And 4 years on, I still can’t figure out whether it’s because of neurospiciness or divergent interests. Linux? 471 communities. Writing? 2 and the mods of the second one abandoned their accounts years ago
Maybe it's because even within the fediverse, there are too many people who agree to satirized positions unironically. i.e. Lemmy is just a little too diverse for most satire.
In certain ways, maybe. I can’t see eye to eye with some people on what constitutes a genocide, for instance. But there comes a point where it’s apparently either satire or a an objectively crazy user. It’s equally apparent who this split Is apparent to, on this open source communist Linux forum.
It’s my personal belief that lemmy at large is simply too experientially limited to recognize online satire outside of incredibly specific examples. Mostly meme templates. And there’s nothing wrong with that, but it is a little frustrating for me, personally.
Neurodivergents being overrepresented likely accounts for some of the tendency of people mistakenly taking things literally on Lemmy. But I think a bigger issue is just a lack of media literacy. People tend to close themselves off from opposing viewpoints, and what does filter through is often exaggerated or otherwise misrepresented to make it easier to ridicule. This pattern leads people into thinking something intentionally absurd is in fact serious. Poe's law is something easy to observe on other platforms too, but it's worse on a platform with an especially political and nondiverse userbase.
Lemmy is still a relatively young community. I bet it gets better with time. I like to think that I already noticed small (and healthy) community growths.
And I do not have a metric nor an example. This is super vague, I know.
A lot of users came here to boycott reddit. Taking this kind of action is quite hard when it comes to dopamine sources like reddit. The users that migrated have at least in common that they overcame the reddit pull and also took the time and energy to land in a lemmy instance. I'm curious what Lemmy will look like in 5 to 10 years with this kind of "user starter" on the "lemmy agar".
Lemmy does satire all the time, you're just not reading it.
The problem that you are trying to identify is that satire needs to actually be satirizing something, ie, the context must be clear, and many people just assume the context in their head is the same as the context in everyone else's heads.
You can see this illustrated by all the sarcasm that your comment has generated.
Satire in text form isn't as simple to pull off as in visual media. Body language and tone matter a lot. As well Poe's Law is in full effect anymore and someone having this view is actually not rare.
It's the enshitification of triple AAA titles fucking slapping surcharges on EVERYTHING; day one dlc, microtransactions, always online DRM, the ability to revoke access to the shit we pay for, it's death by 1000 cuts. EVERY anti-consumer action, every attempt to squeeze more of us while delivering the same rehashed shit over and over. Yup I will keep playing my old consoles and the games I own. The intent of us withholding our money and refusing to purchase your shit is to provide publishers with a sense of pride and accomplishment for retaining their customer base.
Ya know what was an awesome game that just fucking worked? Granted I think it had hats or some shit. But pico park. Great game that worked awesome and didnt need any bullshit. Idk just came to mind.
AAA knows that their primary competition is old games, that run better on more hardware, and are just better games.
Via a combination of acting like a cartel in a market, and also personally being basically unimaginably vain... they distort reality around them to the greatest extent that they can, to continue to convince people their overpriced garbage is actually the hottest shit and you're some kind of horrible bad person if you don't pay them.
That's why they have entire networks of access journalists, why they constantly write essentially op-eds that follow the meta, or the meta-meta of the actual video game industry, why AAA games have marketing budgets bigger than Hollywood movies.
It is literally a propaganda machine.
Piracy is morally superior to feeding these nepo baby gaslighting rainbow capitalists that love to pretend they're progressive.
They're not progressive, they're entitled faux nobility, delusional narcissists that live in hugboxes that reward complancency and not rocking the boat.
What I find utterly asinine is it seems like the even care less about profits than they do feeding their egos and following this shit model of operation. Building shit games, injecting all the dlc, microtransactions crap and then charging so much no on wants to buy more. I constantly overspend on GOG and the like because its easy to get me in the door. If I have to save up to buy a game I have a lot of time to talk myself out of it.
Because really what this all boils down to is an excercise in vanity, in self-validation essentially by force.
You can see this everywhere in society... fucking, Trump is threatening the genocide of a civilization, ultimately, to avoid having to ever admit he was wrong about anything.
What is wild to me is that... you know like schizotypal people get a horrible rap in society, because they're unstable and dangerous!
Yeah, yes, its tragic when one of them snaps and does something horrible.
But you what is fucking everywhere, so commonplace that its just expected, seen as unavoidable?
Absurdly overconfident malignant narcissists.
They're very often literally sociopaths, and they very often do nothing other than ruin the lives of those around them, to validate themselves, because they fundentally are not capable of self-validation.
But again this is just apparently so normal, that it only even registers at a social level when it is hyper obvious and extreme, as with Destiny or Thor/Pirate Software.
They're all the same personality type... never take real accountability for anything, gaslight you into thinking you somehow made a mistake or misunderstood them... when they will and do just say anything that they think will make them more highly regarded.
Its narcissists that are the most dangerous kind of person to human society, but we hardly at all treat them the way we treat a far smaller number of people with overall, far less dangerous neurotypes.
Certainly doesn't help the field of psychology itself is full of narcissists.
I'm going to school right now for game design. I'm an international student hoping to work here after too. I've put all my eggs in this basket, I barely even have enough estimated money for a plane ticket home if I don't get work right out of school
Let AAA burn. I want to see it collapse, I want to see all the big game companies shutter. Now is such a great time to see indie studios going wild making pieces of art and I want people working there instead
May each of those big ass studios perish and may their market share become a financial whale fall for you and your peers' wonderful, impossible indie game passion projects.
AAA profits are higher than ever. Layoffs are tremendously inefficient. They do nothing to reduce costs long term, and can actually lead to increased costs. There is a good amount of economic research which demonstrates that.
Layoffs actually tend to artificially deflate stock prices as it's seen as a signal of a company in financial distress - this is actually one of the reasons why industries tend to do layoffs simultaneously across multiple corporations. Of course this can be used to turn a profit through short selling but you'd need to have some sort of prior knowledge to set up the short positions prior to the layoffs being announced.
They're a temporary bump in the metrics which are measured by shareholders. They've also become short sighted morons who only care quarter to quarter and not long term sustainability. Why? Because the average age of most of the larger ones are other companies ran by people well over 60 who will die before it happens.
It absolutely does need it. It's needed it for several decades at this point. Layoffs in the past few years have been higher than they were during the 2008 recession, and that's a year after year stat, not combined. Every year has had worse layoffs than after one of the worst financial collapses in recent history. Wages have been stagnate since I was in college almost 20 years ago and realized that I made more at my summer job than I could expect to make starting out as an artist in the industry, and I'd be walking in with a bunch of college debt.
