They're polished, but nearly all of them are too safe.
The ones that subvert things a little are always best for me, and these always get mixed reactions from people who went in with a set idea of what they wanted from it.
Red Dead Redemption 2 being a slow paced wild west simulator rather than Grand Theft Horse is a prime example. It didn't play by safety and doing popular things. It did what they wanted it to be, and it's all the better for it.
She didn't really explain much at the time though, and when she did it never got a lot of publicity. People thought she was just attacking Catholics as a whole.
All most people saw was her ripping up a picture, going "fight the real enemy" and then a bunch of smear articles about her going mental.
And to add to that, it also gives you the tools for discovery. It's not just "Ubisoft, but they hide the icons".
The shrine detector (which can become an anything detector), the ability to look through binoculars or whatever it is and stamp a limited number of visible waypoints onto the map. Tears of the Kingdom gives you a slightly obscure ability to highlight all the cave entrances nearby, which you can then try to mark up and see if you've been there.
Other games have started trying to do some of this, but I think a lot of it is added late on in development and doesn't really work well. Like Jedi Survivor gives you the ability to mark things with icons, but what for? You can't see the markers when you're walking around. There's not really much to discover from a distance, and it's pretty far from being a vast open world.
Is it perfect? No. The last few shrines are often a complete ball-ache to find, although a lot of them are just a generic fight and they're pretty optional, it feels like you should do them.
Is it better than a world as a menu screen as offered by Ubisoft and those that copy them? Yes.
I think in general a lot of developers should take a long look at what they're actually trying to make before going with the open world approach. It's getting tired, and they're mostly doing it badly.
Yeah, I removed Snap mpv and reinstalled with apt.
Lo and behold, it works perfectly all of a sudden.
Firefox looks like more effort, and apt will install the snap version. Even if you uninstall snap. Fun. If I could enable what is missing I'd be OK, but I've no idea what it is...
Yeah, tried all that, and not having much luck in Firefox and MPV. VLC fine. Replied to the other post, and it might be Snap blocking it. I dunno though, because I know basically fuck all about snap other than a lot of Linux people don't like it.
Yeah, I thought I'd ticked something similar during setup, but maybe it wasn't for that. I installed them and it hasn't really changed anything in either mpv or Firefox.
The compositing in Firefox is webrender (software) and appears to be using llvmpipe as the GPU. There's a 2nd "GPU" listed, but doesn't seem to use it All the codecs say hardware is disabled...
Installed VLC and that seems to use the hardware renderer. MPV and Firefox are both installed with Snap. I'm seeing a pattern that might not be there, but I'm already hating Snap. This is day two of my rebooted Linux experience...
They're polished, but nearly all of them are too safe.
The ones that subvert things a little are always best for me, and these always get mixed reactions from people who went in with a set idea of what they wanted from it.
Red Dead Redemption 2 being a slow paced wild west simulator rather than Grand Theft Horse is a prime example. It didn't play by safety and doing popular things. It did what they wanted it to be, and it's all the better for it.