So, is anyone else watching the "Last of US" TV series, adapted from
the similarly named video game?
So, is anyone else watching the "Last of US" TV series, adapted from
the similarly named video game?
So, is anyone else watching the "Last of US" TV series, adapted from--
the similarly named video game?
It's an interesting show, largely because - unlike so many TV and
movie adaptations - this one is staying incredibly close to the source material (often to the point of being shot-by-shot identical to scenes
in the game). There are some differences, but these tend to be fairly
minor. Given how often movies and TV shows take broad liberties with
their source material, this faithfulness is actually sort of
endearing.
The show itself... it's passable. Arguably, it's even good,
considering its genre (post-apocalyptic zombie survival/horror). But I
think a lot of the strength of the show comes from just how effective
were the setting and characters in the game. Had the show been based
on its own IP, I don't think the direction or acting could have
carried it alone.
Oddly enough, I felt more emotional resonance from the video-game
characters than I did from their live-action counterparts. Not to
diminish the work of the actors, but they come across as somewhat flat
and cold in comparison. In fairness, the voice-acting and sound-design
of the video game are absolutely top-notch and really help sell the
world in a way the TV series has yet to match.
(There's also something to be said that you spend several dozen hours
in the shoes of the video-game characters - a fraction of what the TV
series will span - so gain a much more intimate understanding of them.
And early episodes of a TV show are always very rocky as the actors
slowly work their way into their roles; later episodes will probably
be better in that regard.)
As mentioned, the series has made some changes. The most notable is
with the zombie-inducing fungus itself, which has been given a much
more active role in the world of the TV adaptation; the zombies are
all part of some hive-mind, making them a more dangerous threat.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the idea - as a video game mechanic, it
sounds neat, but it gives the zombies too much prominence. "The Last
of Us" was really a story about exploring the collapse of modern
society rather than an attack by an alien threat; the zombies in the
game were mostly an environmental danger. But in the TV series,
they're more alert and it diminishes from the setting's real danger:
other humans.
(I assume this change was made because - honestly - regular zombies
probably wouldn't be able to resist the guns and organization of
modern society... the threat level was upped to make the near-total
collapse of civilization more probable. But the method they used - semi-sentient fungus - strikes me as even less probable and so weakens
the whole story).
Still, I think the series actually could have used more changes... not
so much in content as in pacing and cinematography. Camera angles and
scenes that work well in video-games aren't always the best for
movies, and by being so slavishly loyal to the game, the TV show
sometimes weakens itself. Case in point: the TV show opens with the
exact same 'before the end' prequel of the game before jumping twenty
years later; this works in game because the player will be inhabiting
the protagonist's shoes for the entire game and needs to understand
where he came from. But in a TV show, this backstory probably would
have been better shown several episodes later, flashback style.
Is "Last of Us" a good show? I suppose it is. It's not groundbreaking
cinema, but I think fans of the game will enjoy it for how closely it
follows the source material, and people who enjoy zombie movies will
get a kick out of it too. But it doesn't have the sort of
impactfulness or verve as it might have, and doesn't quite reach the
heights of a video game. Which, honestly, says more about how far
video games have come than a real condemnation of the TV show.
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 12:03:44 PM UTC-8, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
So, is anyone else watching the "Last of US" TV series, adapted from
the similarly named video game?
Neither the game nor show. I see stuff about how great the show is in some of the other media I use, so I've been thinking of watching, if I can bother to figure out what it's on, and stop playing video games long enough.
So, is anyone else watching the "Last of US" TV series, adapted from
the similarly named video game?
Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> writes:
So, is anyone else watching the "Last of US" TV series, adapted fromWell, no. I've been thinking about it, but I've also been thinking about playing the game. I just don't have a Playstation and those are a little
the similarly named video game?
hard to come buy, still. Well, looks like there's a PC release planned
for March so maybe I'll just get it then.
Not that I'm too keen on post-apocalyptic settings or zombies.
I did watch about twenty minutes of it but to be fair my better half put
it on and I was kinda engrossed in a book at the time.
I will give it another try but to be honest I have a horribly feeling
that it will suffer from what a lot of big budget US produced TV series
do. As the need for more and more episodes is demanded the plots will be >stretched out to fill the time up. The Walking Dead was a great example
of this. It started out as a series of sub stories that ran over one,
two or three episodes to be extended to way beyond that point so that I >wanted to shout at the TV, can we just get to the story conclusion please.
