Goronmon @ Goronmon @lemmy.world

Posts

273

Comments

210

Joined

2 yr. ago

They call it AAA but ithe term has become ubiquitous with just popular games made by big profiteering entities like activision.

The term AAA has always just meant games made by larger developers/publishers to distinguish from games made by smaller ones. That's really it. Large vs small budget would be another way to think of it.

It's never implied anything about innovation or risk-taking, or uniqueness or mass-appeal.

It's tuned for a specific hardware platform right now. Choosing specific hardware platforms for support is just an extensions of that.

However the "PC" platform is basically an amalgamation of any possible hardware combination that currently exists, and is a whole different target for a project like this.

Genshin Impact for example, might have a massive number of players, but I have found the game itself and the storytelling to be very underrated because folks either expect far too much out of it or just don’t care.

I think is because you have to be able to look past the gatcha stuff (banners, to-do lists, massive quantities of various currencies for various mechanics, dailies) and that can be difficult. I know it is for me.

I dont include bg3, elden ring and totk in the AAA category. AAA no longer means high quality and fun, it means made by huge companies with more money than balls. CoD is a AAA game. And its shit. For example.

This line of reasoning is nonsensical.

The name is old, but there are distinct distributions. Debian vs Arch.

Opinion arguments, like “gaming feels like a chore” require different support from fact arguments like, “the world is flat.”

Sure, but "other people say this" isn't going to hold much sway in pretty much any context. It's not really worth bringing up at all.

I think that many of the new, big titles have tried to capture all possible niches - part FPS, part RPG, part basebuilder - and it’s hard to make all of those seem important to the game without forcing FPS players to do basebuilding and basebuilders to do RPG.

Some do, but plenty don't. Just like there are plenty of indie games not worth playing, there are plenty of AAA games you can avoid if you don't think you'll enjoy it. And the reverse is true for both cases as well.

Nah, I enjoyed Baldur's Gate 3, Elden Ring, Tears of the Kingdom, and yes even Starfield enough to not give them up just because rage-bait Youtubers told me to.

Just like I'll eventually probably pickup Super Mario Bros. Wonder and Spiderman 1 and 2 at some point along with many other AAA games that I think I'll have fun playing in the near future.

It's available, but not really built or supported for standard desktop installation, at least as far as I know.

First off the idea that "other people share this opinion" is some form of validation of said opinion is...less than persuasive. "The earth is flat and you can find lots of people online saying the same thing" is an example of why you can't just rest on other people agreeing with you as being the primary support of your positions. And it's one of the first things brought up in the video so clearly this person feels it's important to bring up.

Secondly the idea that older games respected your time or weren't grindy is ridiculous. From core MMO designs, to JRPGs there are plenty of examples of old games that waste your time in some way or another.

It also sounds like he is saying that all games need to be simple games like Tetris. No story/cutscenes and no complicated game design that someone had to spend time learning. That's certainly an opinion, but I don't agree that game developers should only make games that target one specific person's taste.

OLED is a really nice upgade, especially given the original screen being not so great.

Still not sure if it's something I can afford anytime soon, but would be a pretty nice device to have around for sure.

Of course, purity tests are way more important than policy.

That does not mean they didn’t work very hard with the money they were given.

The point isn't that you don't need to work hard to become successful. It's that success tends to favor those who come from privileged backgrounds, especially when that privilege is already being wealthy.

You seem to have read the article as "Being wealthy ensures success" when instead the point is "Becoming ultra-wealthy and/or successful starts with being wealthy and successful."