The point being made is it adversely effects the experience of those that use it in ways they can't appreciate. The people not using it aren't the ones affected, the ones who unwittingly pick it are. Another way to look at it is imagine you are the developer, and the victim here is the design, rather than any of the players.
When people make the argument that a difficulty they didn't pick adversely affects the game they aren't talking about their personal en...
I played the game on Hard mode and found it (for the most part) too easy. Feeling considerably overpowered. Not least because the parry window is extremely wide. Having it be wide on the late side is fine, but having a parry work way before you expect it to makes the game feel like it is playing itself. The only time I felt the game was really hard was when I went to Dathomir early (first opportunity), and even then it was basically like playing a Dark Souls game, TBH (patience wins the day)....
The core gameplay tennets would be combat, exploration, and conversation. Things they've all shown the demos and trailers focusing on different aspects in the run up to launch. So far as I can tell, the only thing we haven't seen in some fashion is a story-based fight where there are actual stakes (as opposed to training/mock fighting against non-enemy characters) and the arcade games.
A publisher is free to set embargos for review (and the publication is free to break it). There are no contracts or legal issues in play. It's all on an honour system. In this case, a reviewer could well just buy the game and review it 10 minutes after launch. Nothing the publication can do about it.
As for why the publisher would stipulate a review embargo date after launch -- well, there are a few reasons i. the game is bad/mixed (though in that case simply not sendin...
On a serious note, some kind of decade-spanning title where you play as Richard Croft in the past, and Lara in the present following his trail, could be really cool. The games have this massive reverence for Lara's father for being some kind of archaeologist extraordinaire, but we never get to see that.
Whatever tone the game takes, I would like it to step away from the modern action-adventure mold by going back to some of the gameplay aspects of the original games (albeit with much better controls).
For example, fixed jump widths instead of magically snapping onto holds (i.e. actual platforming), progression that is based on understanding your movement options and chaining them together in serial acrobatics, sparser level design that doesn't require detective-vision f...
I happen to work at a Japanese publisher who had to take a loss because they needed to retool their game to get past Sony censorship. The fact that we publishers, too, don't know how much Sony is interfering, or if they will in a given case, is actually a problem. We're basically just guessing.
They are saying they may never have opted in to console gaming in the first place if their comfort zone of PC development had remained viable (i.e. if Steam had taken off in Japan).
This.
Nihon Falcom were one of the only JP devs putting serious efforts into computer titles, even as everyone else (barring VN devs) were firmly console based.
This context of continuing staunch computer support (rather than abandoning console gaming i.e. their second home) is the one in which Falcom is couching their statements.
Not sure if ESPN is a sponsor in this case, but irrespective, there's something hypocritical about a sponsor or network wanting to profit from the endorsement of the competitive use of a product... but then having an issue with actually following through on the endorsement implied by their association.
If you aren't willing to endorse something by association maybe you, I dunno, shouldn't be looking to endorse it in the first place? Because at the end of the day...
Sounds like there's not a lot of bloat to this one. That's good.
I don't mind long games, but when it's spent grinding or basically doing nothing for huge chunks of time I feel like my time is wasted. There's something to be said for the RPG that's economical with its time.
The difference with a TV is it is uncomfortable to view up close as you can't take it all in vertically (meaning pertinent things you are supposed to see require you to keep craning your neck). But an ultra-wide (or ultra-ultra-wide) monitor maintains a vertical size that is comfortable, whilst filling your peripheral vision with visuals from the game (instead of those nice curtains you have behind the screen, or your wall).
I see *squints* 12 Tflops. 10 on the left side, 2 on the right.
'Its not about her hair being f'n weaponized or whatever smh'
That's exactly what the source article says though... Which, as you dismissed in your own comment... is kinda stupid.
"Look dude if you want it fine but what Digital Foundry is saying is crazy. Because if you got a 4K monitor you must have the hardware to run it."
Resolution is a moving target. Whether that target is 4k, 5k or 8k.
Traditionally the cost of opting in has been weighted against the graphics card (despite the fact that people tend to hold onto monitors far longer than they do graphics cards...), but what happens when you opt in early on the display...
Well, as the Japanese (and the NeoGaf link update) say, they never specifically said anything about sales, nor did they say anything about future support.
At most they made a vague statement about how their plans may see some response in the wake of USF2's release (making no mention specifically of sales). But whether that means an adjustment in their pipeline for bringing games to Switch (and researching pertaining to it) or it means alterations/cut backs on if/which g...
So, what you're saying is that anyone that uses the phrase 'it's like Dark Souls' need to 'Prepare to Die'? :D
Why is Yakuza on PC a pipe-dream, when games like Tokyo Xanadu and Akiba's Trip are getting PC versions made specifically for western release? It really seems a case of when, rather than if, TBH. There's nothing sacred or inherently tied to PlayStation with the Yakuza series (indeed, we've seen it on the Wii U before).
Never understood why this is even a debate.
Have you seen the shit in exhibits that pass for art?
I read a story the other day of a man who left a pineapple at an exhibit... people took pictures of it because they though it was an exhibit item...
I'd love to know how those art buffs can call a forgotten pineapple 'art'... but not videogames.
What you're talking about is an early game problem that is easily addressable by just getting better at games. Which is better, struggle for 2 hours as you learn the ropes and get maximum enjoyment out of the remaining 14? Or breeze through the entire game never quite enjoying it to its fullest?
It's a trick question BTW, because it's a choice you never consciously made. If you had, you might have chosen differently.