They honestly used to be really solid. I’ve been there since the NES. During the GameCube days my house burned down. I had happened to order a cable and then it, of course, got sent back to them. I had completely forgotten about this and they called me to ask if the note was correct that the package was undeliverable because the house being gone.
They sent me a new GameCube and five games of my choosing.
nintendo only does reletively good when their consoles struggle.
whenever they hit something sucessful, they become shrewed and start removing features/make a worse experience at times.
3ds strugles, nintendo gives 20 retro games for free. wiiu struggles, many bogo offers. Switch is sucessful, removes paid for emulated games and pushes them into a subscription service, removes local save backups, removes browser, charges 20$ for online, objectively have a worse online experience to both the WiiU/3DS in many instances. Half asses some games, increases the price of ported games (e.g Tropical Freeze on the WiiU was 50$, then a 20$ nintendo select late in its life, was a 60$ game on the switch)
You’re confusing Nintendo, the company, with the people who work at Nintendo (minus the corporativist scum). They absolutely have some of the best game devs in the world. They also suck and degrade the gaming sphere on a regular basis.
Ofcourse they have their inhouse developers but we musn’t forget the developers at other companies that helped make their systems great (Konami, Capcom, Sunsoft, Hudson, HAL Laboratory, Rare, Argonaut, DMA/Rockstar, etc
Funny how most of these companies are only a shadow of their former selves, with most of the old guard leaving to form their own studios and focus on good games instead of cashgrabs. I recommend playing Bloodstained – Igarashi is a genius when it comes to MetroidVania
I haven’t liked Nintendo since they decided to just take 30% of all the money Gary Bowser ever makes for the rest of his life, for the crime of modifying hardware that people own so that they can use it however they see fit.
Lots of controversy around this game. Gotta say, no one really cares. Well no one who doesn’t find something to complain about each day on social media anyway. Dunno about you all, though I am fucking tired. So much shit just wrong nowadays and while I do my part where I can, when it comes to games I honestly just want to sit down and have fun. Palworld is fun. Lots of potential that is likely to be built upon and just enough depth right now that I can hop into the world and actually feel just a bit of that original wonder from so many years ago. Something our old pals Game Freak and Nintendo have, much like Nvidia did years ago, purposefully opted to barely refresh the concept as time has gone on.
There have been plenty of fanmade Pokemon games that have done it better than the devs of the actual, official, licensed main games. Hell, there have been sideloaded Pokemon titles better than the cash grabs of the last few years. I for one hope Palworld lights a positive “better-than-thou” fire under Nintendo. The literal best move they could make now, imho, is run with the larger community response and release something truly mildblowing.
it’s also working counter productive to their cause. I originally wasn’t going to play, I came across the game soley from the posts on imitating pokemon, I tried it via gamepass and fell in love with the game so I bought it on steam. I originally was just going to skip it, the publicity on the game is what pushed me over. The saying “No PR is Bad PR” can be true at times.
It’s not a scam if you buy it and enjoy it for what it is, but it’s a scam if you keep putting money into it for features and content that is promised but not delivered.
But that’s an obvious scam. I don’t already have space-themed PC games stored in my fridge that I can readily shove up my butt.
So you’re saying that I shouldn’t buy Star Citizen and stick eggs in my butt instead? I don’t like your ideas, but you seem like a reasonable person and I can’t argue with your logic.
Because based on the amount of sales they’ve made and the combined player numbers between those and gamepass players, lots of people don’t care.
I started gaming on an Amstrad in the late 80s, I’ve lived though multiple groundbreaking leaps in graphical quality since then and now and frankly, it doesn’t impress me anymore, especially with how incremental it’s become. I’m more impressed by the scale and world building of Starfield and how all its systems come together than how it’s character models look.
