Wow, this must be in really rough shape to not only miss the Series X & S launch, but to also be delayed for almost an entire year.

eRe4s3r wrote on Dec 8, 2020, 18:14:
From what I am reading they literally took the effect pattern of an actual epilepsy testing device and put it as loading sequence for their brain-dive gameplay element.... that sounds to me like either 100% malicious intent, or just super overworked artists who took quick shortcuts without thinking. Either way, that ain't something your average Quality Assurance ever catches...

And by the way, this makes it quite a bit different, even with warning to use the actual pattern of an epilepsy tester is downright horrific. That will trigger epilepsy in nearly EVERYONE susceptible to it and only doctors ever use that, in a controlled test environment.

I hope this is what all the triggered people here are missing. Apparently it is the red and white strobe lights that people with photosensitive epilepsy are very susceptible to. Is it really such a big deal if they just changed the colors to red and black and toned down the strobe effect? Nobody would have known the difference if this is what it was to begin with.

Praise Jesus! Hallelujah! Cyberpunk 2077 is descending from the clouds!

Blue, the game's title has 'New' at the beginning of it. "Super Lucky's Tale" was released December 2017 for Xbox and Windows.

I played the first two stages of "New Super Lucky's Tale" and the game does seem much more polished. I'm not sure how much of the game they have actually remade, but the intro was different, the first hub world is new, and I believe the first two stages are entirely new. I've watched a few trailer videos of this game and the publisher has done a very lackluster job at emphasizing how this game is different from the original. I was assuming it was the original game with a fresh coat of paint, but from what I've played it feels more like a sequel using the same or similar art assets.

jdreyer wrote on Jul 29, 2020, 20:54:
I'm glad they have a roadmap charting the release of the roadmap.

lol, it's so sad. How are they not embarrassed by this? At this point I'd honestly prefer if they went radio silent until they actually had a full product to release or they went bankrupt (I'm not sure which will come first). Then they'd actually have something that was newsworthy to announce.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jul 29, 2020, 13:31:

|RaptoR| wrote on Jul 29, 2020, 12:02:
The older I get, the more I feel disconnected from the mainstream "gamers."

I am 100% there with you.

It's hard for me to understand why some people get so worked up over games, to the point of sending nasty emails or death threats to the developers. These people act as if the devs have personally insulted them or they have literally done them bodily harm. I think the last time I felt genuine anger over the development of a game was back in 2003 when the Deus Ex: Invisible War demo was released. I never sent them a nasty email; I just didn't buy the game.

I want to play this game but I'm afraid of buying it and hating it. It's too bad Activision published it because I've never seen the game on sale for less than $35.

Played the game for 30 minutes because it's on Xbox Game Pass. I completely forgot about their being single player so that was a pleasant surprise. Gameplay seemed much more polished than other games I've played in early access. Seems like it could be a fun survival game to get into with friends. I'm not sure how the single player will pan out, but nonetheless I am looking forward to Obsidian adding more content to it.

My guess is that most of the first party games that are apparently exclusive to Xbox Series X and Windows will not be released within the next year or two. We haven't seen any real gameplay outside of the games that are releasing for both consoles... Halo Infinite, Psychonauts 2, Wasteland 3, Grounded.

I thought for sure this had to be a free-to-play game. How can EA possibly think that this can compete with other free-to-play games? Or is this going to be another one of those games that is buy-to-play upon release and then is soon converted to free-to-play.

ColoradoHoudini wrote on Jul 14, 2020, 17:04:
I am watching this on Twitch right now.. I am whelmed.
This seems like a F2P mobile game or a game made (mechanically) for an older console.

Whelmed means the same thing as overwhelmed, yet I keep seeing people use it to mean a reaction either between overwhelmed and underwhelmed or just underwhelmed. Where did this incorrect use of the word 'whelmed' start?

I tried twice to play this game and each time I quickly lost interest. It felt like a single player RPG with the design of an MMORPG (not surprising given the development history of this game). The game was released a few months after Skyrim so it already had outdated design when it was released. It's not like this game sold extremely well when it first came out, so who is even going to be interested in a remaster of an eight year old game for $40+ not to mention a collector's edition for $110? Are they crazy?

killer_roach wrote on Jun 22, 2020, 20:43:
Missing one game in there - but if you thought Beyond was too weird of gameplay I'm pretty sure you'd about lose it with Omikron.

I didn't list Omikron because, from what I remember, it's pretty different from their later games. It would be at the bottom of the list anyway. Interesting world but the FPS gameplay was one of the worst I've ever played.

I would love to see a remaster of the original. Still my favorite game after all these years.

Glad to see Quantic Dream porting these games to PC. Hopefully this means their future games won't be PS exclusive.

Here's my ranking of their games:
1. Heavy Rain
2. Detroit
3. Fahrenheit
4. Beyond: Two Souls

Heavy Rain had a great story and was suspenseful and exciting. Detroit had a much deeper message than their other games and was very enjoyable. Fahrenheit started out strong but the last act of the story was really disappointing.
With Beyond the story and gameplay just felt too weird to me so I never finished it. With one character to play there also seemed to be less consequences to repeatedly failing quick-time events (no chance at an untimely death). I remember I purposely tried to fail every step of basic training and she still passed with no apparent consequence to the story.

Personally this is not what I wanted to see out of a new expansion. I wished they had added more depth to what they already had, not add an entirely new aspect to the game which will likely be even more shallow than the base game. They added SRVs to the game nearly five years ago and there's still very little you can actually do in an SRV and almost none of it is fun.

I play these types of games to pilot spaceships. I just don't care about being able to walk around as a character and I especially don't care about having first-person shooter gameplay bolted on. There's so many other games I could play if I wanted to play a FPS (and they will undoubtedly have better FPS gameplay). There are not, however, many games which I can pilot a spaceship.

I don't understand why game developers feel there is a need for first person shooter gameplay in spaceship games. I thought Cloud Imperium was foolish to spend such an incredible amount of time adding FPS gameplay when no one who Kickstarted the game even expected it to be a part of the game. Now Frontier Developments is following suit.

It's hard to believe that they are just starting this process now. Why did they not start this six months to a year ago? By the time they release anything worthwhile no one will care anymore because there won't be any players left.

I tried playing this a few months ago and matchmaking took forever and I had to play many of the missions solo which was not fun to do. There's so few new players that it's a chore to even get beyond the the first few missions.

Orogogus wrote on May 7, 2020, 16:15:

Desalus wrote on May 7, 2020, 15:42:
Even if they had no character appearance customization I wouldn't feel like I'm missing out on anything. I'd rather the developer's efforts be put into something else.

Maybe it's the same tool they use to generate NPCs.

That's a good point. They could have the functionality in place and just need a UI developer to make it pretty.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on May 7, 2020, 12:15:

Interesting question. I was going to say "most people" customize a character, but I have no real data to back that up aside from anecdotal evidence. Personally, if the options exist, I make at least one character look SOMETHING like myself, but since those options usually don't exist, usually I just settle for a character that isn't the default, looks different enough from the default that we aren't all clones if it's a multiplayer game, and remove all tattoos/scars. Ive noticed every multiplayer game, every character is covered in tattoos/scars/facepaint/whatever. Also all tacti-cool gear in Division 2, etc. Less is more, but the more serious the game, the more likely I am to make a sillier looking character just to not look like everyone else dressed in gray/black/white armor.

Also, hey new buttons on Bluesnews, nice.

In MMORPGs, yes, having enough character customization is important so that my character doesn't look like every other character running around. Still, for those MMORPGs that have 100 different facial sliders, I'm never going to customize to that amount of granularity. Give me a good array of faces, skin color, hair, facial hair, hair color, and eye color, and that's basically all I care about.

In the past whenever I have really gotten into character appearance customization I can become way too obsessive over how they look. I remember in Oblivion spending far too much time changing my character's appearance, then I got them into the game and the lighting was different so they looked ugly. Then I would delete the character and start over again. It was so tiresome.

I honestly prefer that the developers give me an iconic character to play with because they usually put extra effort into making that character look good and then I can get straight to playing the game. I didn't mind not having any choice about what Geralt looked like in the Witcher games. I chose the default Commander Sheperd in Mass Effect. I chose the default Hawke in Dragon Age 2. I'm currently playing the Wolfenstein games and I never once wished I could change the appearance of B.J. Blazkowicz. In Cyberpunk 2077 in all likelihood I'll be playing as the iconic male character seen in the trailers and that is entirely fine with me. Even if they had no character appearance customization I wouldn't feel like I'm missing out on anything. I'd rather the developer's efforts be put into something else.

I'd like to know how much time the average person actually spends customizing the appearance of their characters in video games. For the games that have highly intricate appearance customization, how many players actually use it?

Personally, in single player games if the default character isn't ugly I don't even bother with character appearance customization. The extent of my character appearance customization in Cyberpunk 2077 will be clicking through the preset characters to see which one looks the best and then clicking the 'next' button to just get into the game.

The amount of time developers put into building intricate character customization just seems like a huge waste of time. I can't imagine that many players make use of 100 different sliders to adjust ever aspect of a character.

Xero wrote on Mar 25, 2020, 11:26:
All I want from Avalanche is a Mad Max 2.

I second that. I had a great time playing Mad Max and it was certainly underrated. Unfortunately sales probably under-performed because of the reviews, so I don't have much hope of seeing Mad Max 2, especially from Avalanche Studios.