No, it’s not hypocritical to enjoy Tears of the Kingdom and criticise Redfall when they have the same frame rate
Prices revealed for all Nintendo Switch 2 Upgrade Packs, coming from both Nintendo and third-parties.
I argue that simple res/FPS bumps should be free, and then you can charge $10 if it includes actual extra content. That seems to be what has been settled on.
Many PS4 games got free upgrades for PS5 when just increasing res/FPS. Days Gone, for example, got a free FPS bump to start the generation. Now it's getting a "remaster", improved visuals/extra modes/content for $10.
I know they have *some* free upgrades - though we don't know what they entail - but the Zelda games just seem like they know they can get money from eager new buyers, so why not. Zelda Notes doesn't quite seem to justify $10, but hey, let us choose. Make it a $10 app, and give the res/FPS upgrades for free.
Weird the Jamboree pack being 20 with no new boards or minigames for party mode, way to miss the mark. Minigame variety is seriously lacking for the party mode compared to superstars, my biggest issue with the game, think I'll pass on that.
I wonder if there will be supply issues (unable to find the system). Interesting that they are launching in the middle of the year as well.
VGChartz's Mark Nielsen: "Halfway into the decade and the 2020s has been an interesting one for gaming in both good ways and bad, with the restructuring of the industry, a mix of innovation and the same old, and of course many, many long waits. But there have also been many quality titles, to be sure; the last three years in particular have seen a number of critical darlings. Something the most acclaimed ones have had in common (with the obvious exception of Astro Bot) has been an absolutely massive scope, easily boasting 100+ hours of content.
In my own experience that massive amount of content hasn’t always been a positive; in fact I would go so far as to call their slightly overeager strive for quantity a shared flaw of these games. I’ll be looking at four titles in particular here and going over the different ways in which these otherwise solid experiences became victims of having just a bit too much fluff."
To much unimportant content and bloat is mote likely to cause me to stop playing or never revisit it. Especially when it feels like you're forcing the player to do side quests to pad out your game length just to make it long enough so you won't have the player trade the game in to fast
One recent example for me is Hogwarts I enjoyed the story but despised the level gating there was no real reason to lock missions behind a leveling system it was just forcing the player to fly around doing side quests and puzzles so they could advance to the next chapter
omg hogwarts
i love every second of it but damn, does it feel like a chore to play haha.
Hogwarts Legacy should have stuck to what other games couldn’t do: Let us be a Hogwarts student. The open world aspect was just like any Ubisoft game.
Honestly wish it had more of a Bully feel. It was clear that 90% of the attention went to the school and town and the rest felt like the northern chunk of Just Cause 3's map. Almost like they had to justify the flying mechanic by spreading things out.
Yeah agree the Hogwarts castle and grounds is ripe for exploration. Look at the PS1 Argonaut game i felt like that old game did a better job with relaying what it's like to be a student at Hogwarts than what legacy did.
Legacy was like ok you've done a few classes learnt to ride a broom go spend the next multitude of hours exploring nearby towns and killing hundreds of goblins and spiders I don't think they did enough with the school grounds.
I appreciate them including Hogsmeade but I felt like it didn't need to expand past that point
Why don't we have more 12-15h single player stories for $45 is beyond me.
My guess is I recall around the late 2000s game trades were a big issue which resulted in publishers shifting away from standard single player campaigns that could be beaten in a month and we started to see more expansive open worlds that would take longer to see everything to keep the player invested long enough that they wouldn't trade in the game when it was going to be the most profitable retail window e.g the first month
With the rise of all digital games I can see those games making a comeback as there is no second hand market
Expecting a 12-15h game to be $45 is part of the problem. These games don't sell well at full price anymore and relatively speaking it takes a lot fewer resources to stretch it into a 30-40 hour game that can be sold for full price.
We can complain about padding all we want, but most people simply pay more for padded games.
Eternal Strands $48. 18 hours
Citizen Sleeper 2 $23 10 hours.
AstroBot (got as a gift) 16 hours and they keep adding levels.
Totally agree. I'm tired of the same bloated fluff that games present as 'content.'
Act 3 is massive. I think I finished the game 4 times for the platinum and I know I must have missed at least half the stuff in that city
i feel like Rebirth only really had Costa del sol as a bloat. but its a long game, so i dont blame the author
With its quantity of content, approach to problem-solving, and library of fan-made creations, Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom is worth restarting in 2025.
no thanks...Nintendo is notorious for poorly designed dungeons/temples etc...and the recent Zelda games are no exception.
Obviously, one is running on a prehistoric handheld while the other is on a powerful 12tf home console. There’s simply no excuse for Redfall being only 30fps.
No shit.
One is an absolutely amazing game that I just sunk in atleast 20 hrs over the weekend lol and had to force myself to put down.
The other is 💩 💩 💩 played a decent amount of redfall just to give it a proper chance and have an informed opinion about it.
Redfall isn't bad because of 30 fps, hell it could get patched for 120fps and it would still be a turd!!
Nothing wrong with 30 fps as that how I play all my games, give me the fidelity, in saying that though I do expect a rock solid 30 with no dips.
I don't think zelda should get a free pass completely for its frame drops but they are very easily overlooked when the game is this good.
Redfall has zero redeeming qualities about it, I actually can't believe just how bad it is on every metric I could rate a game by.
Iv seen a lot of people on here though that all of sudden say 30fps and zelda is awesome when previously they said they can't play games at 30 anymore lol
No, it is hypocritical, stop with the mental gymnastics. Yes, one is an old hardware and other is brand new SSD machine. But:
a) It's Nintendo problem that their hardware can't handle the game and they don't release the next console/revision yet;
b) Both games are exclusives and should show the best the console can perform.
I can kinda agree that Redfall should be criticized more (because of how much extra power they can use). But Zelda must be criticized as well, don't act like low FPS doesn't matter or doesn't affect the score.
Either performance issues for all games should affect the score or the other way around. I prefer the former. Double standarts are bad, period.
That's why i wouldn't trust any of those 10/10 reviews.
P. S.: It's not even stable 30 FPS. It's much better with the patch, but still it drops to 20-25-ish periodically in busy places.
"Gamers" (fanboys) are BS hypocrites. What else is new?
Because redfall would be such good game with 60 fps .... lol