The only reason to have an open world is to actually *do* something with it. That can mean something like GTA or Saints Row where you get the spontaneous cop chases and gang fights you couldn't get in another type of game, or it can mean something like Morrowind where you're following written directions looking for specific landmarks trying to navigate the world.
Having absolutely everything marked on the map because you climbed a tower *is* a waste of time. At tha...
No single game is worth the $200 console + $50 XBL + $60 game. I'm not paying $310 for 1 game. Especially considering after I burn out of that one game I'll never use it.
*All* multiplats will be played on whichever platform I own that runs them best and the only way I'm getting any other system is if they have enough single player exclusives I'm interested in at low enough prices to drop the price per game below $60, and none of them meet that standard. Wh...
No, not really.
See, if you want exploring to be rewarding you have to specifically and intentionally design a map that's fun to explore. You need very carefully placed landmarks that catch the players attention so they can use them to navigate, but at the same time don't feel contrived. You need to implement tools suitied to your game that aid in exploration (for example, the ability to leave chalk markings on trees or walls telling you where you've been and po...
That's how. You said it your self. EXPLORE the map to open it up. Rushing straight to obvious high points where you'll map literally everything isn't exploring.
The concept actually makes sense (find a high point and use it to make note of whatever landmakrs are visible) but Ubisoft abused it constantly and instead of just marking landmarks is marks *everything* so there is no need to explore at all, just rush from one landmark to the next "unlocking"...
Burnout 3.
Worth making a distinction, it's not my favorite game (though it's my 2nd favorite racing game) but literally nothing is out of place, and the one thing that could be seen as a flaw (the crash camera) can be turned off.
The reason it goes to Burnout 3 instead of Hot Pursiut (2011) is that the hot pursuit and 1v1 modes in Hot Pursuit aren't very well balanced. Giving the cops an edge to keep the chase intense alse means you're ...
Ok, jackass, jets do the math.
5 minute youtube video in 1080p is 107mb. Lets just call it 100. Some easily double that, but lest just be generous. I watch about ~ 7 videos a day to get the news. That's what, 210 GB of just the news in a month?
Not counting either of the 2 netflix accounts active in my house, not counting any of the anime I watch, not counting the data necessary for gaming online, not counting multiple GB day one patches for basica...
Them selling the PS1 and PS2 games and offering PS now isn't anti consumer. Them not allowing any form of backwards compatability when their system is *more than capable* of running the software necessary to play PS1 and PS2 games is. There is a difference.
One is "you can play all your old games but if you don't have them or never got around to them then here is another way to play them"
One is "you can't play any of your old games and if you wa...
1: That's a dodge. There is NO reason except simple greed for them to not have PS1 and PS2 emulation. It would in no way be expensive, but they'd rather re-sell you games you already own and so don't allow it.
2: I don't know where you get your 7% number, but I don't believe you. Source please. Further, even if it was true, the Playstation division of Sony last gen was one of the only areas of the company that continued to remain profitable, so in no wa...
1: Where did I mention PS3 emulation? PS2 and PS1 emulation aren't that hard. There are half a dozen working emulators for each, and if randoms an the internet can do it then so can Sonys paid software engineers.
2: That doesn't somehow excuse Sony for doing it. It's still anti consumer. And no, they weren't bleeding money before it (else how would Steam and GOG stay afloat?) it's almost pure profit. It also doesn't matter what it does or does not h...
Reasons Sony isn't player friendly.
1: The are deliberately refusing to include general backwards compatability (even though the PS4 is more than capable of emulating at least the PS1 and PS2) so they can re-sell you games you already own (or worse, sell you a subscription service, PS Now, that will let you play them only if you continue to pay.)
2: Charging for online even though you already pay for your internet and the developers pay for any relevant serve...
Yes, because downloading games is *literally* the only thing anybody ever does with their internet. It serves no other purpose. It can't be being used to stream ~3gb 1080p movies on a regular basis. Definitely can't be being used for ~750mb episodes of any random TV series on netflix or cruncyroll. Youtube isn't a thing. You don't need to use considerable amounts of data just to play online games on a regular basis.
Or, you're a moron.
Oh dear god, it's gotten so bad that when games journalists ask hard questions now they're too mean.
The west is screwed.
You get cloud storage free on PC too. Even if Steam didn't do it, nothing stopping you throwing your save games up on google drive or mega.
You aren't going too. The whole reason they end up "free" is because they've sold basically all that they're going too so they aren't losing money by "giving" it away.
You already pay for your internet.
Devs pay for severs.
It's just price gouging, and giving away "free" games that are old enough that nobody was going to buy them anyways so no money is lost. If I wanted them, I'd already have them. (In the like 2 years I had PS+ on the PS3 there were like 3 games I actually enjoyed that I didn't already have.) The *only* reason I would want to, and the only reason many people do, pay is because they're...
You mean forever right?
You already pay for your internet.
The Developer/publisher pays for the servers.
Sony/MS/Nintendo are charging you just because they can and it's basically pure profit. You shouldn't put up with it.
Don't kid yourself.
Beyond Good and Evil was an action/adventure stealth game that was primarily about solving "dungeons" you'd snuck into so you could gather photo evidence of whatever was going on. That's not going to translate to a giant open world unless said open world is just a very big hub connecting much more linear "dungeon" areas, and if that's the case the wouldn't be wasting so much money (3 years developing an engine) o...
If by "ever changing" you mean "intent on ruining IPs and genres by stripping them of the things that made them work by setting them in an open world and making them the same stupid action oriented collectathon as every other Open World game released in the last 6 years" then I agree.
Somehow, I don't think that's what you meant.
I'm sure the director will do his best to salvage his vision for the game despite Ubisofts me...
Then you should add EA, Ubisoft, Activision/Blizzard, and possibly Bethesda to that list (though of those Bethesda is definitely the least exploitative/shady.)
I'm not saying you're wrong, btw. SE I take on a case by case basis because they do a lot of publishing work (mostly for handhelds) where they don't meddle too much, but on PC I basically never buy their stuff because denuvo.
On current consoles? You have to pick. Hell with some games a $1500 PC has to pick.
Ask yourself this:
If you bought the game, would you have bought it new?
If the answer to that question is no, then the developer/publisher wouldn't have seen any money anyways and it makes no difference.