Everything Video Games!

Bull Shannon said:
But why can't they cater to my specific wants rather than the market's??
Click to expand...
this sounds pretty entitled on your part. i think, at this point, this is a cue for you to move on and find another series to play. the pokemon formula is so rudimentary that you are bound to find something that will appeal to your tastes.

but yeah, as others have mentioned, most pokemon fans want the series to advance and try new things as opposed to just sticking to the same-tried formula without anything new to offer.
 
Santi Chacin said:
this sounds pretty entitled on your part. i think, at this point, this is a cue for you to move on and find another series to play. the pokemon formula is so rudimentary that you are bound to find something that will appeal to your tastes.

but yeah, as others have mentioned, most pokemon fans want the series to advance and try new things as opposed to just sticking to the same-tried formula without anything new to offer.
Click to expand...
I'm absolutely joking. Of course an internationally-successful video game publisher shouldn't listen to one person's whims.
 
wokeupnew said:
Sword and Shield were a total disappointment IMO. I was expecting more of an open world game but it felt even more linear and dumbed down than most older Pokémon games.
Click to expand...
Yup, this is what I keep hearing. I'm trying to say (and we won't know until Legends is actually released) it feels like they're diluting the formula with each release, rather than changing it up. From what they've shown so far, it feels more like a simpler version of the typical pokemon game, but in an open world.
 
ima be honest, it really baffles me how Pokemon is always the number one franchise that brings discourse to the table every single time a new game/DLC-expansion/anything-else is announced.

it’s kind of why i always sort of put the game series off bc the excessive game discourse has put me off from trying (most of) the mainline games.
 
Bull Shannon said:
Yup, this is what I keep hearing. I'm trying to say (and we won't know until Legends is actually released) it feels like they're diluting the formula with each release, rather than changing it up. From what they've shown so far, it feels more like a simpler version of the typical pokemon game, but in an open world.
Click to expand...
yeah my dislike for it is documented here. I'm glad I didn't actually spend money on it

wokeupnew said:
I finished playing Pokémon Sword yesterday and gave some thoughts.

It’s bad.

Cons
  • Automatic Exp All means I don’t ever need to train non-primary Pokémon so they can get to their better 3rd stage. You used to get so much satisfaction out of individual training up your final 6 Pokémon. I barely used the other ones I had in my team at the end but they were all lvl 70.
  • The routes are much too short, you can avoid most pokemon and trainers if you want.
  • The flying taxi instead of having one Pokémon learn an HM is so lazy. After that it defeats the point of there being a central train system.
  • Likewise with the lack of other HMs. There was no Cut, Flash, Strength, Rock Smash, Waterfall, or even Surf. Your freaking bike was converted to Surf.
  • The move remember guy in every Pokémon center. I didn’t need to think about which moves I wanted or not because there was an easy out
  • TMs didn’t disappear after use.
  • The CUT SCENES. Way too many. Just get going with the story and make the stuff you do longer so I’m not endlessly clicking next.
  • Hop, your rival is lame. I wouldn’t even call him your rival. Bede is more of your rival thought the game but then he just kind of moves on?
  • Too many characters and not enough depth. Go deeper into the back story of literally anyone, go on a side quest for someone. I want to care about them but I could not.
  • What was the point of the two posh guys at the end? Made literally no sense. And then the Chancellor Rose or whatever just is done? The entire plot of the game is incredibly weak.
  • Dynamaxing is pointless. I don’t care about big Pokémon. It doesn’t really do anything.
  • The path to gyms were too easy or you just fought 3 people and then the gym leader. Dumb.
  • You shouldn’t be able to link trade until after you beat the game. I experimented early on with a surprise trade and I got a level 100 legendary for a level 5 Pokémon. I also ended up getting the Pokémon that evolved into Metagross from a trade which was basically a cheat code because it’s type and attack stats were too good for every opponent. I also easily traded for the other two starter Pokémon from link trades early on.
  • Pokémon jobs are dumb since money and experience are easy to come by.
  • The camping aspect should have been much more dynamic than just throw a ball at your Pokémon and cook a curry.
  • The caves/dungeons were too easy. One little side path and then you’re out. I want to panic and be confused figuring out which way to go. It should be much, much more of challenge going through caves or factory type buildings.
  • You didn’t need more than half of the items because the game was much too easy.
Pros

  • The person I bought my switch from accidentally included it in the box when I didn’t buy it, so I avoided paying $40~$60 for it.
Click to expand...
 
wokeupnew said:
yeah my dislike for it is documented here. I'm glad I didn't actually spend money on it
Click to expand...