As an aside hopefully it will help remove some of the snobbish attitude >towards games. There's this hierarchy of books at the top, then film,
then TV and trailing a long way in last places computer games. All I can
say is have you ever read a Barbara Cartland novel?
So, is anyone else watching the "Last of US" TV series, adapted from
the similarly named video game?
I haven't seen it yet, but definitely intend to, having finished the
(older) remastered game. Still haven't played the 2nd game!
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:40:50 +0000, JAB <no...@nochance.com> wrote:
I did watch about twenty minutes of it but to be fair my better half put
it on and I was kinda engrossed in a book at the time.
I will give it another try but to be honest I have a horribly feelingthe start, to be a single series that covers only the plot of the
that it will suffer from what a lot of big budget US produced TV series
do. As the need for more and more episodes is demanded the plots will be >stretched out to fill the time up. The Walking Dead was a great example
of this. It started out as a series of sub stories that ran over one,
two or three episodes to be extended to way beyond that point so that I >wanted to shout at the TV, can we just get to the story conclusion please. My understanding is that "The Last of Us" TV series is intended, from
original game. There are no intentions to extend the story - or the
show - beyond that. The series is also only 9 episodes, which is just
about right to encompass the story as told by the game.
That said, I can't say I'm entirely happy with the direction the show
took with episode 3. It's an interesting diversion - focusing almost
entirely on a minor character (Bill) - met early in the game and
adding some depth (and unexpected sweetness) to the overall setting.
But on the other hand, I think it weakens the overall arc of the tale.
Then again, we're only a third of the way through the show, so I'll
withold final judgement until March. ;-)
As an aside hopefully it will help remove some of the snobbish attitude >towards games. There's this hierarchy of books at the top, then film,To be fair, a lot of video game stories *are* awful. They are full of
then TV and trailing a long way in last places computer games. All I can >say is have you ever read a Barbara Cartland novel?
shallow characters saying predictible lines racing along cliche
narrative tracks. Often they lack all subtly and are fantasies that
appeal to the immature. At best, most of them are little better than
summer blockbuster movies; full of sound and fury and signifying
nothing.
Of course, the medium is completely different (games are interactive,
the pacing is almost entirely up to the player, the story has to span
dozens of hours, and also appeal to some players who are more
interested in gameplay than narrative), so a comparison between the
two isn't entirely fair. And early games suffered from some severe
technical constraints that made it difficult to present a strong,
coherent story (most novels wouldn't even have fit on a single floppy
disk back in the day, much less have room for artwork and code).
But if you take *just* the story/characters/dialogue from the majority
of games and compare it to what you find in the cinema or prose, games compare poorly. And unless you're really into gaming, it's likely
you'll miss the titles with the stronger writing, because the ones
that are most often highlighted by media - the Halos, the Call of
Duties - aren't the ones with the characters or narratives that excite anything more than your adrenal glands. So to some degree the
snobbishness is understandable, if not entirely deserved.
On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 11:37:52 AM UTC-6, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:40:50 +0000, JAB <no...@nochance.com> wrote:
I did watch about twenty minutes of it but to be fair my better half put >it on and I was kinda engrossed in a book at the time.
I will give it another try but to be honest I have a horribly feeling >that it will suffer from what a lot of big budget US produced TV series >do. As the need for more and more episodes is demanded the plots will be >stretched out to fill the time up. The Walking Dead was a great example >of this. It started out as a series of sub stories that ran over one,the start, to be a single series that covers only the plot of the
two or three episodes to be extended to way beyond that point so that I >wanted to shout at the TV, can we just get to the story conclusion please. My understanding is that "The Last of Us" TV series is intended, from
original game. There are no intentions to extend the story - or the
show - beyond that. The series is also only 9 episodes, which is just
about right to encompass the story as told by the game.
That said, I can't say I'm entirely happy with the direction the show
took with episode 3. It's an interesting diversion - focusing almost entirely on a minor character (Bill) - met early in the game and
adding some depth (and unexpected sweetness) to the overall setting.
But on the other hand, I think it weakens the overall arc of the tale.