I think this is it. I enjoy making fun of the NPCs in starfield but mostly when I’m playing I don’t notice them at all. I do have a few very pretty screenshots of the game. It’s not perfect by any stretch but the scope is impressive and most of it really is pretty good
I don’t think Bethesda has ever sold based on graphics no matter how much they want to pretend it. Morrowind and oblivion both looked under par when they came out as well.
Not surprising at all. I figured that would be the fate of KSP2 once Take Two got ahold of it.
Who the fuck thought a AAA studio had any business releasing an unplayable early access game at retail prices, especially when it’s a sequel to a game with a hardcore cult following?
Remember when it was first announced, and they said it was gonna come out like 6 months later? And then it finally came out in a barely playable state like 2 years later
add this to the list of games that flopped before I even knew they existed, You really do have to put down real money to market games if you want people to purchase them
The answer is as simple as it is horrible: It’s because for every burned-out, overworked and underpaid game dev, there are two starry-eyed kids who want to realize their dream and create games - and the C-suite knows this.They will replace any veteran dev with someone right out of college as soon as it is convenient
Mind, I am not blaming young people who want to create games. They lack the experience to know they are getting exploited. It’s all the cynicism of managers who know no loyalty and only want profits.
And if anyone wonders why every new game somehow manages to be a buggy mess that needs fixing, you have the answer right there too: Because the devs who fixed it the last time got fired and replaced with rookies.
Yep, there’s a reason they don’t teach actual labor history or the idea of collective bargaining in school (at least in the US, I know this is in regards to a Polish company, but I suspect it is similar). They want compliant workers who are just smart enough to run the machines, but not smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and realize how badly they’ve been getting fucked for seventy years (To paraphrase George Carlin). They make sure this kind of material isn’t taught so there is always a steady supply of starry eyed youths who don’t know any better.
Mind, I am not blaming young people who want to create games. They lack the experience to know they are getting exploited. It’s all the cynicism of managers who know no loyalty and only want profits.
I blame them at least a little. CS professors give students ample warnings and the industry's bad reputation isn't a secret. There a variety of outcomes....
listen and steer clear entirely
listen but decide to do it anyway. They do research on potential employers, their work culture etc. and they have standards.
Ignore the warnings or be willing to do game dev no matter the cost
The second group will be fine and knows when/if they need to call it quits or look elsewhere. The real problem is the third group.
Sure, but there’s no need to infantilize young tech workers either. Most of them knowingly decided to work in the most competitive industry, despite having a skillset that would earn them a better wage with comfortable work-life balance anywhere else. They can quit at any time and get a job that’s better in literally every way except that the end product won’t be shiny.
The real victims aren’t software developers, but people in creative positions: writers, graphists, designers, modelers, etc. who don’t necessarily have a skillset necessarily highly valued outside of the entertainment industry.
I wanted to, because I really was so impressed with The Witcher 3 and had gotten it for cheap. So wanted to pay back. But then I remembered the rule. I still really wanted to reward them, so I’ll probably buy Phantom Liberty full price or something.
“After” profits tumble? We haven’t even had a chance to buy FF16 or Rebirth yet, and if they’re like Remake there’ll still be a year to wait for it to get off Epic and onto Steam. Just sell us the damn game if you want money.
Imagine Japanese board execs as you do republicans. They can only understand what they can physically see or physically happens to them. Aka. Everything outside of Japan is inconceivable.
Exactly! I absolutely love EU4 and am excited about the likely next installment. Unfortunately, I’m less excited about their other recent launches, because the depth of strategy just isn’t quite there.
But then I look around and can’t really find a comparable game. There’s Total War, but y strategy there is pretty weak and more about battlefield tactics than actual grand strategy. Civ exists, but it’s in a pretty different category (and not really my thing; I do like Civ IV though). I own a lot of strategy games, but most are kind of shallow. I love complex games with a lot of moving parts, which yields a lot of variation game to game, and that just isn’t all that common outside of PDX games.
