be done with the money-related aspect of it.
I know there are also a few upsides to this model. I can't deny that f2p games have it way easier to entertain a healthy player count, for instance. I get that argument. But then again, before this all started we also had multiplayer games that were healthy for years. So if it worked back then, it would probably work today as well. Actually, if a full-priced multiplayer game doesn't make it today, the large amount of f2p alternatives might very well be a reason for that.
And let's not forget how most f2p games actually make money. With the whales. The ~2% of players who invest large sums into it, way beyond reason. Many of which have problems with addiction and can't control themselves. Whenever people boast about how fair their f2p game of choice is and how they didn't spend a single dollar and still have so much fun, I can't help but think about the poor souls who finance the game for them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see your point and it's true what you're saying. All free games had a way or another charging for their games. But you do need to understand that going for this model gives the developers the possibility to eat.
How would our world be like if all games were worth money in order for you to play them as long as they remove the skins and other microtransactions from it? Interesting I must say, but most models don't have a long-lasting life because once the cash flows stop and the player base has filled the gaps there's no more money coming, therefore, no more point in making more content, unless it's paid DLC.
Comment has been collapsed.
The world would be a better place if Cyberdillo never existed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never played Cyberdillo, I never even heard of it and I'm glad. 🤣
Comment has been collapsed.
Mine is Mass Effect Andromeda. It single-handedly put the franchise on ice and wasted an awesome concept of exploring and surviving in a strange new galaxy on a mediocre and rushed open world action game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly, there was nothing much to do rather than build a new story from where the trilogy ended. It's hard to accept it as any better and it may just very well path the new way for the series, but we as players need to probably give it a bit more chances.
Comment has been collapsed.
Mass Effect 3, Commander Shepard deserved a better ending... he was the chosen one! he was an example of epic rpg space opera, but EA ruined turning into that crappy rpg shooter with very very bad script and mediocre gameplay :/ I still regret pre-ordering it, and worse when i trust them again on Andromeda...
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll be honest with you, I think Mass Effect 3 was an excellent game until that very end. It didn't felt impactful enough and I think the devs didn't want to make the choices feel like they left you with a sore taste in your mouth. I think Witcher (although didn't play it) is a perfect example of what real consequences do make and having no other way of getting the happiest ending.
I liked Andromeda and believe it or not, I had fun. The combat is great, but it is something about the Sheppard's legacy that I miss and the characters that I bonded with. People will always have an issue with franchises that do an excellent job and then change the script. We need to be more adaptable and understand that Sheppard's story can't go on forever.
Andromeda is a new beginning and it may not have the same impact as it is, but we can't just bash its head always for not standing up to be better than the trilogy was.
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand that, Shepard story couldnt continue forever, but at least give an epic finalle to the most iconic character in the series, but no, they choose to be mediocre, just like always. Now ME series is just "that shitty series that EA/Bioware ruined" :/ After that game, i lost all trust in AAA dev, they forgot how to make good games.
I enjoyed Andromeda, the buggy/meme gameplay and combat, but the story? The thing that supposed to be important in a rpg, specially a continuation to a space opera series (not epic anymore), nope, they choose again going mediocre.
And yes, they do, they need to be better or at least in the same level than the trilogy, or even... bring something better to the formula, you dont just recycle ideas and then put an sticker and says "hey, this is the new trilogy of ME is called Mass Effect Cash Grab Edition".
But i already accepted that reality, im not mad anymore about the issue. ME is doomed and lost, even Dragon Age.
And yes, Witcher was the perfect example, im glad at least Geralt didnt sucumb to that horrible fate.
Comment has been collapsed.
Isn't Dragon Age 3 actually really good? That's what I've seen from reviews. I don't think they ruined it as much as Mass Effect ending was.
I was thinking to buy the Legendary Edition, did you buy it?
Comment has been collapsed.
DA3 was really really good, im impresed because the 2nd was horrible. I believe the DA series is also doomed because the backlash after Andromeda & Anthem, i dont think Bioware can get out of that hole they buried themselves.
I didnt buy the game for obvious reasons, but i have friends that purchased it and some of them feel they wasted money, they explain to me is just a Mass Effect Omnibus, and they were expecting some improvements to the mechanics or at least some extra goodies.