Then again, we're only a third of the way through the show, so I'll
withold final judgement until March. ;-)
As an aside hopefully it will help remove some of the snobbish attitude >towards games. There's this hierarchy of books at the top, then film, >then TV and trailing a long way in last places computer games. All I can >say is have you ever read a Barbara Cartland novel?To be fair, a lot of video game stories *are* awful. They are full of shallow characters saying predictible lines racing along cliche
narrative tracks. Often they lack all subtly and are fantasies that
appeal to the immature. At best, most of them are little better than
summer blockbuster movies; full of sound and fury and signifying
nothing.
Of course, the medium is completely different (games are interactive,
the pacing is almost entirely up to the player, the story has to span dozens of hours, and also appeal to some players who are more
interested in gameplay than narrative), so a comparison between the
two isn't entirely fair. And early games suffered from some severe technical constraints that made it difficult to present a strong,
coherent story (most novels wouldn't even have fit on a single floppy
disk back in the day, much less have room for artwork and code).
But if you take *just* the story/characters/dialogue from the majority
of games and compare it to what you find in the cinema or prose, games compare poorly. And unless you're really into gaming, it's likely
you'll miss the titles with the stronger writing, because the ones
that are most often highlighted by media - the Halos, the Call of
Duties - aren't the ones with the characters or narratives that excite anything more than your adrenal glands. So to some degree the
snobbishness is understandable, if not entirely deserved.
The TV show is pretty good, except I only get 20 FPS.
On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 2:24:00 AM UTC-8, Anssi Saari wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> writes:
So, is anyone else watching the "Last of US" TV series, adapted fromWell, no. I've been thinking about it, but I've also been thinking about playing the game. I just don't have a Playstation and those are a little hard to come buy, still. Well, looks like there's a PC release planned
the similarly named video game?
for March so maybe I'll just get it then.
Not that I'm too keen on post-apocalyptic settings or zombies.
I like both, but unfortunately most zombie games are survival horror,
and more 'adventure' (i.e. puzzles) which this is, and I'm not keen
on those aspects. Give me a nice post apoc zombie shooter and I'm
in.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:40:50 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
I did watch about twenty minutes of it but to be fair my better half put
it on and I was kinda engrossed in a book at the time.
I will give it another try but to be honest I have a horribly feeling
that it will suffer from what a lot of big budget US produced TV series
do. As the need for more and more episodes is demanded the plots will be
stretched out to fill the time up. The Walking Dead was a great example
of this. It started out as a series of sub stories that ran over one,
two or three episodes to be extended to way beyond that point so that I
wanted to shout at the TV, can we just get to the story conclusion please.
My understanding is that "The Last of Us" TV series is intended, from
the start, to be a single series that covers only the plot of the
original game. There are no intentions to extend the story - or the
show - beyond that. The series is also only 9 episodes, which is just
about right to encompass the story as told by the game.
That said, I can't say I'm entirely happy with the direction the show
took with episode 3. It's an interesting diversion - focusing almost
entirely on a minor character (Bill) - met early in the game and
adding some depth (and unexpected sweetness) to the overall setting.
But on the other hand, I think it weakens the overall arc of the tale.
Then again, we're only a third of the way through the show, so I'll
withold final judgement until March. ;-)
As an aside hopefully it will help remove some of the snobbish attitude
towards games. There's this hierarchy of books at the top, then film,
then TV and trailing a long way in last places computer games. All I can
say is have you ever read a Barbara Cartland novel?
To be fair, a lot of video game stories *are* awful. They are full of
shallow characters saying predictible lines racing along cliche
narrative tracks. Often they lack all subtly and are fantasies that
appeal to the immature. At best, most of them are little better than
summer blockbuster movies; full of sound and fury and signifying
nothing.
Of course, the medium is completely different (games are interactive,
the pacing is almost entirely up to the player, the story has to span
dozens of hours, and also appeal to some players who are more
interested in gameplay than narrative), so a comparison between the
two isn't entirely fair. And early games suffered from some severe
technical constraints that made it difficult to present a strong,
coherent story (most novels wouldn't even have fit on a single floppy
disk back in the day, much less have room for artwork and code).
But if you take *just* the story/characters/dialogue from the majority
of games and compare it to what you find in the cinema or prose, games compare poorly. And unless you're really into gaming, it's likely
you'll miss the titles with the stronger writing, because the ones
that are most often highlighted by media - the Halos, the Call of
Duties - aren't the ones with the characters or narratives that excite anything more than your adrenal glands. So to some degree the
snobbishness is understandable, if not entirely deserved.