Let it burn and watch the new studios built by people who make games, not corporate finance bros, rise from the ashes like new growth after a brush fire, full of passion for making good games first and foremost.
As the western AAA gaming industry dies, I shall be playing Komm süßer Tod in its funeral. Which one depends on who's the next kicking the bucket: this one if it's the pop music industry, and this one if it's Hollywood.
…now excuse me, I gotta finish Donkey Kong Country 2 again.
(It's the first time I hear this band, and I'm fucking loving it.)
Let's do it differently: Eisbrecher's version when the A³ gaming industry dies, Bach's when the pop music industry dies, and Evangelion's when Hollywood does so. Deal?
As a business case, I do have to admit that money spent on advertisement is rarely wasted and should be looked at seriously. It's not rare to see a 10-1 ROI as long as you don't go completely overboard. There are a lot of good indie titles that nobody has heard of or played because they had no hype.
I don't mind passes honestly, but also they should not expire. I paid for that shit, let me finish it, if it takes a week or a month or a decade, let me finish it at my own pace.
"Still playing gaming systems released before 2000" in this case means "has used at least one gaming system released before 2000 at least once in the past year."
What you probably imagined is probably very different from what the survey actually reported.
It's not a great metric since systems from before 2000 can be emulated on newer hardware, and in fact that's the most common way for people to play old games.
I actually don't know that it excludes emulation (or to what extent it excludes it). Like I wouldn't personally count emulating an NES game on a Switch, but when I pop an actual PS2 DVD into my computer, burn it to an ISO, and play it on PCSX2 – when I own two functioning PS2s, dumped the BIOS, and help work on the emulator – I would probably ultimately answer "yes" to this question.
But it also seems clear that the person writing it knew almost nothing about retro gaming to have not clarified this even a little.
It says "gaming systems released before 2000", not games. You're right about them not seeming to know much about retro gaming; focusing on the hardware rather than the games is an odd decision.
People still read classic books, watch classic movies, go to see classical art and listen to classical music. Why would video games as an entertainment art form be any different?
TL;DR: A much smaller gaming industry was enshitified at an alarming pace, barely after it got started. There were too many competing options, many of which were sub-par experiences, and there was no way to tell until after purchase.
Perhaps that's not directly comparable, but to my eye, the biggest similarity is not enough value for the liquidity (disposable capital) people are willing to put forward on a product. At some point, people will just spend less or spend on something else entirely.
Meanwhile, you have older gamers like myself that are more than happy to take a trip down memory lane, since a few decades can make those old games fun again. I'm in this 14%. That said, I tend to buy new indie titles, mostly due to the lower pricepoint, lower expectations, reliably better art, lower system specs, smaller time commitment, and so on. Games like Assasin's Creed Odyssey showed me that big studios aren't necessarily pushing more and interesting narrative into monster-sized titles, opting for cut/paste easter-egg hunts and aftermarket content purchases instead. Less really can be more.
older gamers like myself that are more than happy to take a trip down memory lane
Not only memory lane, but stuff like ROM hacks and randomizers can make new games from their retro roots. Hell I've gotten back into Doom in the past few years, and people just basically never stopped making new (free) levels for that since it came out 30+ years ago.
Hell I’ve gotten back into Doom in the past few year
There's also the Quake Brutalist Jam 3 that came out last month. It's playable with a modern Quake I engine, and man, some of those maps are incredible.
It's super neat. Map quality is all over the place, but most are real gems. I've only had one soft-lock in about 20 maps, and only a handful of those had impossible to beat final fights (I'm sorry, but failing to take down 15 shamblers at once, in a room with four central columns for cover is not a "skill issue").
In fact I never heard much about Quake having singleplayer.
It had good singleplayer for the time. IMO, it hasn't aged particularly well. ID was learning how to do a fully 3D game on the fly here, and it shows in spots. The best moments are built on experience with building Doom maps, but that's practically a different sport.
The gaming industry turned its back on gamers a long time ago by making it difficult to truly own a game. It's no wonder people want to go back and play old games that don't rely on a server somewhere that could be shutdown at any point.
Maybe don't make everything a micro transaction grindfest and actually make a good game. Outside of Nintendo which I play with my kids, I hardly fuck with new games. I've skipped the last gen of consoles because I can't fucking stand modern gaming, and I honestly don't think I've missed anything important. I know I'm painting with a broad brush, but for the most part I don't think I've missed anything extraordinary. I'm sure I'll get GTA 6 as long as my 2020 mid ass gaming laptop can support it, but I've grown very jaded about the gaming industry. It feels like games are designed by the C-suite and not gamers these days.
Cool. Welcome to the world of options that exist outside of designed by committee, mass market, crowd pleaser, middle of the road, mechanically stagnant gaming.
It's telling that your prime examples of AAA are games that choke on their own development but ultimately only offer bigness as their value. Big maps... big, mostly empty maps. Big crowds of NPCs... that do the same three idle animations, duck and cover like a choreographed team at a gun shot and then go back about their day 30 seconds later. Big, powerful engines... with big piles of bugs that take a year of dev time after release to fix. Big texture files... that you probably don't notice because you're playing on less than top of the line hardware or just ignore if you aren't. Big 'storylines'... that ultimately end up being 'choose path A or B and then shoot/stab a giant pile of mostly similar enemies,' and 95% of your game time is the distraction of sidequests you wander into with no effect on the main story. Big collections of voice acted lines... saying generic things and repeating them so often they hit you like an arrow to the knee. Big teams... that get so big they have to have meetings about their meetings with the meetings team before scheduling a meeting with someone from art, marketing, sound, code, and three other people to decide whether its reasonable to have a meeting about adding a hair to the dog in side quest 37.
So, yeah, welcome to the part if gaming where you experience the small, but meaningful. 'To the Moon' is never going to have an impressive trailer, but it might make you weep, if you have the heart for it. Disco Elysium doesn't have square lightyears of map to wander, but its creators paid attention to everything you can see. Pacific Drive was made by a team of less than a dozen people, but was put together with incredible skill and artistry. Bullets Per Minute took an idea many have had and made it real, and even did a great job of it. Quality over quantity, every time.
I honestly don't understand your point. Just because the games are larger, they're worse? The things you describe are commonly not even in many indie games (Ie. Animations).
So your logic is that if the product is not 11/10, it's shit? I'm sorry that you've had such a terrible experience, but personally some of the best games I've ever played in my life were AAA games and I'm glad companies made/make them, and I'm still looking forward to games like TESV6 or new Fallout.
Also, your "quality over quantity" at the end is so out of touch due to everyone complaining about how long it takes nowadays to make AAA games. New entries used to be made in a year or two-three, now we're entering "wait a decade or two till we make the second game". To me it appears you argue from emotions, something about this industry makes you mad, and you're lashing out at the product itself.
