Jump to content

Duderino

Member
  • Content count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9

About Duderino

  • Rank

  1. EVO 2018 Line-up: Marvel Infinite out, DBZ in

    People have complained about Smash’s inclusion at EVO for at least a decade now. It’s always the same tired arguments that the organization, players, and spectators just don’t give validity to anymore. The simple fact of the matter is Smash has consistently had a strong showing at the event, making it a mainstay. The best case against Smash's inclusion for future EVOs would be a streak of stellar fighting game releases with thriving communities that can bring in comparable numbers. That's what MvC:I should have been, but here we are with two Smash entries instead. Capcom dropped the ball and Melee was likely the next logical choice.
  2. Red Dead Redemption 2: October 26, 2018

    I would think most AAA games coming this year, outside of COD, have been aiming for completion before or shortly after Red Dead’s former Spring 2018 date. Only way to have any sort flexibility if the date moved (or stuck). Now hopefully development is going well enough for everyone else, because a delay into Red Dead’s window would mean either the tittle(s) in question would be either sent out to die, or delayed till 2019. The one I wonder the most about is the new Battlefield. Dice probably hasn’t had the time to be ready to ship anytime other than Fall. In a normal year that wouldn’t be a problem, but this year there are soo many other tittles that will take up mindshare, plus they have to shake the BFII fiasco.
  3. The biggest thread between the Sony’s exclusives has to be the presentation bar. It’s just consistently high these days. Dreams for example couldn’t be further from GOW, but they both impress, albeit in different ways. (at least I think they do) Think it’s fair to say Sony has a FPS void now that Guerilla has moved onto Horizon. Lacking a FPS doesn’t necessarily mean they lack diversity though. Their Japanese exclusives do bring a lot of variety to the table for example.
  4. It’s still very odd to me that Sony funding a game is somehow reason enough to believe it will get delayed, even when a dev team is independent. I really think the teams behind each title should be the first consideration. They’re the ones ultimately responsible for hitting the dates after all. Tying to bring this back to Anthem, there’s enough at stake here for both Bioware’s and EA’s reputation that a botched launch could really hurt the company. If there’s even a chance of failure, they’ll give it more time in the cooker.
  5. What's Insomniac and Quantic Dream's record like? Technically they're not a part of Sony after all.
  6. PUBG on Xbox One X

    Don't think it's quite that simple. Both PUBG and Fortnight Battle Royal run on UE4, albeit different builds of it. PUBG is likely missing some key engine-side optimizations that Epic has gradually been adding to make Fortnight:BR run reasonably well, at least comparatively. Then again, even with those improvements I still doubt PUBG would reach a similar performance level. The jaguar CPU just takes the already questionable performance and makes it even worse.
  7. That door has already been opened. Battlefront is only one of many tittles this year that legislators can point to as reason for concern. Unless the ESA can convince publishers to drop loot boxes across the board or the ESRB enacts change in it's rating policy, government intervention isn't going away.
  8. IGN's 2017 GOTY Nominees

    I really need to get back to Horizon. Liked the world and gameplay, but the characters and plot were falling a little flat for me. Normally that wouldn’t be enough to turn me away, but I had Zelda to play. I do hope the inevitable Horizon sequel cuts down on the scavaging and map clutter though. For me it really detracted from the scope of the world. I spent way too much time looking a few meters ahead for the next plant to gather instead of plotting my next move in the distance. Still a solid game IMO, have no qualms with it being a GOTY contender.
  9. Microsoft's Xbox One X Trap

    I really don’t think next gen console visuals will be defined by resolutions the way this generation has. Same goes for texture sizes. It’s not that these metrics are going away, just that like polygons now, pixels, and the hardware's the ability to push them, will stop holding the same weight as before.
  10. Loot boxes are not bad game design, say devs

    If not monetized, it can be ok if the dev is careful to use it in a way that supports the design. (Definitely hasn't been the norm this year) Let's use the weapons crate in COD Zombies as an example. The RNG factor adds to the replay value of each subsequent play-through because you have to adapt after earning enough points to roll the dice for a random new gun. If Activision though was to say, put a prompt in your face to purchase additional spins if you don't get the gun you want, that hurts the immersion for anyone not partaking in micro-transactions and lessens the replay factor for anyone who does. It would basically be at odds with the core design of the mode, while also preying on the desire to continue as soon as a round goes poorly. (Speaking of which, does anyone know if COD:WW2 does this or not?) Pay-to-win, pay-to-cheat, pay-to-skip, or pay-to-earn; none of it qualifies as good game design. Dressing it up in a purchasable box and making you roll for it is just taking something already bad and making it a whole lot worse.
  11. Loot boxes are not bad game design, say devs

    Same reason the weapon crate worked for COD zombies, it doesn’t break the 3rd wall by requiring the player toss real world cash at it. What can make Loot Boxes bad design isn’t RNG in itself, it’s RNG coupled with the immersion breaking push to trade in real money for that dice roll. I'm glad you brought up Borderlands. Randy Pitchfork did a great job explaining why the monetized Loot Box should not be confused for the Loot Box as it exists in Gearbox’s game. I agree with him that we should be calling the poor design of selling it something else.
  12. Loot boxes are not bad game design, say devs

    Loot Boxes, reguardless of how predatory you think they are, still are bad game design. Crispy4000 was on the right track with the Kotaku opinion piece he posted. I find it quite telling that no one has addressed any of that yet.
  13. Loot boxes are not bad game design, say devs

    I’m not sure what’s left to explain. The parallels you’ve drawn are a stretch at best and do not address the fundimental question of the thread; are Loot Boxes good or bad game design. From that standpoint, what makes something soo unabashedly unimaginative as a purchasable dice-roll worth making excuses for? The saddest part about all this, ten years ago this sort of debate was reserved for topics like "At what point do in-game advertisements conflict with the design". And now here we are today, putting up with something far more intrusive, lazy, and out of place.
  14. Loot boxes are not bad game design, say devs

    You’re trying to excuse the unchecked use of blindly-purchased, random number generated, digital goods because, well...flash sales are also designed to get people to spend money. It's justification by loose association. What’d I miss?
  15. Loot boxes are not bad game design, say devs

    Double post... ignore
×