So, is anyone else watching the "Last of US" TV series, adapted from
the similarly named video game?
Finally watched the last episode. And my reaction is... okay.
Still, kudos to the producers for sticking so closely to the source
material. I don't think any Hollywood movie or TV show has ever been
that earnest in its attempt to replicate a video game before, and that novelty alone earns it some points. Video games often have strong
characters and settings, and too often these are ignored by the
director, who has an entirely different vision. But show-runner Neil
Druckman remained true to the hard work of the video-game designers
(often to the point of recreating scenes from the game shot-for-shot
in the show), and I appreciate that.
That's not to say the TV show was identical in all aspects to the
game. The show seemed to have a distinctly different message from the
game; more of a 'what would you sacrifice of yourself to
survive/achieve your goal'* rather than the game's morally-ambiguous redemption arc. It was interesting in how the show often focused on characters /other/ than the two main protagonists to counterpoint the
hero's own choices. This decision both strengthened and weakened the
show; on the one hand, flipping between so many characters made the
show felt unfocused, but it made for a stronger message.
Pedro Pascal (Joel) and Bella Ramsey (Ellie) were excellently cast,
and worked well together. The Ellie character was extremely close to
the game's version; the show's Joel was grimmer but still played well.
None of the other characters were particularly memorable,
unfortunately, either because of uninspired acting or lackluster
writing.
But for all the show's strengths, it never really connected with me
the way the game did. I actually watched a long-play of the game
concurrently with the TV show, and the former always felt more
impactful to me. Of course, the game is a lot more light-hearted than
the show and its characters much more likeable in general. The game's
arc is one of returning to life: fleeing the dying cities, re-igniting
the parts of yourself that have been shut down by tragedy. And while
the TV show superficially follows the same narrative arc, it's far
more invested in showing how these characters became so dark in the
first place. So it's no wonder I felt more attached to the more
optimistic portrayals in the game.
But on the whole, that itself is unusual; movies/TV shows usually are
more impactful because they can pace their revelations better. Video
game narratives move at whatever pace the player demands, and the
needs of the story always have to be balanced against the need for
gameplay. It's hard to maintain the necessary tension of a narrative
when the protagonist is free to go off and kill mooks or search random building for hours on end whenever he feels like it. Cinema doesn't
face this same restriction, so it has the better drama. But that the
video game was the better of the two isn't so much a knock against the
show as it is a reminder of how well made the game was.
And it's really the fact that the show has to be compared to its
source material that is the biggest reason for my middling reaction to
it. Taken alone, I may very well have enjoyed the show a lot more, but
in comparison to the game? It looks the weaker of the two. HBO's "The
Last of Us" isn't a bad product in any way (although a tighter focus
and some better writing wouldn't be taken amiss). It's just that the
game was better.
* giving yet another subtext to already overburdened title, "the last
of us"
Is anyone else going to get the PC port? I will wait when it's free. ;)
On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 01:58:31 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
Is anyone else going to get the PC port? I will wait when it's free. ;)
I dunno; me, maybe? It's a great game but I already have it on console
so I'm not in a particular rush to get it again
On 3/19/2023 8:41 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 01:58:31 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
Is anyone else going to get the PC port? I will wait when it's free. ;)
I dunno; me, maybe? It's a great game but I already have it on console
so I'm not in a particular rush to get it again
WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL SPALLS!!
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 3/19/2023 8:41 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 01:58:31 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
Is anyone else going to get the PC port? I will wait when it's free. ;) >> >I dunno; me, maybe? It's a great game but I already have it on console
so I'm not in a particular rush to get it again
WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL SPALLS!!
YEAH! :P
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 04:25:56 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 3/19/2023 8:41 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 01:58:31 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
Is anyone else going to get the PC port? I will wait when it's free. ;) >> >I dunno; me, maybe? It's a great game but I already have it on console >> > so I'm not in a particular rush to get it again
WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL SPALLS!!
