How long before the bundles are nothing but loot boxes?
Video Game News and Miscellany
- Thread starter figmentPez
- Start date
I don't know much about IGN or their business practices. But a quote from them said they'd feed resource to keep HB doing what they do.
Could their interferance really ruin it that much?
Could their interferance really ruin it that much?
GasBandit
Staff member
IGN is the EA of video game journalism, they've been a bad joke for almost 20 years. They're part of the reason why no game ever gets rated below 8/10.
No doubt HB will still be doing "something" but it probably won't be what people liked HB for.
Oh god. That's going to turn into a shitshow real quick.
figmentPez
Staff member
GasBandit
Staff member
Also, some people might not remember this, but IGN was also a pioneer in intrusive advertising. They may have been one of the first websites back in the 90s to do FULL PAGE FLASH ADS complete with sound and shit, back when a lot of people still were on dialup.
Also also, News Corp (as in Fox News) owned them until a couple years ago.
Also also, News Corp (as in Fox News) owned them until a couple years ago.
figmentPez
Staff member
Half-Life 2 crossbow build
Visceral Games is all but shutdown.
I guess EA couldn't figure out how to ruin the Star Wars game they were making with microtransactions like they did to Dead Space...
I guess EA couldn't figure out how to ruin the Star Wars game they were making with microtransactions like they did to Dead Space...
Dave
Staff member
It does seem to be happening a lot, but there are still a lot of good games that are single player. Rimworld comes immediately to mind, as does a game called Low Magic Age that right now is only a D&D 3.5e combat sim but there are plans on it being a whole game.
Just have to look around, man, but you're right about most "AAA" games being slanted that way.
The only games that don't disappoint, underwhelm, or piss me off in the last few years are indie games.
EDIT: Except Witcher 3. Because goddamn I love that game.
Yeah, not really into life management either.
I like Preys and Dishonoreds and RPGs like Obsidian makes.
GasBandit
Staff member
You might like Divinity: Original Sin 2 (and 1 for that matter, if you never played it), and Subnautica. Yeah, not a lot of good RPGs or immersive single-player FPS games these days. The flavor of the month, regrettably, is multiplayer battle royale games.
Probably not your thing based on your list, but a SOLID jRPG that came out recently is "I am Setsuna". Definitely a Chrono Trigger-like vibe coming from it when you play. And it's just fun too.
Dave
Staff member
Dude, I don't like life management games, either. But there's something about the twistedness of RimWorld that has grabbed me.
I felt the same way, but honestly it's only the huge budget AAA games industry from giant publishers that are going that way. Games like Golf Story, Tyranny, Hellblade, Pyre etc have proven to me that if the AAA game giants all collapsed, gaming would still be just fine, because there's still a lot of quality titles coming out of the smaller sectors.
I'm not sure if I should trust this file....But I trust the sender, so....*clicks* *all the virusses*
GasBandit
Staff member
Empyrion's alpha 7 update has gone live, making the game a lot more game-ey and a lot less "we don't know just what we're doing yet"-ey.
And they released a new trailer for it.
I've still got some gripes about how things like repairs on super-complex ships are handled (and the maps still aren't seamless), but the game is really coming along.
And they released a new trailer for it.
I've still got some gripes about how things like repairs on super-complex ships are handled (and the maps still aren't seamless), but the game is really coming along.
GasBandit
Staff member
To a degree. There's lots of what I'd call QOL improvements over SE, and for one thing, multiplayer actually works reliably and lag desyncs are almost never a factor
It also has AI controlled alien factions and wildlife, you actually have to worry about food, water, disease, temperature, radiation etc to survive, there's a lot more weaponry and emphasis on personal combat, it's got a lot more "fluff," a much gentler learning curve, currency is actually a thing and there's a "marketplace" where players can buy and sell resources (and place orders, like "I'll pay 1000 credits for 200 magnesium") and items from each other, there are RPG elements where you gain experience and unlock things you can build...
Pretty much the only things it has in common with space engineers, actually, is that:
1) You can build ships and bases block-by-block (though you don't have to, there are prefabs you can "manufacture" and you can get more off the steam workshop or design your own in a separate creative mode game if you like)
2) You can use tools to deform the voxel-based landscape and gather resources
3) It takes place in space/on exoplanets.
4) There's a lot of resource gathering and building.
Really, it took me about 3 days to get tired of Space Engineers single player - Empyrion has enough content to keep a single player game interesting for a couple-three weeks at least. Multiplayer also is a lot better.
Here's some footage of me playing a previous build, though the new alpha 7 version changes a lot of what's in the video.
Last edited:
fade
Staff member
As much as I hate to support the turd of a company EA has become, if the Battlefront II single player is as good as the trailer makes it look, they're getting my money.
This is really the first time the star wars franchise has made me genuinely interested in the empire's perspective.
But geez the starting price... $80???
This is really the first time the star wars franchise has made me genuinely interested in the empire's perspective.
But geez the starting price... $80???
I mean, I have the same interest as you, but I figure I'll get a 5 hour campaign (maybe) and the protagonist will inevitably turn Rebel, or at the very least, anti-Empire, because that's pretty much been most Star Wars games post TIE Figher.
No need to buy it right away, anyway. There'll surely be a version that doesn't cost $80 and have all the pieces of the game later.
And if you want to play the multiplayer (which is the bulk of the game, it's a terrible value for single-player only) don't forget all the loot boxes they've now crammed into it.