Still is a good catch is you dont have the games on Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't have them and I wanted to get the game at some point and replay the series maybe 5th time lol. 😅
Comment has been collapsed.
Nothing, really - I have not came across a game that was so bad that I would will out of existence.
Games like Telltale's Jurassic Park are kind of unwanted, because it's a half-baked version of their good games. But messing up JP's QTE system to such degree was needed to make it right in later games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just wanted to say that I quite like your forum activity. You may be asking questions that have been asked many times before (at this point it's hard to think of something entirely new, really), but you ask them is an involving way and then actually maintain the discussion (unlike many, myself included).
Comment has been collapsed.
I appreciate you being here. 🙏🏻 I am quite new to SG and I really like the community. I really think people who genuinely give away games to people are kindhearted people. Really what we build here is a more united community that I've ever been part of. Now not everybody is nice, but it's nice to have a conversation with everyone here and listen to their opinion.
I try to respond to everybody the best that I can and hearing what people like and dislike is quite interesting. I don't want people to build hate towards games and what people like or dislike, but to build an opinion of their own and be able to voice it without being driven by hate. I think it's important.
Thank you kindly for your message! 🤗
Comment has been collapsed.
I really like the 2nd one. I didn't play Stronghold 1 though. 🤔
Comment has been collapsed.
Minecraft. It's an overhyped, nothing to do sandbox.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've had playing it a few hours to be honest, I get why people like it. It's allowing you to be creative in simplistic ways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Assassin's Creed, cus it killed both Prince of Persia and Splinter Cell series
Comment has been collapsed.
Well that's probably good in a way. I love the Prince of Persia series and if it hadn't been for Assassin's Creed, they could have churned out so many sequels like Disney is doing with Star Wars, X-men and Marvel, and ended up eventually making the franchise overkill, bland and turgid, killing it. That being said, with exception of a game or two in the official Legend of Zelda franchise, it's been great until Breath of the Wild changed the beloved formula way too much, effectively ruining that franchise, despite its popular reception.
Comment has been collapsed.
You mean every AC game after The Ezio Arc?
I admit I miss POP, and AC1 played almost identically except the wall run. But I recommend AC1 and AC2 trilogy. The series has never been the same since.
It really went down hill after they switched to fantasy with Odyssey and Valhalla (stupidest game title ever IMO). You can tell they're basically just riding on the name now.
A new POP is coming out, but for some reason I'm not excited for it. Looks like it won't be the same creative geniuses behind the original trilogy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Prince of Persia The Sands of Time Remake looks to be made on the very low budget, probably cus all money goes to the new AC game and this way game will be forgotten again like Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands was cus for them that time making priority is AC.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's being made by Ubisoft India, so the developers are located from there. If they are allowed to be given the freedom and artistic look, I don't mind. I mean it's nice to see a remake, but let's not judge a book by it's looks and give it the chance it deserves.
Comment has been collapsed.
Although the series was always Sci-Fi I don't agree with the Fantasy elements. I do like to see other world of mythology and stuff, I honestly like that, but I felt that the older series were more mature and grounded in that sense.
I get why people don't associate the recent instalments with the old ones.
Comment has been collapsed.
The earlier games were created around real world events that happened. This made them take the time to create believable real world locations that tied into the story. (In Unity for example, the Notre-Dame Cathedral, with a 1:1 model). This created a better experience overall. With Odyssey and Valhalla, they just make and do whatever they want and then slather on old lore.
It's less believable overall and does not draw you in (Odyssey is still better because there is so much historical info on Ancient Greece). However I was disappointed with Odyssey's uninspired intro alone. Why does Odyssey start with 300?
Never before have I played and finished a game because of the plot, or just to get even like AC II and Brotherhood (or Deus EX: Human Revolution)
Comment has been collapsed.
The earlier games were created around real world events that happened. This made them take the time to create believable real world locations that tied into the story. (In Unity for example, the Notre-Dame Cathedral, with a 1:1 model). This created a better experience overall. With Odyssey and Valhalla, they just make and do whatever they want and then slather on old lore.
Expect more freedom from the developers on that aspect because they no longer have the same Director as they used to in the previous years. So, they have stated that Ubisoft may take some approaches that go into fantasy in the near future and we can see that with newest AC's.