There are many genuine thingst to be angry about, but generally saying AAA games suck? Yeah, no, on Reddit I'd say "redditors being out of touch with the world again"
Don't misrepresent me and then pretend to have defeated my positions by defeating your own misrepresentations.
I didn't say they suck. I said they are designed by committee, mass market, crowd pleaser, middle of the road, and mechanically stagnant. They are the corn of gaming. They aren't poison, or shit, but they are decidedly mediocre in their makeup, and there are so many options that are better on one metric or another, basically any metric other than scale, if the players weren't locked in or tricked in, the AAAs aren't going to get the kind of support they have. Saying 'some of my happiest memories are eating my way through a big trough of corn,' isn't a demonstration that corn is better, or even good, but that you, specifically, anecdotally, really like your corn.
And yes, there is something about them that bugs me on a deeper level, specifically their manipulative place in the industry/culture, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong to call them mediocre. Are all opinions invalidated by emotional entanglement? Then why should we trust your word as an avowed supporter of AAA game companies? You have an emotional reason to support them. Why should anyone listen to you about them if your views are emotionally tainted and your own standard requires detached judgement?
You have an emotional reason to support them. Why should anyone listen to you about them if your views are emotionally tainted and your own standard requires detached judgement?
"Your opinion is not valid because you like, not dislike what I dislike" is what this sounds like.
Alright then, tell me which open world driving+action game is better than GTA or Cyberpunk? Which RPGs are better than Buldur's gate, Elder scrolls and Kingdom Come? What other online shooters besides Battlefield, COD, Arma (besides those hero/competitive) are that popular and generally great? What about flight simulator? I'm sure there are indie studios beating Microsoft at that.
You cannot and will not convince me that AAA games are "middle of the road, mechanically stagnant". AAA studios are literally the ones inventing new stuff and pushing the bar higher up, hence the increasing time between releases. From valve's material rendering to real time lighting and ending with all kinds of misc things like TAA, texture tech, thousands of little mechanisms everyone now copies (especially from titles like Far Cry 3 that innovated alot). It has become incredibly hard to actually make a great AAA game, and logically that's respectable for anyone who accomplishes this.
Granted, sometimes the companies behind those games are very questionable, but do you really care what happens at Samsung factory?
That... Yeah, it does seem you are having trouble understanding.
That line you quoted is not to say your opinion is invalid. It is to say that it is hypocritical to complain that I do not approach it from a disinterested perspective when you don't either. If we were disinterested, we wouldn't be here. We'd be into something other than games and wouldn't think about these things, so it's a bit absurd to expect disinterest.
...tell me which open world...
This also shows you aren't understanding the point. The one thing these games have to offer is scale, bigness, lumpen sum size, so either you're just trolling me at this point or you're not getting that size isn't the goal. There aren't other games with that big open world because there can't be. It's the defining trait of AAA games because they are the only ones with $100000000 to burn hiring giant teams, so nothing else has it. The whole point, though, is big does not mean good. It doesn't matter if your dinner is 3 ears of corn or 300. It's still just corn. Not poison. Not shit. Might taste a bit better with some mods like salt and butter on it, but it's still just bulk. There are far better options available, customized to your palate, what you find to define quality. Whatever you think of as 'good' in games is probably better served by something outside the AAA space by something specializing in that thing (Unless you really just like big more than anything. I suppose you could just be the 'size queen' of gamers.) and might even be elevated by the investement of some of the money that is currently being sucked in by the gravity well of the big companies, but because those big companies suck up so much of the light, air, and resources, lots of indie projects just wither.
I never claimed big = good, this was the thing I argued against initially when I implied at the fact that size doesn't matter, but you said I misinterpret you. What a weird convo we're having. Starfield is most definitely not a more enjoyable game that Factorio.
There are far better options available, customized to your palate, what you find to define quality. Whatever you think of as 'good' in games is probably better served by something outside the AAA space by something specializing in that thing (Unless you really just like big more than anything
And yet, when I ask you for examples, you refuse, because I've played thousands of games, most being indie, and I'm still trying to understand what is it that you're seeing that I don't. Indie games are great, but they will never be GTA 5, they will never have such attention to detail, innovation, wow-factor, ecetera ecetera, they're commonly just good at gameplay, but that's it. Even the Factorio I mentioned. It was more addictive than the AAA looking Satisfactory, but I actually return to Satisfactory far more often than Factorio, and that's my subconsciousness wanting it. There is just something very satisfactory about seeing your factory in such an impressive rendering, rather than just text-based (Ie. Idle games) or top-bottom 2D games.
So, again, unless you're actually capable of answering my previous question about you proving examples of which games are better than the ones I named in that category, I'll just assume you're being emotional and not really objective.
I mean ive thought of this. I mostly do play pre 2002 games. And I'm always thinking wow, they put so much work into this, no vibe coded bullshit, no endless updates, working with difficult hardware , mad respect for those devs. And I feel a little bad I can enjoy their creations 20 years later and they're not getting anything for it.
However we know what's coming. Corporations aren't dumb, they see this, and in a couple years there will be a huge crackdown on retro gaming (they already shut down a huge archive). So enjoy while you can, they're coming for you.
I gave my wife my LCD steam deck that she's been eyeing up since the switch went and died. I loaded animal crossing from GameCube on it and she loves it, she played new horizons on the switch and liked it too but she said she enjoys the GameCube one more
I started being done with modern games around the ps4 era. Things have not gotten better since then. I just bought a ps3 and it feels great to just put in a disk and boot up a game.
I admit there are some games that ask you to update them but it has not been madatory for me yet. I just got the system and am still exploring it. But, a ps3 super slim with 23 good games for about $100 is better than any AAA experience you will get for the same money.
I am not even going to pirate games since they are so cheap. The only exception will be in cases where there is not an option to get a disk.
I think you can still update ps3 games, I was forced to update the blue ray certificate (I think) recently. Also I think newer disks can contain patches
You know, maybe if you could buy physical disks and cards of games that dont require internet access (unless it has specific online features like trade, battles, co-op, etc) And the games were actually good and not corporate slop then maybe we'd want them
I out an origonal halo 2 disc into a brand new xbox a couple of years ago. It refused to read it. My switch wants me to pay a subscription to play SNES games. As it turns out everything after the 3ds and the 360 was a mistake.
okay you have GOT to play Sea of Stars. You ever want to play Chrono Trigger with a friend or spouse? It's 3 player Chrono Trigger and the story is good. So i guess you could play it with a polycule, i never thought of that before.
