On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:22:58 +0100, kyonshi <
gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 1:35 AM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 23:19:50 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
Don't bother.
If you don't have the $3 to spend on this, then free isn't going to help >>>> you.
I think Epic is firing a warning shot about the continuation of their
free game program.
GG if that happens. :(
Is the current state of gaming
(more-games-for-free-than-you'll-ever-bother-to-install) really better
than back in the day when we paid but they were worth paying for?
I tried Alan Woke II and couldn't refund that fucker quickly enough.
And that's coming from someone who really enjoyed AWI and AW American
Nightmare.
The scary part is how many have labeled AWII GOTY.
Meanwhile I go back and play old games and remember what's good about
them. And yeah I get some of that is only nostalgia and memories
kicking in, but in some cases I've loaded up vintage arcade games on
the Nintendo Switch that I had never even played before, and realized
that game designers did much better work when more restricted by
technical limitations when it comes to overall fun factor.
Well, I don't know about you, but I remember times when I had more
crappy games around than I ever would bother to properly try out even
back in the day. I used to buy all kinds of magazines with CDs and DVDs
on the cover which often had maybe one good game on them, and then an
insane amount of other stuff they just put on there so they could claim
"X may full games on one disc!"
And some of those filler games were interesting, a very few even good,
but I knew what I was getting.
The thing is that we don't remember the really bad games we discarded
after a few minutes at all.
But when we look back we remember the good games. We play the good games
that most people will remember as at least vaguely good and interesting.
And when we have collections like you mention on the Switch: those are >curated. Sure those games are better, but that's because the games on
there stood the test of time in one way or another.
It's the same thing like with pop music or movies. Yeah sure, of course
the ones you will listen to or watch nowadays are better, because the
whole crap they pumped out was forgotten. But back in the days those
were sometimes more popular than the classics we remember.
I don't disagree with what you've said for the most part, but to my
point, the kinds of games that are going to be considered future
classics seem to be close to non-existent.
And I can go through MAME ROMS and play lots of games that were
considered shitty for their day, and yet are still more entertaining
than over-produced and over-sold, designed-by-committee titles that
exist today.
I think the main cause of this is partially due to the technical
complexity of modern games and the number of people required to
produce most of them. It's hard to emerge with a cohesive artistic
vision when the art is produced by a corporate team. A lot of older
games were both designed and coded by the same person or very small
group of people who had a relatively cohesive idea of what was fun or
not. When that is the team dynamic, there is a better chance of being
a game worth playing.
We are now at a point where large budget games are suffering from the
same thing other forms of entertainment are suffering from -- an
unstoppable influx of politics which is only making matters worse.
This is why increasingly I look for titles that do not try to burden
me with a story... just give me the gameplay and make damn sure the
cutscenes can be skipped easily.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)