Fill combat width, esp the front line, and ideally the back line (back line is essential in end game)
Keep up on tech, including your mercs - need to rehire every few decades
Choose good battles - terrain matters (e.g. don’t attack into the mountains), stack size matters; retreat if you’re caught in a bad battle
Get some buffs - morale is most important early game, discipline and combat ability starts to matter more by mid game; you should focus on one or two areas to specialize (so idea groups and policies should synergize with national ideas)
Have good leaders - should have high army tradition, so your leaders should all be 2-3 star generals
Usually by mid game, I’m steamrolling everyone and am the biggest great power, even if I started small. Consider watching some streamers/YouTubers, many do a good job explaining things as they go.
For navies:
Watch battles and retreat if you start seeing red on your side - naval battles have a domino effect, so if you’re seeing more red on their side, consider continuing, you might capture more than you lose
Morale is the most important factor here - if you’re outnumbered, check individual ships and leave the low morale and damaged ships in port
If you’re filling combat width, the easy strategy is to get a bunch of heavies - don’t worry about the inland sea malace (heavies are fine in inland sea, galleys suck in deep water), if you can out-gun them, you’ll probably win
Pick your naval doctrine carefully - if you get galley combat ability, consider going all galleys and go over force limit as needed - it’s cheaper to be over force limit with galleys than at force limit with heavies
Naval leaders don’t matter all that much, they can break a tie, but that’s about it; individual ship morale is king in navies
It takes a long time for AI to repair boats, so popping in and out of port can be a great way to whittle down their navy and eventually win - make sure to retreat as needed to not lose boats
If you have naval dominance, destroy their navy entirely (occupy provinces with their boats, engage, repeat until it’s dead)
Don’t fight with light ships, they’re a liability (see 2, they get morale hammered); transport ships are really hardy, so use them as a bullet sponge if you need to fill combat width
Enemy fleet size doesn’t matter at all. You can defeat 100+ ship fleets if you can beat the ships that engage (like 20-30), you just need to get it to start to domino. So commit to either galleys (with galley combat naval doctrine) or heavies, and if you start to lose, retreat, repair, and reengage.
By the mid game, it’s easy to absolutely dominate if you play the early game well. Your goal in the early game is to build a power base, which means:
expand your borders a bit by taking good land - centers of trade, defendable mountain passes, etc
reduce autonomy
get good synergies in your idea groups
border the countries you want to engage in the middle game
build the right buildings
So by mid game, you should be a regional, if not global, power, and your time will be spent gobbling up land and converting wrong religion land. I usually stop playing about 1650-1700 because I’ve usually already accomplished my goals. Late game, the game should be pretty easy, except the 2-3 big powers you’ve neglected all game.
Yeah, pick a big nation, ally another big nation, and only fight battles you know you can win. If you and your ally are big enough, you shouldn’t get attacked.
It’s a complex game, so consider lowering the difficulty if you’re having trouble as a big nation.
exactly what i was going to ask. Uh, when was the last good strategy game? Looking at my steam library…
I have 2000+ hours in factory games, Factorio, Satisfactory, Dyson Sphere… not really strategy but those are solid thought based games released <10 years ago
Then… Age of Empires 4? Civ 6? Both pale in comparison to their predecessors. Cities Skylines 1… but then there’s the whole thing about 2. Star Trek Infinite was a flop and from what I read was just a horrible bland game. Serious, what has come out by big studios in the last 5 years in terms of strategy? I see more flashy graphics than strategy in these recent games.
I really like Victoria 3, it has its issues but I don’t mind them that much. I find much of the criticism is from ppl. who played Victoria 2.
In terms of other new games there is humankind which is similar to the Civ series. It has some great new concepts but some weirdness that I for unknown reasons can’t move past.
You know that Japan has crime? You know that large crime orgs operate in Japan? Everything from drug trafficking, sex trafficking, extortion, protection rackets, arms smuggling is happening.
ign.com
Top