Cethin

Sure. You can make those, but you have to spend a lot of money and time making the open world just to make places for the rooms to live. Is that worth it? Everything is opportunity cost. Did doubling the cost improve the game that much?

I dont really understand your point. Devs still curate where you meet the enemies. Its not like its procedurally generated map where everything is random.

I haven’t played it, so maybe they’ve done something to control it. I doubt it though. If you can come from any direction, that makes encounters much harder to design. Think about older Borderlands games when entering a compound. You’d come through one main gate and enemies would be set up with cover and you’d have to fight your way through. With open world you could do something like fly into the middle of the compound, and that’s has to be accounted for.

Check out Roboquest, for example. It has some really impressive movement options, but it’s choice of rooms let’s them restrict how much you can abuse them. You’ll always be fighting through the enemies from an expected direction.

I cant remember single time in my 20 hours of gameplay where i have tought that i hate fighting here, or that these enemies dont fit here.

This isn’t what I meant. There’s nuance between liking something and it being the best possible thing. It can be good and still be possible to be better. My biggest issue with open worlds is, like you mentioned at the beginning, fast travel. It takes so much time and resources to make an open world, just for players to fast travel past most of it. Is it really worth the that? Did it add that much to the experience? We could have more cheaper games with tighter designed experiences instead of games that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. (BL3 cost $140m, and for cost “more than twice” that, so minimum $280m.)

I don’t think people understand that everything is an opportunity cost. If you make an open world game, that’s at the expensive of so much more. At minimum, it’s going to be less game to play (or longer between games and more expensive). Is getting a lot of space that you hardly interact with worth it?

Yeah, I just have a bias against open world games at this point. Damn near every game thinks they need to be open world, and most of the time it just makes things more tedious and boring. It takes a ton of dev time to make just for players to run past 99% of it. There are some games it really works for, but most would be better off with a tighter design (and it’d also save time and money).

I really don’t understand the open world though. I don’t think that’s the direction they needed to go. I think the best looter-shooter I’ve played recently is Roboquest. It has all the movement you said (and more), but it’s in tight rooms, so the devs have more control of the design. Open worlds means the devs have essentially zero control of encounters and it becomes too easy. The only thing they can do is crank up health of enemies so they don’t die as quickly.

I think it was a really good game originally. The writing has gotten really fucking bad though, and the gameplay hasn’t really evolved with the times. (I can’t speak on the new game.)

Demon’s Souls, Dark Souls 2, and Sekiro?

I suspect it won’t work for them, but I think the idea that they can’t work is wrong. With a really passionate and talented team, I think it could be done very well. It’d take real innovation though, unlike BotW. BotW was innovative for LoZ, but almost everything it’d done had been done before. I would say currently the closest formula they could copy is Elden Ring, and it isn’t as much of a Metroidvania as previous more enclosed entries were.

Sure, if it doesn’t cost anything and you aren’t giving anything up, fine. Keep doing what you’re doing. I don’t care. If you’re buying a game, reconsider. If you’re buying an OS, reconsider. If you are tired of having an OS that is literally malware that you don’t control and that is constantly advertising and spying on you, reconsider.

My point of the console example was that no, you won’t just put up with anything just to keep up. Have some boundaries. Stop just letting them push you around. The more you allow it the more they’ll do it. Once people actually start advocating for what’s best for them rather than what a corporation allows them to do then things will improve.

What if they had an Xbox and their friends were playing a PS exclusive game? Would you buy them the new console just so they can play that one game, or would you tell them that sucks but they can try to convince their friends to play a game that supports their system?

Most older games work fine. It’s usually the newer ones that are the issue, with kernel level AC. For games to not work requires an active choice most of the time now. Of course, there are some exceptions.

More profitable is not the same thing as better. For example, Marvel movies are pretty shit, but they make a ton of money. Palworld is better than Pokémon, for many reasons. One major one is that it actually tried to innovate on something. That’s more than Game Freak has done in decades despite having an infinite money glitch.

I haven’t played them in ages, but from what I’ve seen of them they’re worse than we had back then. At least they tried to present some challenge. I think that’s mostly gone now, like it is for most mainstream gaming.

I would recommend for people not to install W11 just for a tiny handful of games. Most work on Linux. If they want to specifically add things to make it only work on Windows you shouldn’t reward them by following along. Find better games to play.

The longer people play along with their game the longer they try to force people onto Windows. Until they are forced to support Linux you shouldn’t support them.

It’s not comparing him to Hitler. It’s pointing out that everyone has a line where killing them is better than not, and Hitler is the extreme example that everyone should agree that killing him is better. It isn’t making the case Kirk is past that line for everyone, but pointing out the idea it’s never allowed is stupid.

People can debate whether it is worth it in this case if they want. However, the thought terminating cliche that it’s never acceptable should be ignored. Pointing to Hitler is a good way to dispel that idea for people.

It also jumps around a bunch, with several people telling, supposedly, the same story but it happens differently each time.

Sure, but there’s no obligation to give a company the username with their company name.

This sounds like you’re saying the Nepalese people are inferior, because it’s surprising they could manage this. If this is not your intent, your wording is not ideal.

In all honesty, they’re perfectly suited to do this. High unemployment and a government that’s corrupt and tried to shut down forms of communication, and then kills a bunch of protesters, and they’re and they’re a relatively small nation. It isn’t surprising at all.

Sure, but why even do that minor thing for them? Just ignore it like it deserves.

Why comply? As far as I’m aware there’s no legal obligation to do so. They think they can just ask for things and get them. Fuck them.

I’m not talking about the “correct” response. I said it wouldn’t be a reasonable argument. I was talking about the argument that will be made in court. It’ll be bullshit, but I bet it’ll be something along the lines I said above.