YEAH! :P
/// Don't not be concerned, humans. I am the Spalls-entity. All things
are nominal. Do not look in the cellar. There are no human remains to
be found there. Let us instead discuss NFTs.\\\
(I didn't say I wouldn't get the game; just that I'm not going to buy
it as soon as it hits the virtual store shelves. Which is par for the
course when it comes to my games acquisitions. I haven't paid day-one
full price for games in years. With so many games in my backlog, I'm
more than happy to wait one, two, ten years before getting a
particular game if it means I can get it at a discount. So worry not;
all games will be acquired in time.)
/// This is what the Spalls entity would say. And I am Spalls-entity.
Do not fear. Do not fear. Do not fear. Humans are not being secretly
replaced with synthoids. Such talk is folly. If you believe humans are
being replaced by synthoids, please report to your local synthoid
factory. Now instead let us discuss video entertainment software
released three decades ago. \\\
(I didn't say I wouldn't get the game; just that I'm not going to buy
it as soon as it hits the virtual store shelves. Which is par for the
course when it comes to my games acquisitions. I haven't paid day-one
full price for games in years. With so many games in my backlog, I'm
more than happy to wait one, two, ten years before getting a
particular game if it means I can get it at a discount. So worry not;
all games will be acquired in time.)
On 20/03/2023 14:53, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
(I didn't say I wouldn't get the game; just that I'm not going to buy
it as soon as it hits the virtual store shelves. Which is par for the
course when it comes to my games acquisitions. I haven't paid day-one
full price for games in years. With so many games in my backlog, I'm
more than happy to wait one, two, ten years before getting a
particular game if it means I can get it at a discount. So worry not;
all games will be acquired in time.)
I'll use the term premium price as I do still buy games in the more
budget end at full price, so for me it would be Desperados 3 which I
bought pretty much when it was released. Not cheap but I knew how much I >enjoyed Shadow Tactics (not only did I finish it, I even replayed it) so
it was quite easy to justify a price that I wouldn't normally pay for a
game.
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 08:29:56 +0000, JAB <no...@nochance.com> wrote:
On 20/03/2023 14:53, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
(I didn't say I wouldn't get the game; just that I'm not going to buy
it as soon as it hits the virtual store shelves. Which is par for the
course when it comes to my games acquisitions. I haven't paid day-one
full price for games in years. With so many games in my backlog, I'm
more than happy to wait one, two, ten years before getting a
particular game if it means I can get it at a discount. So worry not;
all games will be acquired in time.)
I'll use the term premium price as I do still buy games in the moreFull-price just isn't a thing for me anymore; not even for games I'm interested in. It's just too easy to get games on the cheap (or even
budget end at full price, so for me it would be Desperados 3 which I >bought pretty much when it was released. Not cheap but I knew how much I >enjoyed Shadow Tactics (not only did I finish it, I even replayed it) so >it was quite easy to justify a price that I wouldn't normally pay for a >game.
free) if you're patient.
Years ago, I was much more willing to pay the premium... but years
ago, you didn't have any assurance that the games going for $70 today
would still be available next week. Shelf space in stores was limited;
there were only so many copies available, and if all of the copies
were sold, there was no guarantee more would be forthcoming. So I
snatched them up almost as quickly as they became available. FOMO is a powerful motivator.
With digital distribution, there's a nearly infinite number of games.
If 100,000 people buy the game on day one, I can still be sure there
will be a 100,001st copy waiting for me. So there's no rush to get the
game on day one, or even day 100. And without that pressure, I can
start paying attention to other factors: things like price/value, or necessity. FOMO is still a motivator, but now it's aimed at those
factors: that I will get a game is almost a certainty, so instead my
fears are about missing out on a bargain. I'm actually motivated /not/
to buy a game on day one now.
I think publishers will eventually catch on to this, and start
sunsetting games ever more quickly, pulling them from digital
store-shelves in order to (re)create an artificial scarcity. It also benefits them because all the newest releases have to compete against
their older products too; do I spend $90USD on new-hotness "FarCry
XVII" (which has been receiving mediocre reviews) or instead buy "Far
Cry V" for 1/10th the price and has a 95% score on metacritic? All the
more since gaming today isn't like it was twenty years ago. Even games
from five or six years back are still competitive - both in terms of graphics and in gameplay - to more modern releases. There was a huge difference between "Bards Tale II" (1988) and "Baldurs Gate" (1998),
but between "Skyrim"(2011) and "Outer Worlds" (2021)? Not so much.
