It is no stretch to say that graphics are the main focus this generation. Sometimes, developers are trying their hardest to please fans visually and they forget there is still a game to make. There are games that combine both aspects and are executed very well, but those titles are in the minority compared to the big picture. We’re all for an outstanding-looking game, but the question “where is my game?” still remains.
Plenty of unforgettable games have completely messed up their players throughout the years, all the way back from the PS1 days to the dark recesses of the modern internet.
With so many games fighting for players' attention and interest losing out over time, time sink games are at risk of eventually losing steam.
It was worrisome to begin with.
It's a niche genre with only a handful of hits that can stand the test of time.
I like the sound of that!! I will for sure never support these gaas games.
Sony must be shocked at gamer's reaction, making them cancel a few of these and hopefully go back to the good heavy hitters they had us used to..
now bring on that PSPro reveal and show us some SP 1st party awesomeness.
It's pretty ridiculous.
Imagine having a breadth of data at your disposal to see the statistically low success rate of these games, only to be laser focused on the exceptional case studies.
Only a few will catch on. You need a perfect storm to be successful in GaaS and a bit of luck on top of that. But a potential cash cow will keep them trying and some will go out of business because of it.
Helldivers 2 manages just fine…
Keep production costs low… don’t just make custscenes until the mechanics and enemies are perfected first.
Make so much content that you can drip extra content for years, and the game already feels complete without them.
Most importantly: make weapons, enemies, levels, and mechanics that will stand the test of 1000 hours. This might require more devs embracing procedurally generated leveled, which I think separates Helldivers 2 from Destiny’s repetitiveness.
Nameer from eXputer: "Some exceptions aside, I don't think the battle pass is a net positive for gaming with how they're implemented in most live service titles."
I like the way Helldivers 2 does battle passes. It allows you to make purchases on each level of the battle pass and gives you the option of choosing which item to unlock first. The more purchases you make using medals the further you progress. There is no timer and you can earn medals towards purchasing stuff via personal orders and Major orders.
I haven't played much live service games that have battle passes but I remember some games that have battle passes where you progress through it linearly using an exp system. What makes it really bad is that the battle pass will have like 50 or more levels with the cooler stuff being closer to the end. They also have an in-game shop that sells exp boosters so you can reach the end of the pass before it refreshes. Everyone ilse will have to grind their way through.
battle pass in fortnite is perfect; buy one and it buys the rest for every other season as it gives you more money than the first cost. so 8.50 and season ends with you getting 13.00, it pays for the next and you have some pocket change to save up for cash shop. All of which is optional
When you buy them on sale they are worth the money 100%, when you pay £30-40 for a game it can essentially be a tech demo for the price you pay.
the Uncharted games have great graphics and gameplay.. More devs should put time into fleshing out the story and characters like ND!
what's with all the PlayStation hate recently lol.
graphics and gameplay are designed by different people in the game development process. One has nothing to do with the other, they are _independent_