Except in Star Wars Battlefront II, in which you start as a Clone Trooper at Geonosis, and finish as a member of the 501st, eliminating the Rebels on Hoth.
To it's credit, being an Imperial Agent in SWTOR basically goes "die-hard imperial loyalist" to "burnt asset looking to keep the universe in line, in the face of both the self-destructive Sith and Republic". You basically become a Reformist Imperial, looking to build a functioning Galactic Empire that works on merit instead of race/Force politics. At least until Knights of the Fallen Empire, where they stopped doing Republic/Imperial storylines and decided to focus on building a single well crafted story instead.
And now they're just doing extensions of the story through flashpoints and boss fights, apparently.
To be fair, as the Imperial Agent in SWTOR, you wind up seeing that The Empire is a disorganized mess of nepotism, backbiting, self-sabotage, and a 90 gambit pileup. Turns out, that's just how the Emperor likes it - he feeds on the chaos, and if everyone is occupied dealing with each other, no one can spare the attention to focus on what he's doing.
Last edited:
That sounds depressingly familiar.
Alright, so I just finished Middle Earth: Shadows of War. This includes the true ending as well.
And?
I'm not sure what some of these reviewers were complaining about. There was no "soft paywall" to finish the game. At no point in the end game did I feel the need to even open the marketplace "just to see". I kept waiting for something to happen that would finally slap me in the face and cause me to consider purchasing a loot box. It never happened.
Keep in mind, I was also playing on the hardest difficulty--Nemesis.
There are a lot of siege battles for the final act, and if you hate sieges, you might not like fighting through them all--although if you enjoy the nemesis system in general, then I don't see why you wouldn't. I personally enjoyed every minute. The game practically tosses epic and legendary orcs at you during these sieges, so it was simply a matter of dominating new generals from the ranks of the enemy. Since your fortresses get sieged multiple times, each fortress will eventually have a nice array of high-ranking orcs that you managed to pilfer off the enemy making the idea of spending money for the same stuff the game gives you for free, absolutely laughable. Heck, every siege upgrade you buy is permanent. That means once you buy it, it stays there, and you don't have to purchase it again in subsequent sieges. I had more than enough money to upgrade my crap and purchase siege upgrades. On the off chance that I was getting low, I had an entire inventory waiting to be melted down for extra cash if I needed it (I never did).
All in all, a very satisfying gaming experience. A shit ton of content, an improvement in every way over the first game, and the team that designed the orcs--style, dialogue, factions--should get an award. The sheer variety kept the game fresh all the way through.
Of course, the idea of putting micro-transactions in a single player game is still heresy of the highest order. WB is still shit for this, but the game developers made an amazing game.
And?
I'm not sure what some of these reviewers were complaining about. There was no "soft paywall" to finish the game. At no point in the end game did I feel the need to even open the marketplace "just to see". I kept waiting for something to happen that would finally slap me in the face and cause me to consider purchasing a loot box. It never happened.
Keep in mind, I was also playing on the hardest difficulty--Nemesis.
There are a lot of siege battles for the final act, and if you hate sieges, you might not like fighting through them all--although if you enjoy the nemesis system in general, then I don't see why you wouldn't. I personally enjoyed every minute. The game practically tosses epic and legendary orcs at you during these sieges, so it was simply a matter of dominating new generals from the ranks of the enemy. Since your fortresses get sieged multiple times, each fortress will eventually have a nice array of high-ranking orcs that you managed to pilfer off the enemy making the idea of spending money for the same stuff the game gives you for free, absolutely laughable. Heck, every siege upgrade you buy is permanent. That means once you buy it, it stays there, and you don't have to purchase it again in subsequent sieges. I had more than enough money to upgrade my crap and purchase siege upgrades. On the off chance that I was getting low, I had an entire inventory waiting to be melted down for extra cash if I needed it (I never did).
All in all, a very satisfying gaming experience. A shit ton of content, an improvement in every way over the first game, and the team that designed the orcs--style, dialogue, factions--should get an award. The sheer variety kept the game fresh all the way through.
Of course, the idea of putting micro-transactions in a single player game is still heresy of the highest order. WB is still shit for this, but the game developers made an amazing game.
Last edited:
figmentPez
Staff member
What's your play style? Are you a completionist? Do you collect every bauble and do every side quest? How fast were you trying to finish the game?
Lets see:
I did do every side quest. The "side" quests were things like collecting Gondorian artifacts and Shelob memories or the Den poems (which gave legendary gear). You get the location of these things when you purify a tower. They don't take a whole lot of time. Also they have a lot of neat lore involved and were never really out of the way. They were in areas you would be going to either way.
There are a couple threads of main quests. The game recommends you do them all before you finish out Act 2. Act 3 changes things up a bit with a twist that I won't spoil.
When attacking fortresses I would do the missions that would target warchiefs that I would either turn to my side or kill to weaken the fortress before I attacked.
I wasn't in a rush to finish the game, and the stuff that I did seemed logical to do if I wanted to have a successful mission. I mean, you could attack a fortress with all its upgrades intact if you wanted, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was significantly harder to do so.
The game throws skill points at you, so it doesn't take too long to get to a powerful state. You can then figure out how you want to proceed at that rate.
figmentPez
Staff member
You played on the hardest difficulty and took your time. So, it's possible someone playing on Normal and trying to experience the story quickly could come up against a frustrating difficulty spike?