I will see an announcement trailer, then do my best to forget that it’s happening until the game actually releases. Sometimes it’s months, sometimes it’s years, but I actively avoid spoilers or online chatter about development cycles, etc because I found it hampers my inevitable enjoyment of the game.
I learned this lesson a long time ago, and Baldur’s Gate 3 really crystallized it. It was in “pre-release” for years, and I refused to participate, I heard “bad” things, then of course it came out and was absolutely stellar.
I knew they were working on a W4, now I see what it will basically be, I’m happy until I can actually play it.
this is by no means a shot at you but this is the first overwatch player so far I’ve seen say this. I’ve not yet played rivals, and may not, but I quit overwatch finally about 6 months ago after exasperation about a dev team that is clearly just mashing buttons hoping something will stick. I’m a tank main (diamond) that dabbles in support (plat) so take it for what you will but the experience, especially tanking, has been MISERABLE for a long time, maybe even since they went to 5v5. I hated the double shield meta that existed in ow1 but this is borderline unplayable to me, I can’t to my mind think of a worse gameplay experience right now, so it’s hard for me to imagine rivals isn’t better automatically. One immediate turnoff is the third person POV though, I hate that a lot
as far as role queue I hated that more than anything. my winrate went way down when they introduced that, because of how many wins you can get automatically by them refusing to pick a good tank matchup or a tank at all. In unlimited mode or whatever it’s called with no roles, I enjoy it a lot more, because it also rewardd being able to switch roles on the fly.
she got a MILITARY leader??? well it’s one battle.
it is tone deaf for trying to get sales from the gaming culture these days but whatever. am I probably going to play this game cause I play Civ games? probably at the first sale though I don’t game on PC much these days.
I am Civ V >>>>>>> VI though, so I’ll have to wait and see how VII plays anyway.
they’re separating leaders from civilization stats and I really am not a fan of that at all. This is to support a broader array of “heroes” like here, but, I think it just makes it unnecessarily complex
recently got my first cultural victory ever though. worstcondition by far. hard to imagine anything topping civ 6
I get it, more leaders = more DLC opportunities. Well ghandi was in there but people want actual world leaders for the most part. Tubman really brings out the racists in the comments so well played there except she’s not going to make people want to buy the game or anyone was asking for really.
I probably wouldn’t have played Civ V half as much if it was franklin instead of washington/lincoln for team USA. I don’t know if it’ll impact the sales numbers or not, but people want world leaders/historical figures and they’re going a bit low on that (tubman is great, but wasn’t a big historical leader in number terms) (I get it it’s VII and they don’t want the same people every time, but many people do)
Yea, I get it, I just don’t really like it. The Tubman thing is whatever, I think most people that play Civ are a little bit history geeks so won’t mind stuff like that. I do like it being all leaders though, tied to particular civilizations - it’s really funny winning a game as Islamic America under Abraham Lincoln, things like that, you can almost RP and imagine different versions of history. Harriet Tubman leading Poland would completely break whatever immersion exists for me.
I just hope they don’t try to change too much. To me, the fully loaded civ 6 is absolutely perfect right now, other than the glitches and crashes and performance issues that have been ever-present since its release (if you think it’s bad on PC, I’ve been playing on a PS4, it’s horrific). The climate DLC to me was a stroke of genius, it puts a realistic clock on the game to where nations can’t just turtle to an easy science victory, and makes you think about early game decisions a lot more carefully than you normally would.
AI improvements would be nice, it’s a lot better than it used to be but they still do hopelessly dumb shit even on the higher difficulties and don’t seem to understand their own win conditions very well, so a difficulty bump there would be nice. I also kind of hope they nerf nukes in some way, because essentially once you get nukes the game is over, or if your win condition starts doing poorly you can just go “fuck it, nukes” which I guess is realistic I just wish you did not get them so stupid early in the science tree. I know, I know, you can disable uranium or use a mod to make it better, but still. I am constantly disappointed at how “free” nuclear usage is, because if that’s available to me I’ll essentially always use it and it feels like cheating. I also feel like the AI avoids nukes more than they should. Like, essentially, I hate the scenario where the easiest way to get a diplomatic victory sometimes is to just nuke the entire planet until no one opposes you anymore. There should (and would be) serious consequences to doing that in a real world scenario.
Been playing this a lot lately so have a lot in my head about it, sorry for the screed
Fucking pure gambling loot boxes in games? Ok for all ages!
Game where you play with playing cards and try to earn points to win said game and have no way to exchange real money for a chance at winning anything that can then be resold? Adults only bitches, slap an 18+ on that shit.
Somebody better inform PEGI that Microsoft Solitaire has a Vegas mode where you use fake dollars instead of points. How is that filth auto loaded onto my windows? What ever will I do if my 16 year old finds it?
Overwatch went the opposite direction. Got rid of loot boxes and launched a battle pass and a store. Unfortunately, the loot box system was much more enjoyable. It was also the least predatory loot box system, as it was all cosmetic and you could earn lots of loot boxes just by playing.
I get why they need to be eliminated, but at least in Overwatch, loot boxes were better.
The thing that pisses me off is that Madden is always a steaming pile of shit because it is designed to be a delivery mechanism for their highly predatory and super -EV gambling systems. The business model is very profitable so we will never have a good NFL game.
But EA is a massive company and the Balatro dev is one dude making a great $15 game with 0 mtx ever.
well, balatro is also an outlier, there’s tons of games being made so to make a good one AND that one gets through to the masses enough to be a hit is hard. Madden sucks but they really don’t have to reinvent the wheel, make a football game nobody cares. It’s just weirdos like me who used to play madden every few years who don’t anymore, most people it’s just buy it the next year so they’re in the position of don’t ruin it rather than make it good.
I tried balatro and quit in about 5 minutes, phone games or the super nintendo has better graphics and it’s the type of game I just struggle with maintaining interest.
That and the lack of competition due to the exclusive license is why madden kinda sucked before Ultimate Team.
EA generated $1.62 billion in revenue from Ultimate Team in the fiscal year 2021, which was 29% of the company’s total revenue.
Now they make the rest of the game intentionally suck because getting one pay pig into Ultimate Team is worth dozens of game sales, which it doesn’t even come close to costing them because of the monopoly.
The initiation of this discussion was the fact that Balatro got slapped with an 18+ rating solely because it uses poker hands as part of its scoring. Whereas FIFA and Madden get an E rating for a game where the majority of their revenue comes from people literally gambling for real money (because EA is a megacorp and localthunk is just a guy).
I mean, you knew that, random old normal person that is what they’re going to do rating those things. as I noted before, loot boxes have been marketed to kids forever and people like loot boxes.