That's fair. Not every thing out there is for everyone and this felt like fanservice writ just for me. Some games resonate and some don't. I especially liked it because my wife, who really has only gotten into stardew and monkey island/grim fandango, independently asked to play it. Like, it wasn't always me bringing up when would our next session be, and that felt special. She's relatively new to gaming and it was simple enough that she could grasp and enjoy the mechanics. There were enough granular difficulty settings that you could play exactly the game that you wanted to play. If you weren't enjoying it, I mean aside from the story and complaints about taste are as varied and valid as... Shit I'm too tired enough to make an appropriately crude metaphor but assume I referenced diogenes and buttholes. I think I mentioned everything is for everyone or something like that. The game was as easy or hard as you wanted it to be. If there is a sequel to the game I will buy it, especially if it's the same folks writing it.
I loved 2042 after they patched it but haven't been able to get into 6 really… Did you play both? If so, what stands out as notably better about the most recent iteration?
I refunded 2042 so can't really compare. But basically... It just plays really well. The guns feel very satisfying to use. Conquest mode feels like a true return to form. Great sound design and visuals.
Bf1 is my favourite in the series for reference having played all except 2042.
I doubt I'll reach more than a few hundred hours in bf6 before I uninstall forever and go back to playing bf1 and bf4. It doesn't seem like EA is interested in adding anything to the classic modes and is hyper focused on battle pass and battle royale and other stupid shit nobody wants.
Biggest gripe is maps are too small. It's really dumb taking off in a jet and immediately being able to see the enemy airstrip. It should be like way, way bigger lol
Hmm yeah I think I'd really enjoy a Planetside 2 with modern military motif minus all the "simulation" (menu clicking) and learning curve of something like Arma. A quick search says the Super Hornet's combat range is ~300mi, definitely not a "see the other side's airfield as soon as you're up" amount of distance.
I think a big problem is that video games are too afraid to be video games. They're so embarrassed by the medium that they're working in that they strive to make interactive movies instead.
Maybe at least gaming is not a place for multi billion dollars companies where you can abuse system and monopolize market to profit from it by releasing slop.
recently i'm only playing on emulators and some indie games, i'm happy doing so.
just because you can see the difference, those are gold and i have a lot of fun, also runs good on any of my devices, even on my phone, in the end, having fun playing is the deal, sadly this industry is focused on making money, not making good art.(looks like we're in 80' again huh?)
Good. I mean, it sucks for the devs, since they suffer first, but the trajectory of the industry needs changed. And conditions are only gonna get worse and worse for devs if nothing changes, if they get to keep their jobs at all.
I'm in the minority but I agree with anon. As a kid I was always looking towards the future when it came to gaming. As soon as 3D gaming hit the mainstream, I pretty much abandoned 2D games for the next 20 years. I'm a graphics whore, and as such, I'm always looking forward to the latest and greatest AAA games to see how much they can push the limits of what's visually possible.
If the AAA industry magically collapses, I will probably quit gaming.
Edit: See what I mean? It's a very unpopular opinion to express, but it's my opinion.
Looked at your profile, is the woke comment genuine or are you being satirical? I find it hard to believe you understand and have the mental capacity to see the Jeffrey Epstein situation for what it is, but would still believe in the MAGA "woke" hoax.
How many of these games have you actually played? The only similarity I see between these is playable female main characters.
Is it woke to play as a woman? Really genuinely, I'd like to know what you mean when you say woke.
This is /v/, which means this post is behind over 9000 layers of sarcasm.
All of which this platform will be oblivious to, because Lemmy just doesn't do satire.
Lemmy hates the shit out of satire lol
And 4 years on, I still can’t figure out whether it’s because of neurospiciness or divergent interests. Linux? 471 communities. Writing? 2 and the mods of the second one abandoned their accounts years ago
Maybe it's because even within the fediverse, there are too many people who agree to satirized positions unironically. i.e. Lemmy is just a little too diverse for most satire.
In certain ways, maybe. I can’t see eye to eye with some people on what constitutes a genocide, for instance. But there comes a point where it’s apparently either satire or a an objectively crazy user. It’s equally apparent who this split Is apparent to, on this open source communist Linux forum.
It’s my personal belief that lemmy at large is simply too experientially limited to recognize online satire outside of incredibly specific examples. Mostly meme templates. And there’s nothing wrong with that, but it is a little frustrating for me, personally.
Pretty sure it's the tism.
I've gotten considerably more replies here than on Reddit from people who don't understand sarcasm.
Neurodivergents being overrepresented likely accounts for some of the tendency of people mistakenly taking things literally on Lemmy. But I think a bigger issue is just a lack of media literacy. People tend to close themselves off from opposing viewpoints, and what does filter through is often exaggerated or otherwise misrepresented to make it easier to ridicule. This pattern leads people into thinking something intentionally absurd is in fact serious. Poe's law is something easy to observe on other platforms too, but it's worse on a platform with an especially political and nondiverse userbase.
Damn autists, taking everything literally
No, you must be thinking of kleptomaniacs
No, no, that's "literally taking everything," but now we're getting into the realm of dyslexics
Oh thank god its not just me.
Yes, we are all very serious here. Yup. No funny business going on. Just us and our incredible seriousness. Sooo serious.
Lemmy is a big guy.
For you
Lemmy is still a relatively young community. I bet it gets better with time. I like to think that I already noticed small (and healthy) community growths.
And I do not have a metric nor an example. This is super vague, I know.
I don't know. Lemmy's majority user is former reddit users and even at the size reddit is now, sarcasm would constantly go over peoples' heads
I'm pretty sure it's because most of the people here are on the spectrum.
A lot of users came here to boycott reddit. Taking this kind of action is quite hard when it comes to dopamine sources like reddit. The users that migrated have at least in common that they overcame the reddit pull and also took the time and energy to land in a lemmy instance. I'm curious what Lemmy will look like in 5 to 10 years with this kind of "user starter" on the "lemmy agar".
Lemmy does satire all the time, you're just not reading it.
The problem that you are trying to identify is that satire needs to actually be satirizing something, ie, the context must be clear, and many people just assume the context in their head is the same as the context in everyone else's heads.
You can see this illustrated by all the sarcasm that your comment has generated.
Now that the context is clear.
Satire in text form isn't as simple to pull off as in visual media. Body language and tone matter a lot. As well Poe's Law is in full effect anymore and someone having this view is actually not rare.
I took it as satire too, but what tells it's /v/ ?
The blue colorscheme indicates it's from one of the non-18+ boards, and /v/ is the one of those that it would fit the most.
Technically you can set any board to any of a bunch of color schemes, but most users just leave the defaults or pick on dark theme for all of them.
Blue board talking about game industry stuff, it's the only place that fits.