It's less believable overall and does not draw you in (Odyssey is still better because there is so much historical info on Ancient Greece). However I was disappointed with Odyssey's uninspired intro alone. Why does Odyssey start with 300?
It does to explain the start of the Templars or the so-called Cult. It was the origin of evil really. They noticed that the Origin of Assassin's was fascinating, so they tried to do the same with the Templars. That's the idea behind it. I hope that helps to clear some things.
Comment has been collapsed.
Interesting. I will probably give it another go sometime
Comment has been collapsed.
Expect a long exploration. The name Odyssey means long journey. And the game will feel like that. I am just 72h+ hours in it and it's quite interesting. I can't say yet that I feel like it's Assassin's Creed like, but it does have some elements. But as a game, separate it from it's title you may like it. I honestly clicked a lot better with Origin. But I am willing to give the game enough time for me to actually change my whole thoughts about it and to be honest I am starting to like Alexios (the male character) which is important for me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Assassin's Creed. i spawned a series that has become a total "copy-and-paste-with-a-new-name" franchise. it has pushed Ubisoft to the open world garbage it vomits every year.
it has killed the single-player action adventure genre in general and my favorite Prince of Persia series. you really see any action adventure games anymore on PC since then (leave to the PS exclusives only the tomb raider series as exception) so instead of a 10-20 hours good old single player story we now have to play a 40-100 hour game full of repetitive choir tasks to the point you don't have an idea what the hell is going on!
and the worst of all is that people are still buying those AC garbage!
Comment has been collapsed.
40-100? If you're a completionist you invest 200-500 hours. Valhalla it appears to be bigger than the rest. I am in Odyssey in 75h already and I feel I've only completed 25% or so of the map. It's huge. I get what you mean, although I am a fan of the franchise, I get that some people don't like the RPG change. I've adapted to the genre easily as I like RPG a lot too. I do feel that the world and the characters are more washed out and the impact of the characters aren't that well felt. Origin's protagonist is what really made me enjoy the new changes, but I am only one of the few that enjoy the new series.
Some people, like yourself, just can't let go of what used to make this series great. I don't know what's the player base nowadays compared to back in the days but I can find out. (Update: I've checked and in comparison to its Predecessors, Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla is right now crushing it in purchases compared to how it used to be - Maybe why they continue on this style).
Basically, the scale looks like this:
- AC 1 - 2,5K all-time players (Steam)
- AC 2 (The Trilogy) - 8,7K all-time players (Steam)
- AC 3 - 3,5K all-time players (Steam)
- AC Black Flag - 15K All-time players (Steam)
- AC Unity - 5,5K all-time players (Steam)
- AC Syndicate - 3,6K all-time players (Steam)
- AC Origins - 41,5K all-time players (Steam)
- AC Odyssey - 62K all-time players (Steam)
- AC Valhalla is speculated to have 2x AC Odyseey player based, so approx over 124K players.
It goes to show that despite you and others not liking the game, it caught the attention of RPG and Action games fans that joined the trend. It's crazy looking at how much people played Black Flag, which I personally didn't click as much as I did with others from the instalment.
Comment has been collapsed.
Those steam numbers are not fair to old AC games, cus steam was not that big and disk version of 2007 was without steam drm
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
Also less and less people finish the games. I got bored playing Odyssey during the free weekend alone. Its too long and too pointless. Nothing to draw you in unlike the previous games.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's why I mentioned that it's based on Steam, I would need to dive deeper and see how many played each, but the numbers raised significantly from Unity.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do the numbers include those that play on free weekends? because then the numbers are highly inaccurate. (I played the free weekend on Steam but don't own it).
Also booting up a game for an hour or two then abandoning it does not count.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm a completionist, I spend a lot of hours exploring AC really. If you do side quests over and over again that also adds up to the hours counted. If you only take into consideration the main campaign, that's no more than a couple of hours.
Comment has been collapsed.
Now, this may spark a bit of dispute, but I want you to be respectful when you write this. There might be people that actually like the game. This is your opinion, but that does not mean others does not appreciate the game.
What GAME - you can only name one - you wish it never existed and name what's the reason behind it.
Ready? GO!
Comment has been collapsed.