alphabethunter @ alphabethunter @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

184

Joined

12 mo. ago

It's Steam Next Fest rn, so I'm trying my hand at a bunch of demos. The ones that caught my attention so far were the demos for SAND and Sulfur. Sand was surprisingly fun despite the absolute god-awful performance. And Sulfur is just uniquely charming.

It took me a second to compute that Rare boss was talking about the boss of the game studio Rare and not a rare occurring boss in a game.

Baller move from the devs. I wish we lived in a world where the source code of older games were all released and freely available for non-commercial uses.

I like watching his reviews of new mmos and games, usually mine and his taste in gaming align, but I have known for a long time he is an asshole. But this one was a new public low for him (don't doubt he has said way worse shit in private though).

Honestly, very few of the indie games release with microsoft and Epic banking are truly good. The best indie games right now are the ones released and self-published through steam, you just have to find the ones you like. Steam Next Fest is a good start if you don't know where to look. The next one starts next monday, October 14th.

This article made my day a bit better. Google complaining how "radical" the changes proposed are is a sure indicator that they would likely cause some damage to them.

I'm 29, no kids, and absolutely won't have any. I won't be responsible for putting a life on this earth just so they can get fucked over by billionaires and shit politicians. I'll not give them yet another soul to torture and grind on their machines.

It's the same old Yankee speech: "is chinese so must be really bad". They're definitely no worse than google or facebook.

I mean, RIOT has been under Tencent for years at this point and they are mostly doing the same things they did back when they were independent. Only thing you could say that they probably changed is to focus even more on making "cute characters" that sell really well.

Have you ever played Diablo 1? Graphics in HoT straight up look like they were ripped from the og diablo 1. Also, both of them have a very similar loop: you go to the dungeon, you kill a bunch of stuff, you come back to the hub area. I never fancied Vampire Survivors before I had the chance to play HoT more than a year ago, and the similarities in graphics and gameplay loop between it and the first diablo were THE reason that made me buy and play the game.

EDIT: yes, Halls of Torment is the actual best in the genre. I've played most of the famous ones (Vampire Survivors, Soulstone Survivors, Holocure, Death must Die, Deep Rock Survivor, Pathfinder Gallows something...), and HoT is clearly a cut above the others in how solid it is built and how great it iterates on the 'survivors' trope. A game that is technically not a survivors but scratches a similar itch and has been hogging a lot of my time right now is Kill Knight.

I have a similar issue at my school as well. Chrome is the only allowed browser, and each of us have to use our own school email as our login session in chrome, so we get that much of user space, and that actually works quite decently. I had ublock installed on my user account so far, but if it breaks, I'll just have to suffer. Although, the real problem is that the school I work in uses some digital books that only work 100% in Chrome, and all show some form of weird behaviour in non-chromiun based browsers. And there's a 0 chance they are changing it.

I use Opera for myself, but I have to use Chrome for work reasons (user profiles for different work areas based on whatever email is being used at the company computer). Thing is, Firefox also lacks the feature that makes me use Opera: speed dial. My Opera starting page is my speed dials, and speed dials are 10x better than just bookmarks, and I wouldn't want to go through all the trouble of transfering literally hundreds of saved pages to standard bookmarks. But, if ublock fully stops working, guess I'll have no choice.

Plenty of couch coop indies out there. Big corpos only care about their money, Nintendo would also jump on the multiplayer wagon if they thought their fanbase would follow them.

I had some vague idea that it was bad, but holy shit...

As someone who carries a tablet around for note taking and making drafts, the idea behind a phone that turns into a tablet is hugely attractive to me, but this is not quite what I would want. I'd be super down for one that folds flat, and does away with the huge camera bump. Get me a nice stylus, a foldable keyboard and a simple folding support to hold the phone at an angle, and that's essentially a desktop that can fit into your pockets.

Brazil has a lot of small, very small, ISPs. There was a law some time back that boosted the market for smaller ISPs. On my street I have a small ISP that only runs cables and internet to a portion of my neighborhood. However, those smaller ISPs are usually buying their connection from the few giant companies in the business and redistributing it through their own means. Crazy part though: often they have better prices and support when compared to the giant ISPs they're buying their internet access from.

It's not what I'm saying either. I don't know where you found any such claims in my comment. All I said is that games are supposed to be games, and failing is supposed to be part of games. You can fail even in a chill game like Stardew Valley, and you probably will on your first playthrough if you don't look anything up. The game won't game over because of it, but you will spend your entire second year suffering and trying to fix the mistakes you made in your first year. I can't remember a single game I played where failing was not something that could happen that felt better because of it. Case in point: I was playing Jusant and was interested in the game, until I realized I couldn't truly fail in that game, and all of the mechanics in place that looked like they were game mechanics, were actually just smoke and mirrors.

I can understand why most of the titles made it onto the list, but I can't agree at all with the order of the list. The order was clearly made by some people who are heavily nostalgic towards older games. I've played Dragon Age Origins and The Witcher 3, and there's not even a question in my mind that DAO is the better RPG out of the two. And, to me, also the better game (I can't even understand how people find that the hours of cutscenes right in the beginning of TW3 is somehow fine). And don't get me wrong, I love Dark Souls, but DS can't be classified as a pc rpg unless you're tripping. It's an action game with rpg elements. I've also played Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2, and those games are not that good if you remove your nostalgia glasses. And I played both of those when I was a kid, so you can't tell me it's because I didn't experience them in their time period. The writers of this list seem to love clunkyness and perceived potential above all else. The clunkier a game, the better. As seen on that high of an evaluation of Kingmaker, another game I played, can see as cool, but can't bring myself to truly respect when they made the stupid decision to make combat spells like web last for their real 10 minutes time even after combat has ended, so that I had to stare at my screen for 10 minutes while my stupid dwarf failed check after check to get out of the web, and I had to actually wait 10 whole minutes for the spell to end. As an actual DM for TRPGs for 20+ years, taking rules from tabletop rpgs and porting them to videogames 1:1 just shows a lacking understanding of game design. A game with such an obvious flaw makes no sense to be placed that high into the list.

It's not a claim I made though. It got that award from the voting public by the golden joystick. And souls are definitely no longer niche, Elden Ring success is an obvious clue, but the fact that most AA or AAA action games with a melee weapon from the last 5 years implements some mechanics from souls games is another huge indication of the mass appeal and impact dark souls has had on gaming culture.

That's a mentality that was the norm back in 2010, and one of the reasons the og dark souls got called a "very hard game". It wasn't that hard of a game, it was just a game that let you die as many times as mistakes you made, and it's both objectively a better game for it, while also being hugely influential to the industry on this particular matter. To the point that it has been given the title and award of "ultimate game of all times". Deserved for reminding that games are supposed to be games, and failing is 100% supposed to be part of it.