So you have turn based allergies? Have you noticed that all those so called non turn based games have things like cool downs and reloads which are just turn based in disguise? Actually real life also takes turns which we call “days” to lie to the turn based haters. They never knew we were all in a turn based game from the beginning.
For me turn based is great because you can chill and think about your next move. You don’t have to rely on instinct. I love me some soulslike but sometimes just chilling is great.
Hoping for fun times, but I guess I’m a little worried that the story for this expansion might lose appeal without a good conflict.
It’s very possible to make a well-written, region-localized storyline with lowered stakes than “potential end of all life”, I’m just uncertain how well they’ll do that given what the Warrior of Light has been through.
Cool, I might renew my sub to check out the FFXI content. I still play XI daily so I’d be curious to see what kind of lore they explore in the crossover.
Fyi we won’t get the first wing of the XI ally raid until 7.1 (3ish months after 7.0, so September/October/November 2024) and even then it will only be one third of the total story. Totally fine if you still sub, but you might not get much value out of it until 7.3 with the second wing some time in 2025
They are RPG kings but still haven’t got the nuances of perfecting an FPS down yet.
Cyberpunk is way too noisy in its visuals and sound. Even if you love it you’ll get a headache if you play it more then a couple of hours. Had it been in third person the noise would have probably been more bearable and even a good immersion feature, but in first person it makes you giddy.
They totally are, but I'm personally glad they changed it back. A singularly non-aesthetic little creature demanding praise and admiration for its supposedly fabulous looks? And Astarion approves if you do?
Everything about it was so fitting that I never would have guessed it wasn't intentional. There would be no real reason for him to especially like cats, and definitely none for him to enjoy watching you kowtow to a person, let alone a house pet. He hates that shit.
But he does like when you side with monsters and other things that people generally find dangerous or gross, and changing it to a regular persian actually makes the interaction make less sense. To say nothing of how amusing that level of misplaced pride from a talking ballsack was.
I actually agree with him, and I am not an employee of the gaming industry. In the mid 90s N64 carts were freaking $79.99 at one point early on! I realize part of this is because the carts were expensive, but even CD based games were not THAT far behind at $49.99 or $59.99 as I recall. I realize they don’t have the same physical distribution costs, but game prices really have not kept up with inflation. Growing up it was a big freaking deal to get a new NES game you damn well better learn to love it, like it or not haha. Now… games are generally much more affordable for the average family, plus if you just wait a bit and don’t buy on release (barring Nintendo 1st party titles) they are way cheaper!
Well, I think gaming standards are too low, Harushiro Tsujimoto.
Here's the deal, we keep the game costs where they are, but you need to stop pulling unrealistic ideals to match up to. And you need to stop shitting out bad games just to keep the trademarks alive and other copyrights. Give us GOOD Megaman games, not whatever Megaman Dive is.
We need to go back to the model of where making good games was a key priority. Why have you forgotten this?
Honestly, he’s right. Game prices are the same 60-70 dollars they’ve been for 30 years, but nothing else has stayed the same price that long. With inflation, a game should be around 200 dollars.
Super Mario Bros 3 came out in the last half of 1988 and costed $50 dollars, or around 127 dollars. It also costed about $800,000 to develop, which is about $2 million today.
Nowadays, it costs around $80 million (about 40x) on average to make a AAA title that costs $60 (about half). This is why all these games have cash shops and battle passes and paid dlc and whatnot: they need to make up that extra cost somewhere.
I can understand woth this information companies wanting to charge more, but I feel like standards need to be higher and refunds guaranteed. They can't ask us to spend 100's of dollars on half-complete, buggy messes of games AND also want to charge for DLC and have micro-transactions.
And don't forget it's just a rental of the game, at any time they could shut off the game or license servers because they don't want to sell or keep that game anymore.
While i agree that prices have been stagnant, its also a game of companies wanting to reduce risk. You have unicorn examples like Baldurs Gate 3 which took its time to develop a game, and has stated they dont plan on making paid expansion content, meaning where they at they see the game as profitable, despite spending 5 years in development for it.
Part of the reason why some games have balooned cost is because of improper spending of the money. Many spend a lot of money on marketing which tends to have an overly inflated cost on its own, due to the fact that people have a preference to play whats familliar, however its been shown that also actually making a good game with little marketing also works, and a lot of dev studios havent gotten to that point yet.
Super Mario Bros also only sold about 2.5 million units in the first several month after release. Baldur's Gate, for example, sold almost 6 million in 2 weeks. The NES sold 2.5 million units in its first year. The Switch sold 13 million. Even the worst selling modern console, the Xbox Series X sold 8 million in the first year. While individual game prices have not risen, the total number of sales has dramatically increased. So pardon me if I don't think the cost of games not rising has been a problem for publishers and developers of AAA titles. Their real problem has been putting out good content that enough gamers want.
Distribution is getting easier and cheaper, the available talented workforce is larger than ever, tools are getting better and faster with every day and despite "no large increase in costs", the gaming industry has grown to be one of the largest and most profitable industries in the entire world and everyone wants a piece of that cake.
$60 is fine and anything above that is pure greed.
I buy games that release for $40 and $50. They don't have dlc. They don't have microtransactions. They don't have cash shops. They don't have battle passes. I just pay my $40/$50, get my physical copy, often with a bundled goodie like cards or keychains, and play and enjoy my 40hr game.
It's absolutely possible because the companies that release these titles are pumping out several per year. You just.... have to stop spec racing and obsessing over 200hr playtimes and top of the line graphics and actually focus on making a decent, mid-sized game, with realistic expectations.
ign.com
Top