It's the enshitification of triple AAA titles fucking slapping surcharges on EVERYTHING; day one dlc, microtransactions, always online DRM, the ability to revoke access to the shit we pay for, it's death by 1000 cuts. EVERY anti-consumer action, every attempt to squeeze more of us while delivering the same rehashed shit over and over. Yup I will keep playing my old consoles and the games I own. The intent of us withholding our money and refusing to purchase your shit is to provide publishers with a sense of pride and accomplishment for retaining their customer base.
Ya know what was an awesome game that just fucking worked? Granted I think it had hats or some shit. But pico park. Great game that worked awesome and didnt need any bullshit. Idk just came to mind.
Poignantly, not AAA.
AAA knows that their primary competition is old games, that run better on more hardware, and are just better games.
Via a combination of acting like a cartel in a market, and also personally being basically unimaginably vain... they distort reality around them to the greatest extent that they can, to continue to convince people their overpriced garbage is actually the hottest shit and you're some kind of horrible bad person if you don't pay them.
That's why they have entire networks of access journalists, why they constantly write essentially op-eds that follow the meta, or the meta-meta of the actual video game industry, why AAA games have marketing budgets bigger than Hollywood movies.
It is literally a propaganda machine.
Piracy is morally superior to feeding these nepo baby gaslighting rainbow capitalists that love to pretend they're progressive.
They're not progressive, they're entitled faux nobility, delusional narcissists that live in hugboxes that reward complancency and not rocking the boat.
What I find utterly asinine is it seems like the even care less about profits than they do feeding their egos and following this shit model of operation. Building shit games, injecting all the dlc, microtransactions crap and then charging so much no on wants to buy more. I constantly overspend on GOG and the like because its easy to get me in the door. If I have to save up to buy a game I have a lot of time to talk myself out of it.
Yeah, it is assinine.
Because really what this all boils down to is an excercise in vanity, in self-validation essentially by force.
You can see this everywhere in society... fucking, Trump is threatening the genocide of a civilization, ultimately, to avoid having to ever admit he was wrong about anything.
What is wild to me is that... you know like schizotypal people get a horrible rap in society, because they're unstable and dangerous!
Yeah, yes, its tragic when one of them snaps and does something horrible.
But you what is fucking everywhere, so commonplace that its just expected, seen as unavoidable?
Absurdly overconfident malignant narcissists.
They're very often literally sociopaths, and they very often do nothing other than ruin the lives of those around them, to validate themselves, because they fundentally are not capable of self-validation.
But again this is just apparently so normal, that it only even registers at a social level when it is hyper obvious and extreme, as with Destiny or Thor/Pirate Software.
They're all the same personality type... never take real accountability for anything, gaslight you into thinking you somehow made a mistake or misunderstood them... when they will and do just say anything that they think will make them more highly regarded.
Its narcissists that are the most dangerous kind of person to human society, but we hardly at all treat them the way we treat a far smaller number of people with overall, far less dangerous neurotypes.
Certainly doesn't help the field of psychology itself is full of narcissists.
I'm going to school right now for game design. I'm an international student hoping to work here after too. I've put all my eggs in this basket, I barely even have enough estimated money for a plane ticket home if I don't get work right out of school
Let AAA burn. I want to see it collapse, I want to see all the big game companies shutter. Now is such a great time to see indie studios going wild making pieces of art and I want people working there instead
May each of those big ass studios perish and may their market share become a financial whale fall for you and your peers' wonderful, impossible indie game passion projects.
I hope you go far friend and I hope to play something you've had a part in making one day
I'd say now if you are an honest Dev youll get way more respect from the community than ever before. I can't stand these liars.
AAA profits are higher than ever. Layoffs are tremendously inefficient. They do nothing to reduce costs long term, and can actually lead to increased costs. There is a good amount of economic research which demonstrates that.
Layoffs are corporatist virtue signalling.
Shareholders only want short term gains so they could sell their shares and win big.
Long term goals are for the suckers that bought the artificially inflated stocks.
Layoffs actually tend to artificially deflate stock prices as it's seen as a signal of a company in financial distress - this is actually one of the reasons why industries tend to do layoffs simultaneously across multiple corporations. Of course this can be used to turn a profit through short selling but you'd need to have some sort of prior knowledge to set up the short positions prior to the layoffs being announced.
Just FYI, "dearth" means a scarcity or very little of something.
Oh wow, you're right, why the heck did I think it was the opposite? I've been misusing that word for years. Thanks for letting me know!
The opposite would be a “plethora”
Would you say I have a plethora of piñatas?
thanks for letting me know, that means a lot.
It means a lot to me too.
They're a temporary bump in the metrics which are measured by shareholders. They've also become short sighted morons who only care quarter to quarter and not long term sustainability. Why? Because the average age of most of the larger ones are other companies ran by people well over 60 who will die before it happens.
Don't threaten me with a good time. Seriously, that might be exactly what the industry needs.
It absolutely does need it. It's needed it for several decades at this point. Layoffs in the past few years have been higher than they were during the 2008 recession, and that's a year after year stat, not combined. Every year has had worse layoffs than after one of the worst financial collapses in recent history. Wages have been stagnate since I was in college almost 20 years ago and realized that I made more at my summer job than I could expect to make starting out as an artist in the industry, and I'd be walking in with a bunch of college debt.
Let it burn and watch the new studios built by people who make games, not corporate finance bros, rise from the ashes like new growth after a brush fire, full of passion for making good games first and foremost.
They should sell products users want at prices they're willing to pay. Without abuse, deception, or other malicious acts.
But won't somebody please think of the shareholders? /s
Funnily enough it would probably be better for the majority of shareholders.
It would take longer than a quarter to realize, so they're not interested. Myopia is emblematic of capitalism.
I do. I think of the big ones going through a wood chipper.
As the western AAA gaming industry dies, I shall be playing Komm süßer Tod in its funeral. Which one depends on who's the next kicking the bucket: this one if it's the pop music industry, and this one if it's Hollywood.
…now excuse me, I gotta finish Donkey Kong Country 2 again.
No love for the eisbrecher version?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hw3Kenowjk
(It's the first time I hear this band, and I'm fucking loving it.)
Let's do it differently: Eisbrecher's version when the A³ gaming industry dies, Bach's when the pop music industry dies, and Evangelion's when Hollywood does so. Deal?
Start making better games.
Even better.
Stop charging us again and again for the same shit just cause it's on a newer system.
Stop blocking backwards compatibility just to charge us again.
Stop attacking rom sites because they have a file of a game you stopped supporting or selling 40 years ago.
Make better shit.
Stop nickel and diming us with "dlc" on your unfinished piece of trash.
Stop micro transactions.
Stop attacking your fucking customers and bleeding us dry.
Shareholders gotta eat I guess.
