darthelmet

joined 2 years ago
[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

I was watching a friend who got it and he tried it solo initially before swapping to online play and it seemed waaaay harder. Not sure if he screwed up a setting and it was really the 3 player version or something.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

A while ago I tried it out and I can concur on it feeling clunky. To each their own, but I just have a fairly low tolerance for games not feeling smooth to play. There are a lot of games I've dropped in less than an hour because it just didn't feel good to play even if I might have liked some of the ideas or systems.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

Maybe. But you'd need servers. And that would cost a lot of money for something aiming to be that scale.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 83 points 3 weeks ago (16 children)

My (completely uninformed) theory: It's competitive advantage. Indies succeed on their creativity, but that works because there are thousands of indie devs out there and we get to see the best (and luckiest) ones. It's not easy to replicate that creativity by just throwing more money at the problem. So what is a company with ooodles of money but no creativity to do? Make games that only a company with way too much money could make. No indie dev is going to make the next Far Cry or Assassin's Creed or Fortnite because they just don't have the budget to make that happen. So they know that even if they keep churning out generic crap, at least it's generic crap with very little real competition.

Of course then all of them got the bright idea to compete in a game business model that is inherently winner take all with already well established leaders. So yeah now it just seems like they're lighting money on fire for fun.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Not a complete list, but I made a spreadsheet to help me keep track of the games I bought but then never or barely played to try to get me to revisit them in some organized way. Outside of that, there's just the steam library. Anything further back from my time playing on consoles is kind of just lost to time and memory unless it was a particularly memorable game.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I wasn’t planning to get the game because of the 3 player thing but I already knew that… why are people buying it then getting mad about it? Is the steam store page just not clear enough about it? In which case, fair.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Yeah the souls games are something I like in spite of all of the things wrong with them. There is just so much jank and bizarre design decisions.

I kinda hate that all of the games that have tried to copy them have done so to a point of not critically evaluating everything in them. And then they have all the same flaws, but none of the unique charm that makes me look past them for FROM’s games.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What… uh… I can’t imagine this movie being weird enough to feel like a movie based on a FROMSOFT game while still being accessible to the wide audience needed for a big budget fantasy movie to make money.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Yeah I’m sort of interested in the game but I wanted to wait for full release. I get that a lot of indie games are helped tremendously by the money and player feedback they get out of early access, but if if the whole bottom falls out because not enough people bought the game you’ve very openly told people “this isn’t finished, don’t buy into this if you aren’t willing to be a part of the testing process,” then something is very wrong. Early access income should help bridge the gap, but you shouldn’t be entirely reliant on it.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I couldn’t get through much of it either, but not because of the weird stuff, I like weird, the gameplay is just too… involved? Stressful? Exhausting? Like I’m ok with challenging games sometimes, but needing to spend a ton of time slowly trekking across fields and mountains while manually trying to keep your footing, managing a bunch of consumables, and occasionally needing to play walk through the ghost minefield with your baby detector while dealing with the rest of that is just not something I could keep up for as long as the game was going to go.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

True to some extent, but I think there are limits to how enjoyable it can be to not even be able to find the puzzles in the first place. It also makes coming back to it super confusing.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I’ve probably played a bunch, but the one that most comes to mind is Antechamber. Super weird FPS puzzle game ala portal but with a lot of mindbending illusions, non-Euclidean geometry, etc.

It’s got a metroidvania structure but without much guidance and a lot of stuff will just loop you back to where you’ve been if you’re not getting things right. At some point I was just completely lost. I couldn’t possibly think of where I haven’t tried to go or do. Worst part if I tried to look up a guide I don’t even know where I’d begin to look.

view more: next ›