So while I still buy a lot of games, its almost never at full price,
and rarely even at a 50% discount. The vast bulk of purchased
additions are acquired as part of a bundle where - even if I disregard
all the other games in the bundle - a single game costs me about 25%
of full price. And for games not purchsed in a bundle? The $10USD mark
is often the tipping point; more than that and I just don't consider
it.
There are exceptions. I grabbed "Stray" at an 'unreasonably' high of
price of $20USD the other day (because kitty cat!!!! ;-), and
sometimes add GOG games at only a 10% discount (of course, since many
GOG games are older titles where their starting price is $9.99USD,
that's not saying much).
But $70 for a new game? Fuck that. And $70 for the privilege of pre-purchasing a game that hasn't even been released? You gotta be
shitting me; why would anyone do that?
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 08:29:56 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 20/03/2023 14:53, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
(I didn't say I wouldn't get the game; just that I'm not going to buy
it as soon as it hits the virtual store shelves. Which is par for the
course when it comes to my games acquisitions. I haven't paid day-one
full price for games in years. With so many games in my backlog, I'm
more than happy to wait one, two, ten years before getting a
particular game if it means I can get it at a discount. So worry not;
all games will be acquired in time.)
I'll use the term premium price as I do still buy games in the more
budget end at full price, so for me it would be Desperados 3 which I
bought pretty much when it was released. Not cheap but I knew how much I
enjoyed Shadow Tactics (not only did I finish it, I even replayed it) so
it was quite easy to justify a price that I wouldn't normally pay for a
game.
Full-price just isn't a thing for me anymore; not even for games I'm interested in. It's just too easy to get games on the cheap (or even
free) if you're patient.
Years ago, I was much more willing to pay the premium... but years
ago, you didn't have any assurance that the games going for $70 today
would still be available next week. Shelf space in stores was limited;
there were only so many copies available, and if all of the copies
were sold, there was no guarantee more would be forthcoming. So I
snatched them up almost as quickly as they became available. FOMO is a powerful motivator.
With digital distribution, there's a nearly infinite number of games.
If 100,000 people buy the game on day one, I can still be sure there
will be a 100,001st copy waiting for me. So there's no rush to get the
game on day one, or even day 100. And without that pressure, I can
start paying attention to other factors: things like price/value, or necessity. FOMO is still a motivator, but now it's aimed at those
factors: that I will get a game is almost a certainty, so instead my
fears are about missing out on a bargain. I'm actually motivated /not/
to buy a game on day one now.
I think publishers will eventually catch on to this, and start
sunsetting games ever more quickly, pulling them from digital
store-shelves in order to (re)create an artificial scarcity. It also
benefits them because all the newest releases have to compete against
their older products too; do I spend $90USD on new-hotness "FarCry
XVII" (which has been receiving mediocre reviews) or instead buy "Far
Cry V" for 1/10th the price and has a 95% score on metacritic? All the
more since gaming today isn't like it was twenty years ago. Even games
from five or six years back are still competitive - both in terms of
graphics and in gameplay - to more modern releases. There was a huge difference between "Bards Tale II" (1988) and "Baldurs Gate" (1998),
but between "Skyrim"(2011) and "Outer Worlds" (2021)? Not so much.
So while I still buy a lot of games, its almost never at full price,
and rarely even at a 50% discount. The vast bulk of purchased
additions are acquired as part of a bundle where - even if I disregard
all the other games in the bundle - a single game costs me about 25%
of full price. And for games not purchsed in a bundle? The $10USD mark
is often the tipping point; more than that and I just don't consider
it.
There are exceptions. I grabbed "Stray" at an 'unreasonably' high of
price of $20USD the other day (because kitty cat!!!! ;-), and
sometimes add GOG games at only a 10% discount (of course, since many
GOG games are older titles where their starting price is $9.99USD,
that's not saying much).
But $70 for a new game? Fuck that. And $70 for the privilege of pre-purchasing a game that hasn't even been released? You gotta be
shitting me; why would anyone do that?
Ditto. It wasn't bad. Is anyone else going to get the PC port? I will wait when it's free. ;)
a...@zimage.comANT (Ant) writes:
Ditto. It wasn't bad. Is anyone else going to get the PC port? I will wait when it's free. ;)
I'm tempted although I'm not sure. I haven't finished the show yet and
it's rather darker than what I usually like.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 105:52:41 |
| Calls: | 6,661 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,401 |