Those are fine ideas, but most people are really not even that picky.
Make it good, price it even halfway reasonable, people will buy it. Lots of games are selling well.
(Maybe stop spending half a billion on the budgets if you want to be profitable, instead of trying to squeeze more out of the players.)
Or put less of that half billion into ads and use it to improve the game development part
As a business case, I do have to admit that money spent on advertisement is rarely wasted and should be looked at seriously. It's not rare to see a 10-1 ROI as long as you don't go completely overboard. There are a lot of good indie titles that nobody has heard of or played because they had no hype.
I'm not saying cut all of it, like 10%, put it towards higher dev counts so you don't have to engage crunch as much
It's easy problem to fix they just have {YOU MUST OWN THE PREMIUM BATTLE PACK FOR $9.99/MONTH* TO VIEW THIS CONTENT}
I don't mind passes honestly, but also they should not expire. I paid for that shit, let me finish it, if it takes a week or a month or a decade, let me finish it at my own pace.
But then they'd have to make sure you have access to the game for that long [̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]
* paid annually
* paid anally
* paid ally
But you save 5% that way!
2024 survey from Consumer Reports here. Representative sample of 2022 people.
"Still playing gaming systems released before 2000" in this case means "has used at least one gaming system released before 2000 at least once in the past year."
What you probably imagined is probably very different from what the survey actually reported.
If I play Streets of Rage 2 (1992) but on an emulator running on my Steam Deck (2022), does that count?
By their metric, no.
It's not a great metric since systems from before 2000 can be emulated on newer hardware, and in fact that's the most common way for people to play old games.
I actually don't know that it excludes emulation (or to what extent it excludes it). Like I wouldn't personally count emulating an NES game on a Switch, but when I pop an actual PS2 DVD into my computer, burn it to an ISO, and play it on PCSX2 – when I own two functioning PS2s, dumped the BIOS, and help work on the emulator – I would probably ultimately answer "yes" to this question.
But it also seems clear that the person writing it knew almost nothing about retro gaming to have not clarified this even a little.
It says "gaming systems released before 2000", not games. You're right about them not seeming to know much about retro gaming; focusing on the hardware rather than the games is an odd decision.
let AAA and AAAA fail. indie devs would have a much larger platform. current gen equipment is too expensive as it is and will get worse.
sorry anon but i'm with guybrush
That's $149.89 in 2026 dollars!
suggested scummvm price is fuck off money, i got three headed monkeys on my back
People still read classic books, watch classic movies, go to see classical art and listen to classical music. Why would video games as an entertainment art form be any different?
People need to stop reading books from before 2000 and only read books with Kindle's unlimited plan! Think of the shareholders!
line must go up
GOOD. The AAA gaming industry deserves to be destroyed, the main thing is they're happy to be considered art but don't treat it that way at all.
If I were to come up with my top 10 favorite games list, I believe more then half would be indie.
I am not sure I have even played ten of the biggest "AAA Titles".
Especially not while they were the current hot shit game. I don't buy anything that isn't in a bundle or 75% off.
Wouldn't be the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983
TL;DR: A much smaller gaming industry was enshitified at an alarming pace, barely after it got started. There were too many competing options, many of which were sub-par experiences, and there was no way to tell until after purchase.
Perhaps that's not directly comparable, but to my eye, the biggest similarity is not enough value for the liquidity (disposable capital) people are willing to put forward on a product. At some point, people will just spend less or spend on something else entirely.
Meanwhile, you have older gamers like myself that are more than happy to take a trip down memory lane, since a few decades can make those old games fun again. I'm in this 14%. That said, I tend to buy new indie titles, mostly due to the lower pricepoint, lower expectations, reliably better art, lower system specs, smaller time commitment, and so on. Games like Assasin's Creed Odyssey showed me that big studios aren't necessarily pushing more and interesting narrative into monster-sized titles, opting for cut/paste easter-egg hunts and aftermarket content purchases instead. Less really can be more.
Not only memory lane, but stuff like ROM hacks and randomizers can make new games from their retro roots. Hell I've gotten back into Doom in the past few years, and people just basically never stopped making new (free) levels for that since it came out 30+ years ago.
There's also the Quake Brutalist Jam 3 that came out last month. It's playable with a modern Quake I engine, and man, some of those maps are incredible.
All for the low-low price of $0.
Looks neat! In fact I never heard much about Quake having singleplayer.
It's super neat. Map quality is all over the place, but most are real gems. I've only had one soft-lock in about 20 maps, and only a handful of those had impossible to beat final fights (I'm sorry, but failing to take down 15 shamblers at once, in a room with four central columns for cover is not a "skill issue").
It had good singleplayer for the time. IMO, it hasn't aged particularly well. ID was learning how to do a fully 3D game on the fly here, and it shows in spots. The best moments are built on experience with building Doom maps, but that's practically a different sport.
Micro transactions weren't addictive enough. Games should sell bump of heroin
The gaming industry turned its back on gamers a long time ago by making it difficult to truly own a game. It's no wonder people want to go back and play old games that don't rely on a server somewhere that could be shutdown at any point.
Games are games. Doesn't matter when they were made. Especially, if they are better than modern ones.
Maybe don't make everything a micro transaction grindfest and actually make a good game. Outside of Nintendo which I play with my kids, I hardly fuck with new games. I've skipped the last gen of consoles because I can't fucking stand modern gaming, and I honestly don't think I've missed anything important. I know I'm painting with a broad brush, but for the most part I don't think I've missed anything extraordinary. I'm sure I'll get GTA 6 as long as my 2020 mid ass gaming laptop can support it, but I've grown very jaded about the gaming industry. It feels like games are designed by the C-suite and not gamers these days.
Let them die. AAA games are games built to be marketed, not played.
Damn, I guess I'll just delete GTA games, cyberpunk, Witcher, Skyrim and others because it was just marketing
Cool. Welcome to the world of options that exist outside of designed by committee, mass market, crowd pleaser, middle of the road, mechanically stagnant gaming.
It's telling that your prime examples of AAA are games that choke on their own development but ultimately only offer bigness as their value. Big maps... big, mostly empty maps. Big crowds of NPCs... that do the same three idle animations, duck and cover like a choreographed team at a gun shot and then go back about their day 30 seconds later. Big, powerful engines... with big piles of bugs that take a year of dev time after release to fix. Big texture files... that you probably don't notice because you're playing on less than top of the line hardware or just ignore if you aren't. Big 'storylines'... that ultimately end up being 'choose path A or B and then shoot/stab a giant pile of mostly similar enemies,' and 95% of your game time is the distraction of sidequests you wander into with no effect on the main story. Big collections of voice acted lines... saying generic things and repeating them so often they hit you like an arrow to the knee. Big teams... that get so big they have to have meetings about their meetings with the meetings team before scheduling a meeting with someone from art, marketing, sound, code, and three other people to decide whether its reasonable to have a meeting about adding a hair to the dog in side quest 37.
