Remedy games lose me at the 'supernatural'. Just not my personal taste. It is, as if they are re-doing their same concept again & again, like similar game studios - remaking the same game for decades.
I am also of the few who thought Alan Wake's story was cheesy and badly written ... if people praising it would have ever read a book past Stephen King or Harry Potter.
E3 Press Conferences used to be for press (Time magazine etc) and Walmart retailers - not screeming junkies. But then Microsoft invented the 'fake crowd' cheering (employees + selected 'fans') ... and E3 conferences went to s**t for the viewing public. This guy should have been escorted out 30 minutes ago ... not 'rewarded'. Bad parenting.
... welcome to triple-A publishing, video gamers. The EA/DICE Kraken strikes again, sucking in Respawn and chewing them out. I still think, it is nice to see a competent looking game, which whispers "Jedi Knight 3" into my ear. I'll pay for that.
I think, somebody here is confusing 'popular' with 'influential'. When I hear "PUBG", I hear ARMA2 DAYZ mod. If you R E A L L Y want to talk about I N F L U E N T A L than you cannot overstate the effect Dean Hall's DayZ mod had on the whole industry AND different(!) gaming genres.
Not only was it the starting point for FPS games to try out 'permadeth', but also this specific kind of co-op experience, which players turned into their own, expressing themselves and turning the sandbox world into their own versions of gameplay. From griefing to roleplaying as cops to hardcore military simming to "Battle Royale".
And the DayZ mod influence when beyond the FPS market. It also made small Indie devs and teams more interested in roguelike and rogue-lite experiences in THEIR genres. It established the idea that in a sandbox game with a MMO-ish world, players can "create their own stories". Player agency and the creative way players in DAYZ made that game 'their own', was the surprise and innovation. It allowed for it. Developers and game studios took notice. Just like they took notice of what Rockstar Games did with GTA3 as another example of an influential game.
So, please - I know, this article is a proposal and people will always have different opinions - but, do not praise success for influence? Sure - PUBG made a lot of studios try to dip into the "Battle Royale" mode. But that happens with every game that is very successful. You will get "Angry Bird/Flappy Bird" clones, "Minecraft" clones, etc. etc.
After all, some people will read this and believe you. And that is an a-historical view. Because, it is not true. Ask developers.
Holding up the torch, reviewing strategy games ... in writing ... on Gamespot … thanks for the read. (You are in an exclusive club and in good company)
This game was in my 'newsfeed' orbit, but is on my list, now, for sure. Still have to play the predecessor though. 1000+ Steam library games waiting in line.
I don't mind difficulty in games, when it is on purpose.
I DO mind 'difficult' games, when the developer just has no clue how to balance the game. I grew up in the Arcades and Apple II, Amiga, Commodore era, where 'difficulty' was not an option, but the only way to 'beat' a game. Hard as nails. We had no choice, as players.
For old people - like me - games, like Cuphead, are a marvel to see, but not to play. The last time, I was able to go through a 'difficult' game was "Ori and the Blind Forest". I made it through the water level, was proud of myself, despite the broken XBox controller and the blister on my thumb.
Otherwise, I agree with Mark Cerny who revised his own stance on game difficulty. He is okay these days, when games have an 'easy mode'. Let lesser skilled people still enjoy your game. If your game has nothing else to offer than 'difficulty' though, then it is bad design and it will show.
Vehicles on elevated ground in a 3D plane MUST HAVE some sort of collision/physics solution. Otherwise, you would not see a thing. I recommend ANY book on 3D graphics.
I see your comments and think to myself "it is all about expectations".
I watched the Gamespot people *playing* the closed beta and they were "running and gunning" silly, like it's Just Cause 2, or if Rob was playing GTA V, etc - run around, create mayhem, complain about things the game wasn't meant to be or do.
I play the beta solo, all HUD off, only follow mission objectives. I avoid contact. I scan the area with the drones, mark my targets, command my dudes. My ARMA editor skills (commanding their dumb Game AI NPCs) come to fruition.
I like this more than I thought I would. I especially enjoy what the devs did with the AnvilNext engine, modifying it for their game. Unlike all of you, I enjoy the driving physics simulation! It is really trying to simulate wheels driving on a bumpy surface. Doesn't mean it's 'good' or for everyone. But off-road bike is super fun (could be it's own game).
So far, my *complaints* would be AI related. But AI in such open world games is tricky. My fake COOP dudes shoot without my command (I would wish for a "Hold Fire" command), run into enemies, when I am trying to be stealthy ("GHOST" Recon - suppose to be low profile, not gung-ho).
I also would have enjoyed more enhanced control options (leaning, etc). It is weird how different studios inside Ubisoft are allowed to get away with these things, despite endless Q&A and marketing discussions. Oh, and a "Duder, STFU" button. No real ops are THAT talky during or around missions. Movies are creating this myth.
@ltjohnnyrico@no_one: Actually, the game is TRYING to simulate driving physics - as in tires surface simulation (DiRT Rally style) and what makes it wonky is exactly THAT. On top of that you have some form of elevation based physics (uphill/downhill) conflicting with the surface.
sethfrost's comments