It’s true that playing for money is a huge part of playing poker at all, both casually and professionally. Does that mean a game just teaching poker hands should be considered as adult as actual gambling? If so, a game like The Binding of Isaac should get the same 18+ as Balatro since it has actual slot machines that you put money into, but instead it gets a 16+.
Agreed that it’s ridiculous, but there are plenty of other games out there that are less objectionable, like ones that are played almost exclusively by kids.
That sour electric aroma you can smell is the collective anxiety-stench of games journalists trying to decide whether it’s worth sitting through the full investor presentation in the hopes of discovering some proper context for these pitiful morsels - perhaps even a unique angle which none of those other hacks have discovered, the feckless layabouts.
So he’s taking his frustrations out on the reader by padding his article with sympathy-bait? I’ve come to really dislike Rock Paper Shotgun articles lately
I’d like to remember Evolve more fondly than I do, but I just didn’t have as much fun with it as I hoped. My strongest memories are of feeling annoyed at a constantly recharging jetpack
easy cash grab
You said it
I think they did them just right. I wouldn’t go farther, but I’m very happy with how it was done. That being said, I don’t expect them to do it like that again because it would just be too predictable
Personal preservation is perfectly valid and doesn’t automatically mean sharing aka piracy. If killing emulation prevents a legit owner from playing their game you’re diminishing the authority of that ownership. Now I’m not arguing all claims of personal preservation are always ok since some games give you a limited license to play and are not owned, but that just means it’s important to see the nuance
There’s no simple answer to that since games become inaccessible in different ways and with different severities. It’ll always be an argument you have to make.
It’s not about the number of years, it’s about how accessible the original title is. The less accessible, the better you can justify the existence of emulating that title
The game being worked on now isn’t really the same game that was originally backed. They essentially had to restart development a few years after the campaign because the scope had expanded. The tech at the time didn’t cut it so they’ve spent most of the time since then creating new tech that would
After the presentation they recorded a new no-crash version and uploaded that to YouTube as well. They wanted to risk the crashes during the presentation to show it was a live, playable demo
The problems they’re calling out aren’t really specific to anything though. They’re just kind of generalizations that sound like they got formed from news articles rather than observing the development progress.
You have the option to buy most ships with real money, but the general cycle is about 6 months after release into the persistent universe the ships are purchasable with in-game money. The only reason to spend real money on SC is if you can’t wait those 6 months, want to support development, or don’t want to bother with in-game money for whatever reason. There are some exception ships though.
As for the detail, there are big differences between SC and ED. For one, SC ships have completely modeled interiors since the intended gameplay is for you to manually board your ship from outside. ED has no ship interiors as far as I know, just cockpits and exteriors, no matter how big the ship is. SC also has more ships than ED even excluding all the SC ship variants, ground vehicles, and ships that don’t do Quantum jumps, the frame shift equivalent of ED.
True, I forgot about this.
I think people can take issue with the funding model while still believing in the development effort as a whole. The funding model can change, after all.
I’m not comparing their scale, just the ability to enjoy something without it seeming like there’s much there to others. But if you want to compare, I was imagining MC back before even the Nether. I had plenty of fun just mining and stacking blocks to build whatever, nothing like what became available toward 1.0. SC is kind of in the same situation, but their timeline is just 20x greater because of the scope.
To be fair, CIG is also developing 2 games at once in SC and Squadron 42, the latter of which will actually be released first. The reasons for this are a whole other thing though.
What tech demos are you referring to specifically and how are they not connected? I guess there’s flight tech, fps tech, cargo tech, economy tech, etc, but you can walk to your ship, fly off, land somewhere, shoot guys, loot some cargo, put it on your ship, fly back to a city, and sell it, all in one go. One thing that’s actually disconnected is Arena Commander, but that’s specifically for people that want more traditional, arcadey pvp.
I’m sure there are a lot of people that wouldn’t consider just flying around, exploring, and doing the current missions a game, but you could say something similar about early Minecraft. In sure some didn’t see the point without more structure or features, but that didn’t stop them from enjoying what was there and looking forward to the future
I’ve been liking Magneto as well, but I hate his sound design. There’s nothing about it that tells you his powers have anything to do with magnetism or controlling metal. He sounds like he has generic fantasy psychic powers