So, yeah, welcome to the part if gaming where you experience the small, but meaningful. 'To the Moon' is never going to have an impressive trailer, but it might make you weep, if you have the heart for it. Disco Elysium doesn't have square lightyears of map to wander, but its creators paid attention to everything you can see. Pacific Drive was made by a team of less than a dozen people, but was put together with incredible skill and artistry. Bullets Per Minute took an idea many have had and made it real, and even did a great job of it. Quality over quantity, every time.
I honestly don't understand your point. Just because the games are larger, they're worse? The things you describe are commonly not even in many indie games (Ie. Animations).
So your logic is that if the product is not 11/10, it's shit? I'm sorry that you've had such a terrible experience, but personally some of the best games I've ever played in my life were AAA games and I'm glad companies made/make them, and I'm still looking forward to games like TESV6 or new Fallout.
Also, your "quality over quantity" at the end is so out of touch due to everyone complaining about how long it takes nowadays to make AAA games. New entries used to be made in a year or two-three, now we're entering "wait a decade or two till we make the second game". To me it appears you argue from emotions, something about this industry makes you mad, and you're lashing out at the product itself.
There are many genuine thingst to be angry about, but generally saying AAA games suck? Yeah, no, on Reddit I'd say "redditors being out of touch with the world again"
Don't misrepresent me and then pretend to have defeated my positions by defeating your own misrepresentations.
I didn't say they suck. I said they are designed by committee, mass market, crowd pleaser, middle of the road, and mechanically stagnant. They are the corn of gaming. They aren't poison, or shit, but they are decidedly mediocre in their makeup, and there are so many options that are better on one metric or another, basically any metric other than scale, if the players weren't locked in or tricked in, the AAAs aren't going to get the kind of support they have. Saying 'some of my happiest memories are eating my way through a big trough of corn,' isn't a demonstration that corn is better, or even good, but that you, specifically, anecdotally, really like your corn.
And yes, there is something about them that bugs me on a deeper level, specifically their manipulative place in the industry/culture, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong to call them mediocre. Are all opinions invalidated by emotional entanglement? Then why should we trust your word as an avowed supporter of AAA game companies? You have an emotional reason to support them. Why should anyone listen to you about them if your views are emotionally tainted and your own standard requires detached judgement?
"Your opinion is not valid because you like, not dislike what I dislike" is what this sounds like.
Alright then, tell me which open world driving+action game is better than GTA or Cyberpunk? Which RPGs are better than Buldur's gate, Elder scrolls and Kingdom Come? What other online shooters besides Battlefield, COD, Arma (besides those hero/competitive) are that popular and generally great? What about flight simulator? I'm sure there are indie studios beating Microsoft at that.
You cannot and will not convince me that AAA games are "middle of the road, mechanically stagnant". AAA studios are literally the ones inventing new stuff and pushing the bar higher up, hence the increasing time between releases. From valve's material rendering to real time lighting and ending with all kinds of misc things like TAA, texture tech, thousands of little mechanisms everyone now copies (especially from titles like Far Cry 3 that innovated alot). It has become incredibly hard to actually make a great AAA game, and logically that's respectable for anyone who accomplishes this.
Granted, sometimes the companies behind those games are very questionable, but do you really care what happens at Samsung factory?
That... Yeah, it does seem you are having trouble understanding.
That line you quoted is not to say your opinion is invalid. It is to say that it is hypocritical to complain that I do not approach it from a disinterested perspective when you don't either. If we were disinterested, we wouldn't be here. We'd be into something other than games and wouldn't think about these things, so it's a bit absurd to expect disinterest.
This also shows you aren't understanding the point. The one thing these games have to offer is scale, bigness, lumpen sum size, so either you're just trolling me at this point or you're not getting that size isn't the goal. There aren't other games with that big open world because there can't be. It's the defining trait of AAA games because they are the only ones with $100000000 to burn hiring giant teams, so nothing else has it. The whole point, though, is big does not mean good. It doesn't matter if your dinner is 3 ears of corn or 300. It's still just corn. Not poison. Not shit. Might taste a bit better with some mods like salt and butter on it, but it's still just bulk. There are far better options available, customized to your palate, what you find to define quality. Whatever you think of as 'good' in games is probably better served by something outside the AAA space by something specializing in that thing (Unless you really just like big more than anything. I suppose you could just be the 'size queen' of gamers.) and might even be elevated by the investement of some of the money that is currently being sucked in by the gravity well of the big companies, but because those big companies suck up so much of the light, air, and resources, lots of indie projects just wither.
I never claimed big = good, this was the thing I argued against initially when I implied at the fact that size doesn't matter, but you said I misinterpret you. What a weird convo we're having. Starfield is most definitely not a more enjoyable game that Factorio.
And yet, when I ask you for examples, you refuse, because I've played thousands of games, most being indie, and I'm still trying to understand what is it that you're seeing that I don't. Indie games are great, but they will never be GTA 5, they will never have such attention to detail, innovation, wow-factor, ecetera ecetera, they're commonly just good at gameplay, but that's it. Even the Factorio I mentioned. It was more addictive than the AAA looking Satisfactory, but I actually return to Satisfactory far more often than Factorio, and that's my subconsciousness wanting it. There is just something very satisfactory about seeing your factory in such an impressive rendering, rather than just text-based (Ie. Idle games) or top-bottom 2D games.
So, again, unless you're actually capable of answering my previous question about you proving examples of which games are better than the ones I named in that category, I'll just assume you're being emotional and not really objective.
I mean ive thought of this. I mostly do play pre 2002 games. And I'm always thinking wow, they put so much work into this, no vibe coded bullshit, no endless updates, working with difficult hardware , mad respect for those devs. And I feel a little bad I can enjoy their creations 20 years later and they're not getting anything for it.
However we know what's coming. Corporations aren't dumb, they see this, and in a couple years there will be a huge crackdown on retro gaming (they already shut down a huge archive). So enjoy while you can, they're coming for you.
I gave my wife my LCD steam deck that she's been eyeing up since the switch went and died. I loaded animal crossing from GameCube on it and she loves it, she played new horizons on the switch and liked it too but she said she enjoys the GameCube one more
I started being done with modern games around the ps4 era. Things have not gotten better since then. I just bought a ps3 and it feels great to just put in a disk and boot up a game.
I admit there are some games that ask you to update them but it has not been madatory for me yet. I just got the system and am still exploring it. But, a ps3 super slim with 23 good games for about $100 is better than any AAA experience you will get for the same money.
