This used to be pretty standard! If it weren’t for all of Blizzard’s other nonsense, I might applaud this.

StarCraft II is one of my favorite games ever, but I have no faith in modern Blizzard to make a game that isn’t wrapped in trappings that would piss me off. Back in 2010, it was extremely annoying that the game required an internet connection and made us go through all sorts of wacky solutions just to have a LAN party. Nowadays, an online-only game is a non-starter for me. The story in SC2 jumped the shark after the Wings of Liberty campaign anyway.

It wasn’t damage control when the size of Concord’s loss was leaked to the press.

The weird one to me is that, if they’re going to cancel a Kojima game, they still haven’t cancelled Fairgames/Break-In/Project Espresso. One of those two is far more likely to break even.

Yeah, it’s not new, but it’s gotten more egregious, and everyone keeps pulling from the same bag of tricks regardless of how much sense it makes. Uncharted has a lot of climbing bits because it’s riffing on Indiana Jones, but why is James Bond doing the same climbing bits as Nathan Drake? And why are they so simple that my inputs hardly matter because the only path through the level is so telegraphed that it’s visible from space? Games need downtime between action sequences for pacing reasons, and while I could tolerate it in Gears of War because of their brevity, our answer to this problem needs to be more sophisticated than just holding up on the analog stick.

I ran into a lot of “AAA disease” when playing through 007 First Light recently, where the game has a lot of walk-and-talk and doesn’t respect your intelligence, but it’s a criticism that doesn’t permeate the entire runtime of the game. I didn’t realize how much worse it could be, but Ralph makes his case quite clearly in this video.

I’ve never heard of a Game Pass exclusive game. Care to name one?

Given your distaste for the genre, whichever one you might feel is “luxurious”, you probably haven’t played. Minecraft also has the benefit of working in precise squares/cubes.

Systems-driven games tend to have more bugs than ones where all of the solutions are finite and predetermined.

I’m not. It’s a statement of fact, and I don’t see the point in pretending it isn’t.

Seeing as Lemmy does nothing different than Reddit on a fundamental level, it’s no surprise we see the same problems. We’re just partially shielded from some of them by way of being a smaller community.

And posting genuine news about what is going to be one of the biggest gaming events of our lifetimes just gets downvoted here. Come on, people; it’s clearly relevant. You don’t have to upvote it, but then when people downvote anything they personally dislike, you end up with people who only get their gaming news here saying, “I’ve never heard of [one of the biggest games of the year].”

That was a different company.

Pretty thorough breakdown, and I’d agree with most of it. Some paraphrased bullet points though:

Perhaps stealth isn’t doing well right now because of all of those bad stealth sequences in non-stealth games that are otherwise great

Possible, but I doubt it. The late 90s and early 00s was full of those too, but that was also simultaneously the height of stealth games. I think it’s just that fads come in waves. Underground racing games were hot when The Fast and the Furious started. World War II shooters were popular after Saving Private Ryan, and modern military shooters followed when a lot of the target demographic either fought in the war on terror or knew someone who did. Dungeons & Dragons and a lot of Led Zeppelin’s catalogue only exist because The Lord of the Rings books made a huge impression on people. If something in the cultural zeitgeist comes along that would make a good stealth game, there will be more stealth games; at this point, the last James Bond movie was 5 years ago, and the next one won’t be for a while still.

A good compromise we landed on rather than perfect wallhack vision was to mark targets

Perhaps, but I’m even kind of sick of that, too. I played a good portion of MGSV without tagging and found it perfectly playable, largely because, as he acknowledges in the video, you can scope it out from any angle from far away before you make your approach. This is something the original Deus Ex and Ghost Recon: Wildlands do well too, even though the latter also does the trivialized target marking. I don’t mind some light wallhacks when you’re up close to simulate the character’s hearing, like in The Last of Us. If we found ourselves in that stealth situation in real life, we’d have pretty good three-dimensional awareness of enemy locations just by the way sound bounces off the walls, and I think it’s okay to represent that in some way. I think the marking target mechanic is so prevalent because Ubisoft made a large number of games featured in this video and inspired more still; and Ubisoft for the last decade and change has been a company that made an efficient machine for churning out games that used a lot of common mechanics between multiple franchises.

Playing through 007 First Light right now, a lot of my most common grievances are in predictability, but not of the enemies. There are a lot of context-sensitive actions, and while this game has a sort of tutorial that we’ll be talking about for years, it did a poor job of explaining those contexts to me. I had similar issues blackjacking guards in Thief, and there’s that guy-on-the-couch section in Splinter Cell that he highlights in the save scumming section that you could describe much the same.

I think they’re hoping to make a profit off of what they’re charging rather than loss leading.

Because this is more like a side benefit to Game Pass. Most people are playing locally, not cloud.

More like, “Of their Game Pass users, very few use the cloud gaming feature, and even fewer of them would exceed these limits.”

Best they can do for you is shitpost and build a ballroom.

Correct. Only cloud.

Of course not. It’s expensive. That’s why Stadia isn’t still around.

I edited the post to spell that out now. But it really only ever made financial sense for both parties if it was a value add on top of what you already get with Game Pass. We all know how OnLive and Stadia worked out.