Okay, game budgets are bigger because of massive teams and longer development cycles.
Not sure we got a good explanation for that though. Graphical fidelity is "only part of it", what's the rest? Is it really just game scale? Open worlds are not that new at this point. And the bigger ones tend to feature lots of copy-pasted content and boring shopping list designs. Are the new ones really bigger enough that they need ten times the team?
Every times I watch Ubisoft credits for a game (which has been much more rare lately, admittedly), the part of it that was for people actually making the game goes smaller and smaller. Even in the 2010's you'd already have 30-minutes long credit rolls, with most of it marketing, and a bunch of executives. This was even more obvious on the games that are definitely not larger scale.
I've played several Shiren games (1 on DS, 3 on Wii, 5 and 6 on Switch) and I recommend Shiren 6 (Mystery Dungeons of Serpentcoil Island).
5 kinda went too far from its roguelike roots and feels too grindy, with too many ways to escape safely, especially easy ways to undo your death indefinitely.
6 is a lot more fun to me and makes good runs and crazy builds more special again.
For a very good introduction to the series, if you can play it, the port of Shiren 1 on DS is great and already has a lot of what makes those games fun. There is also a rom hack translation for the original on Super Famicom (that one only existed in Japanese), but I've not played that one much.
Those are (I assume) the actual 3D models they used to make Donkey Kong Country, but of course they rendered them because the game itself was 2D. That trick looked pretty impressive for the time, kinda "I can't believe it's not 3D".
If you want a much later, much less impressive result of such a technique, look at Fire Emblem : Shadow Dragon on the DS. They clearly did unit art with rendered 3D animated models, slightly retouched. They mostly look dirty and, in a very uncanny valley way, the animations look weird, too fluid.
Yeah, well I tend to give sites I don't know the benefit of the doubt, which is why I don't ad-block by default. Now I know this one doesn't deserve to exist at all.
I tried to read that article. You'll notice that the end of my message refers to the Steam rating system, which is mentioned towards the end (or at least I think it was the end) of that article. Problem is, this site is utter fucking shite, and most of it was obscured with scrolling tracking ads as I always trying to read. So yes, I missed the part about it just being a form to fill.
As for "official", yes, I know PEGI/ESRB/Whatever are industry-controlled. But for better of for worse, they're still used as reference, and they're third party (though clearly not that independent). It's still different from declaring yourself what your game contains.
I wonder how it works for more alternative platforms like itch.io.
No way you're having any official ratings on 99% of their catalogue. Most of it is experimental stuff, and having basically no barrier to publish is the point.
Unless the German regulations allow self-assigned ratings? It says they allow Steam's own age ratings, how are those applied?
It sounds and probably is pointless, but I expect politicians everywhere are completely lost as to how the hell they can communicate with that idiot. And they have little choice in the matter.
Not sure which game you're thinking about, there are lots of shitty Christian shovelware from that era, but Konami's Noah's Ark has nothing to do with it. And very little to do with the biblical story really.
I had that game on the NES (and I'm not in a Christian or religious family at all).
It's a real game, the arcade-y kind that tries to kill you all the time. It's quite hard.
Can't watch now so not sure what's in the video, but Lands of Lore 2 was quite fancy.
Had a parchment scroll-like UI with animated burning transitions, did creepy chants at you to test stereo sound.
Funny thing, it tested your CD-ROM drive speed too (it used to matter). Of course on a modern PC, you'd have the whole game on your (much faster) hard drive and simulate an optical drive with DOSBox or something. The installer runs its test and literally says : "Wow, your drive is fast!"
I know that story. It's a lot more nuanced than that.
Thing is, Disney barely had anything to do with the restaurant itself (they're basically the restaurant's landowner). And the only thing on which they could attack Disney was to point that the restaurant had a description on Disney's website... which is part of Disney online services, and subject to their terms of services.
So yeah, grasping at a clause from an old Disney+ subscription is bullshit, but the claim honestly did not make a lot of sense to begin with. The restaurant itself should have been sued to hell, even more so because apparently they reinstated they were allergy compliant several times when asked.
Asking the real questions here.
Bowtie.