LOL i remember reading this exact post a year and a half ago and putting off sw/sh bc of it.

i also remember being too busy still with the multiple routes (and supports within) in three houses to even want to play pokemon
 
Santi Chacin said:
LOL i remember reading this exact post a year and a half ago and putting off sw/sh bc of it.

i also remember being too busy still with the multiple routes (and supports within) in three houses to even want to play pokemon
Click to expand...
You could get some enjoyment out of it, but I wouldn't spend more than $20 if you given the chance to play it. It's not worth paying $50 for a light 20 hours game.
 
wokeupnew said:
You could get some enjoyment out of it, but I wouldn't spend more than $20 if you given the chance to play it. It's not worth paying $50 for a light 20 hours game.
Click to expand...

this is exactly how i felt with kirby star allies. i have no clue what sh*t HAL smoked that made them from making solid Kirby titles for the 3DS (triple deluxe and planet robobot) at $40 msrp to then drop the worst possible mainline kirby game at $60.
even with the amount of free dlc star allies received, i still think the level designs for star allies was just downright awful. as a kirby fanatic. that one really hurt 😔
 
Santi Chacin said:
this is exactly how i felt with kirby star allies. i have no clue what sh*t HAL smoked that made them from making solid Kirby titles for the 3DS (triple deluxe and planet robobot) at $40 msrp to then drop the worst possible mainline kirby game at $60.
even with the amount of free dlc star allies received, i still think the level designs for star allies was just downright awful. as a kirby fanatic. that one really hurt 😔
Click to expand...
Just re release the Kirby collection they put out for the Wii
 
Anyone doing the Riders Republic beta? I'm got on only a little past night but for some reason it's just not grabbing me quite like Steep did. Not totally sure why but thinking I might wait for a sale before grabbing this one
 
The video game industry continues to dump on Macs.

Last year Apple introduced the M1 Macs and a switch from architecture from Intel x86 to ARM64. Every game that previously ran on Macs still ran without a hitch on M1 Macs through Rosetta which translated the code from x86 to ARM64 on the fly. And the games all benched marked better leaving hope that if native ARM64 games were released the benchmarks would absolutely blow everything away. Initials reviews were M1 Macs could potentially be an outstanding gaming platform.

But it has never materialized. Game studios just are not interested in supporting M1 Macs due to the market share of gamers. But it's a catch 22. The market share of gamers is low because there are no games. Many game studios policies over the last 6 months have been shaped to not support M1 Macs. They will continue to support Intel Macs for the time being while there is enough market share. When it comes to M1 Macs there stance is to not support them at this time and my reevaluate at a future date.

To make matters worse, due to a power struggle between contracted game developers and gaming studios, most existing Mac games that did run on the M1 Macs are now blocked over money which is hurting the consumers. Of all my Steam Games that ran perfectly well on my M1 Mac last November / December through Rosetta, only about 10% of them still work.

The dredded blocker / error message pops up on about 90% of them saying ARM64 Architecture is not supported. The games run, but they are intentionally blocking them as they don't officially support the platform.

This is happening becomes the developers are asking for more money to support ARM64. They are trying to get work saying we can support this architecture and compile a native ARM64 version for x amount of money. Even though they really have to do nothing with existing games and just let them run through Rosetta. The Game Studios / publishers are saying no. We don't want to spend the money / support ARM64. The end result is the games are being blocked from running and it only hurts the consumer.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
The video game industry continues to dump on Macs.

Last year Apple introduced the M1 Macs and a switch from architecture from Intel x86 to ARM64. Every game that previously ran on Macs still ran without a hitch on M1 Macs through Rosetta which translated the code from x86 to ARM64 on the fly. And the games all benched marked better leaving hope that if native ARM64 games were released the benchmarks would absolutely blow everything away. Initials reviews were M1 Macs could potentially be an outstanding gaming platform.

But it has never materialized. Game studios just are not interested in supporting M1 Macs due to the market share of gamers. But it's a catch 22. The market share of gamers is low because there are no games. Many game studios policies over the last 6 months have been shaped to not support M1 Macs. They will continue to support Intel Macs for the time being while there is enough market share. When it comes to M1 Macs there stance is to not support them at this time and my reevaluate at a future date.

To make matters worse, due to a power struggle between contracted game developers and gaming studios, most existing Mac games that did run on the M1 Macs are now blocked over money which is hurting the consumers. Of all my Steam Games that ran perfectly well on my M1 Mac last November / December through Rosetta, only about 10% of them still work.

The dredded blocker / error message pops up on about 90% of them saying ARM64 Architecture is not supported. The games run, but they are intentionally blocking them as they don't officially support the platform.

This is happening becomes the developers are asking for more money to support ARM64. They are trying to get work saying we can support this architecture and compile a native ARM64 version for x amount of money. Even though they really have to do nothing with existing games and just let them run through Rosetta. The Game Studios / publishers are saying no. We don't want to spend the money / support ARM64. The end result is the games are being blocked from running and it only hurts the consumer.
Click to expand...
To add insult to injury, if game development is like most app development, all that is really needed is a compiler and not necessarily any code rewrites so it's not like it affects game developers across the board to develop for different platforms.
 
debianlinux said:
To add insult to injury, if game development is like most app development, all that is really needed is a compiler and not necessarily any code rewrites so it's not like it affects game developers across the board to develop for different platforms.
Click to expand...

Exactly. To natively support M1 Macs they would just have to perhaps update their compiler to a newer version and recompile the code. The issue is the developers / dev shops want to make a good chunk of money to do this. And are intentionally blocking the game from running on M1 Macs to position themselves to make this money. The publishers don't want to pay up / support the platform.

And as I mentioned, they don't even have to support the M1 Mac natively. All the Intel Mac games will run perfectly fine through Rosetta.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top