I am not even going to pirate games since they are so cheap. The only exception will be in cases where there is not an option to get a disk.
I think you can still update ps3 games, I was forced to update the blue ray certificate (I think) recently. Also I think newer disks can contain patches
You know, maybe if you could buy physical disks and cards of games that dont require internet access (unless it has specific online features like trade, battles, co-op, etc) And the games were actually good and not corporate slop then maybe we'd want them
I out an origonal halo 2 disc into a brand new xbox a couple of years ago. It refused to read it. My switch wants me to pay a subscription to play SNES games. As it turns out everything after the 3ds and the 360 was a mistake.
That sucks, I can still play original disks on my PS2 (excellent system btw)
It's only retro if it's a modern thing made to look old, otherwise it's vintage.
Greed can be like that. Stop being greedy and your fans may come back
They don't make good games anymore so I keep returning to classics. Bf6 is the only AAA game I've enjoyed in years and it's still kind of shit
okay you have GOT to play Sea of Stars. You ever want to play Chrono Trigger with a friend or spouse? It's 3 player Chrono Trigger and the story is good. So i guess you could play it with a polycule, i never thought of that before.
Thanks for the rec! Tons of great indies. I was referring specifically to huge budget games
As soon as I can assemble my own polycule, this will be the first game we play.
Followed by Slay the Spire 2 co-op.
My wife just purchased a game for me and I am eager to play it, but it has to be couch coop for sea of stars, doesn't it.
I fucking hated Garl. He had the same energy as "who had a better story than Bran" in GoT.
But everyone in the game loved him so much more than I could even imagine.
Anyway, the game is alright. A few too many nods to old RPGs and, imo, it didn't stand on its own well enough.
That's fair. Not every thing out there is for everyone and this felt like fanservice writ just for me. Some games resonate and some don't. I especially liked it because my wife, who really has only gotten into stardew and monkey island/grim fandango, independently asked to play it. Like, it wasn't always me bringing up when would our next session be, and that felt special. She's relatively new to gaming and it was simple enough that she could grasp and enjoy the mechanics. There were enough granular difficulty settings that you could play exactly the game that you wanted to play. If you weren't enjoying it, I mean aside from the story and complaints about taste are as varied and valid as... Shit I'm too tired enough to make an appropriately crude metaphor but assume I referenced diogenes and buttholes. I think I mentioned everything is for everyone or something like that. The game was as easy or hard as you wanted it to be. If there is a sequel to the game I will buy it, especially if it's the same folks writing it.
is Witcher 3 a AAA game? because I enjoyed that. also Helldivers2
but uhh yeah I ain't really played any others that I can recall since playing kino der toten
Dude Witcher 3 came out over 10 years ago! Haha
and I played it for the first time like four years ago and it took me three years to beat the main story
what's the point of playing games at time of release if my hardware is five years behind and I have a huge backlog of games to play anyways
I loved 2042 after they patched it but haven't been able to get into 6 really… Did you play both? If so, what stands out as notably better about the most recent iteration?
I refunded 2042 so can't really compare. But basically... It just plays really well. The guns feel very satisfying to use. Conquest mode feels like a true return to form. Great sound design and visuals.
Bf1 is my favourite in the series for reference having played all except 2042.
I doubt I'll reach more than a few hundred hours in bf6 before I uninstall forever and go back to playing bf1 and bf4. It doesn't seem like EA is interested in adding anything to the classic modes and is hyper focused on battle pass and battle royale and other stupid shit nobody wants.
Biggest gripe is maps are too small. It's really dumb taking off in a jet and immediately being able to see the enemy airstrip. It should be like way, way bigger lol
Hmm yeah I think I'd really enjoy a Planetside 2 with modern military motif minus all the "simulation" (menu clicking) and learning curve of something like Arma. A quick search says the Super Hornet's combat range is ~300mi, definitely not a "see the other side's airfield as soon as you're up" amount of distance.
I’m still playing thru ps2’s massive library. No need for modern games here
Hey man, the SNES is pretty hard to top
Man I'm still playing MUDs.
I think a big problem is that video games are too afraid to be video games. They're so embarrassed by the medium that they're working in that they strive to make interactive movies instead.
Maybe at least gaming is not a place for multi billion dollars companies where you can abuse system and monopolize market to profit from it by releasing slop.
recently i'm only playing on emulators and some indie games, i'm happy doing so. just because you can see the difference, those are gold and i have a lot of fun, also runs good on any of my devices, even on my phone, in the end, having fun playing is the deal, sadly this industry is focused on making money, not making good art.(looks like we're in 80' again huh?)
::: spoiler from the title i thought this was going to be about AAA batteries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_(video_game_industry)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Boy#Game_Boy_Pocket
:::
LET IT BURN
I'd rather play the Sonic release for the C64 with my OG setup.
Good. I mean, it sucks for the devs, since they suffer first, but the trajectory of the industry needs changed. And conditions are only gonna get worse and worse for devs if nothing changes, if they get to keep their jobs at all.
All shall turn to ashes
So we'll all be playing POP Stations?
Needs to pass Hammurabi's code for transactional ownership
14% of Americans are mystified by indoor plumbing.
"Where them turds go, Billy-Sue?"
I'm in the minority but I agree with anon. As a kid I was always looking towards the future when it came to gaming. As soon as 3D gaming hit the mainstream, I pretty much abandoned 2D games for the next 20 years. I'm a graphics whore, and as such, I'm always looking forward to the latest and greatest AAA games to see how much they can push the limits of what's visually possible.
If the AAA industry magically collapses, I will probably quit gaming.
Edit: See what I mean? It's a very unpopular opinion to express, but it's my opinion.
well, the 86% playing games older than 2000 will keep the market and developers going. Stop making woke games.
Looked at your profile, is the woke comment genuine or are you being satirical? I find it hard to believe you understand and have the mental capacity to see the Jeffrey Epstein situation for what it is, but would still believe in the MAGA "woke" hoax.
The numbers speak for themselves
As in the low number of brain cells you have left after making such a stupid comment? If so then I agree with you.
$20 says you can't even define what "woke" means. Hint: it doesn't mean "things I don't like nor understand because I'm a bigot".
Exactly, those games fried my brain cells and now I am retarded. I advice you spend that $20 on proper games that will improve your well being.
What would you consider a modern example of a "woke" game?
Ghost of Woketei
Horizon Forbidden West
Spiderman 2
Assassin's creed: Shadows
Wokeverine (yet to be released but I am willing to bet my last penny it will be crap)
The Last of Us Part II
How many of these games have you actually played? The only similarity I see between these is playable female main characters. Is it woke to play as a woman? Really genuinely, I'd like to know what you mean when you say woke.
Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown