House Marque made some games I enjoyed on previous systems also as I’m a sucker for rogue- likes this is the perfect option to blow the dust off the PS5.
I was kinda watching for Returnal, but I was concerned that my 55 year old reflexes were not going to be up to the task.
I'm happy to see the gameplay reveals that have been posted over the last couple of days. Especially the reports that there is "generous auto-aim" (because that's where I'm seriously lacking).
I've pre-ordered it tonight and started the pre-load. Now my biggest complaint is that 2pm Friday 30 April (PDT) is 7am Saturday 1 May (AEST) and I'm not about to get up early on a weekend day.
0
Options
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
Yeah I'm on the other end of the fence on that one. If I see the "average completion time" in the 60+ hours I will just avoid it. I would rather a fun 20 hours than a 60 hours of rotating nonsense. There are very few times where a longer game is better for me.
To elaborate:
My sweet spot is 20-40 hours.
40-60 is when I start wondering wtf is going on and why I'm still going.
60+ generally I'm sprinting to the end of the story to be done with it.
Haha, yea that's exactly why I said that first line! Plenty of people like you actively do NOT want longer games no matter what.
For me anything under 20 is always going to feel too short. I'll play it and enjoy it but that means I'll be done in a week and that just kinda sucks. I play only play narrative based games and spending a week with the world and characters means I'll never be able to fully get into them.
20-40 I am ok with for action-y type games. Or games where I am more experiencing like a movie and not being part of the story. Something like The Last of Us fits here. I still want it to last more than a week but I'm not building up characters or making myself part of the story so it's ok to be a bit short.
For an RPG 50 hours is the bare minimum and that is what I'm going to call short for an RPG and leave me wanting more. I'll always be hoping for at least 80 and if it's great game give me 100+.
I don't want it to end and I want to spend as much time with the characters and world as possible.
I should also note that I do not replay anything ever for any reason. So once I beat even a sub 20 hour game in a week or whatever I'm never going to touch it again. Which is also why for a game I enjoy I want it to be nice and long because once it's over that;s it for me. I'll never be back in there again outside of a sequel
Moneywise I don't give a hell. $70 even now still feels like a bargain for the amount of entertainment I get out of games.Going to a music festival for a weekend costs hundreds of dollars and that's still worth doing. Taking the GF to a movie for 2 hours costs $50 at this point and that's still a fun time. Going out to a nice dinner for an hour costs more than a game. So yea, I'm never really concerned about the pricing there.
Yeah I'm on the other end of the fence on that one. If I see the "average completion time" in the 60+ hours I will just avoid it. I would rather a fun 20 hours than a 60 hours of rotating nonsense. There are very few times where a longer game is better for me.
To elaborate:
My sweet spot is 20-40 hours.
40-60 is when I start wondering wtf is going on and why I'm still going.
60+ generally I'm sprinting to the end of the story to be done with it.
Haha, yea that's exactly why I said that first line! Plenty of people like you actively do NOT want longer games no matter what.
For me anything under 20 is always going to feel too short. I'll play it and enjoy it but that means I'll be done in a week and that just kinda sucks. I play only play narrative based games and spending a week with the world and characters means I'll never be able to fully get into them.
20-40 I am ok with for action-y type games. Or games where I am more experiencing like a movie and not being part of the story. Something like The Last of Us fits here. I still want it to last more than a week but I'm not building up characters or making myself part of the story so it's ok to be a bit short.
For an RPG 50 hours is the bare minimum and that is what I'm going to call short for an RPG and leave me wanting more. I'll always be hoping for at least 80 and if it's great game give me 100+.
I don't want it to end and I want to spend as much time with the characters and world as possible.
I should also note that I do not replay anything ever for any reason. So once I beat even a sub 20 hour game in a week or whatever I'm never going to touch it again. Which is also why for a game I enjoy I want it to be nice and long because once it's over that;s it for me. I'll never be back in there again outside of a sequel
Moneywise I don't give a hell. $70 even now still feels like a bargain for the amount of entertainment I get out of games.Going to a music festival for a weekend costs hundreds of dollars and that's still worth doing. Taking the GF to a movie for 2 hours costs $50 at this point and that's still a fun time. Going out to a nice dinner for an hour costs more than a game. So yea, I'm never really concerned about the pricing there.
For my part, the sweet spot is 10-20 hours. Less than that feels short for $60, and definitely too short at $70. But it also depends on the game. Something like DmC or Bayonetta shouldn't be more than 15 hours, while something like an indie platformer shouldn't be longer than 10, yet something like a JRPG shouldn't be less than 30. When you get above 40 hours, I struggle to finish, usually taking a break for a few months to play other things before eventually picking it back up and running it to the finish.
Also, if your game also has an "end game", I don't care. Once I finish the story, I'm done. I'm not going to go back to it to grind shit out to get slightly better gear for some nebulous reason.
Yeah I'm on the other end of the fence on that one. If I see the "average completion time" in the 60+ hours I will just avoid it. I would rather a fun 20 hours than a 60 hours of rotating nonsense. There are very few times where a longer game is better for me.
To elaborate:
My sweet spot is 20-40 hours.
40-60 is when I start wondering wtf is going on and why I'm still going.
60+ generally I'm sprinting to the end of the story to be done with it.
Haha, yea that's exactly why I said that first line! Plenty of people like you actively do NOT want longer games no matter what.
For me anything under 20 is always going to feel too short. I'll play it and enjoy it but that means I'll be done in a week and that just kinda sucks. I play only play narrative based games and spending a week with the world and characters means I'll never be able to fully get into them.
20-40 I am ok with for action-y type games. Or games where I am more experiencing like a movie and not being part of the story. Something like The Last of Us fits here. I still want it to last more than a week but I'm not building up characters or making myself part of the story so it's ok to be a bit short.
For an RPG 50 hours is the bare minimum and that is what I'm going to call short for an RPG and leave me wanting more. I'll always be hoping for at least 80 and if it's great game give me 100+.
I don't want it to end and I want to spend as much time with the characters and world as possible.
I should also note that I do not replay anything ever for any reason. So once I beat even a sub 20 hour game in a week or whatever I'm never going to touch it again. Which is also why for a game I enjoy I want it to be nice and long because once it's over that;s it for me. I'll never be back in there again outside of a sequel
Moneywise I don't give a hell. $70 even now still feels like a bargain for the amount of entertainment I get out of games.Going to a music festival for a weekend costs hundreds of dollars and that's still worth doing. Taking the GF to a movie for 2 hours costs $50 at this point and that's still a fun time. Going out to a nice dinner for an hour costs more than a game. So yea, I'm never really concerned about the pricing there.
For my part, the sweet spot is 10-20 hours. Less than that feels short for $60, and definitely too short at $70. But it also depends on the game. Something like DmC or Bayonetta shouldn't be more than 15 hours, while something like an indie platformer shouldn't be longer than 10, yet something like a JRPG shouldn't be less than 30. When you get above 40 hours, I struggle to finish, usually taking a break for a few months to play other things before eventually picking it back up and running it to the finish.
Also, if your game also has an "end game", I don't care. Once I finish the story, I'm done. I'm not going to go back to it to grind shit out to get slightly better gear for some nebulous reason.
Yep!
If it's not part of the narrative I'm not doing it.
Which is why I absolutely DESPISE how many (j)RPGs have been jumping on locking all the big special bosses and stuff into a post game with no relation to the narrative.
I actually enjoy those big supper bosses and they add a lot to my experience in those games. But I am not doing it if it's no longer taking place within the narrative.
And it's honestly just super lazy design that serves no purpose other than to sell the idea of extra content even though it's not any more content and doesn't actually benefit anyone by locking it like that.
I don't have a sweet spot and will drop 4 to 200 hours if the game is compelling enough through story and/or gameplay. I also like to get platinums, so I'm even more anathema to the general stance in here, I guess.
And it's honestly just super lazy design that serves no purpose other than to sell the idea of extra content even though it's not any more content and doesn't actually benefit anyone by locking it like that.
I could not disagree more. I think most people are good with the story being told and the hard extra content being optional. It's certainly not lazy, but rather a fairly traditional at this point JRPG design convention.
It's intelligently designed for "lazy" players. They don't want to force people to git gud or grind a bunch just to experience the main story.
I never would've made it through FFX if that whole monster arena stuff was mandatory.
rahkeesh2000 on
0
Options
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
edited April 2021
I think people may be misreading something.
Nowhere did I suggest that content shouldn't be optional..
I love that optional content. I want to play that optional content.
I will no longer be interested in that optional content if you lock it after beating the final boss and therefore leaving it to take place outside the narrative period of the game.
Let it be optional and let the player play it when they enjoy it. This is the way it was done (and still occasional is done) in many many games without issue. This isn't some random made up suggestion. There's just been more games with the arbitrary and pointless lock that serves no purpose other than to lazily say there's "post game" content.
I think after story content is different from end-game content. Like, after story content is an optional hard boss in a JRPG. End-game content is GaaS stuff like Destiny or Anthem or Avengers or what not where you "have to" return every day to get new shit for [insert reason here]. Optional hard bosses are fine and if your game is good enough, I'll do it - like God of War, I enjoyed that game so much I went back after the end and did the Valkyrie boss fight. But GaaS? Don't care. I paid $60. I did everything for the story that I'm gonna do. I am not going to return to your game every day for the next 6 months for some new loot for no real reason.
I think after story content is different from end-game content. Like, after story content is an optional hard boss in a JRPG. End-game content is GaaS stuff like Destiny or Anthem or Avengers or what not where you "have to" return every day to get new shit for [insert reason here]. Optional hard bosses are fine and if your game is good enough, I'll do it - like God of War, I enjoyed that game so much I went back after the end and did the Valkyrie boss fight. But GaaS? Don't care. I paid $60. I did everything for the story that I'm gonna do. I am not going to return to your game every day for the next 6 months for some new loot for no real reason.
Well I mean a GaaS that's the primary content. That's like the whole thing. Which yea I'm not interested in that but that is what you are getting one of those games for. It's right in the name.
And the GoW example is an example of it being done properly. Because that is NOT post story content. That's end game content that you can do after you beat the game if you prefer it that way. The way it should be. I did that stuff before beating the game. So I got to have it happen during the narrative. Instead of just gameplay for the sake of gameplay.
I think after story content is different from end-game content. Like, after story content is an optional hard boss in a JRPG. End-game content is GaaS stuff like Destiny or Anthem or Avengers or what not where you "have to" return every day to get new shit for [insert reason here]. Optional hard bosses are fine and if your game is good enough, I'll do it - like God of War, I enjoyed that game so much I went back after the end and did the Valkyrie boss fight. But GaaS? Don't care. I paid $60. I did everything for the story that I'm gonna do. I am not going to return to your game every day for the next 6 months for some new loot for no real reason.
Well I mean a GaaS that's the primary content. That's like the whole thing. Which yea I'm not interested in that but that is what you are getting one of those games for. It's right in the name.
And the GoW example is an example of it being done properly. Because that is NOT post story content. That's end game content that you can do after you beat the game if you prefer it that way. The way it should be. I did that stuff before beating the game. So I got to have it happen during the narrative. Instead of just gameplay for the sake of gameplay.
This is a brain worm. All of the gameplay is for the sake of the gameplay. It is not a meaningful narrative event in SMRPG that Mario fought a strangely out of place monster in a closet in one place. It was simply a tough fight offered for those who wanted to try it. You're carving up things in ways that really make no difference at all. I would say forcing a credits roll before a boss fight can be accessed is also... uncommon? I'm trying to think of some that aren't related to New Game+ and failing.
Forcing a game clear to access extra challenges isn't traditional in JRPGs but it is an increasing trend these days. Like Xenoblade 2 most superbosses don't exist until you kill the final boss?
There's also a difference between the 'postgame' being loading a save before the final boss, but now you have 'postgame' content accessible - vs beating the boss and then the game continues on, and the world has now advanced. To me the second category is still in the same narrative, but the first, not as much.
I finally got a PS5! Woohoo! Order status says it should be here by Tuesday.
Now I just figure out what game to play first. I didn't have a PS4 so that's a huge backlog to play. FF7 Remake would have been my first pick but now seems it makes more sense to just wait for the PS5 version with DLC in June.
Ghost of Tsushima or God of War, maybe? I think I need an 8-Ball.
I finally got a PS5! Woohoo! Order status says it should be here by Tuesday.
Now I just figure out what game to play first. I didn't have a PS4 so that's a huge backlog to play. FF7 Remake would have been my first pick but now seems it makes more sense to just wait for the PS5 version with DLC in June.
Ghost of Tsushima or God of War, maybe? I think I need an 8-Ball.
If you have children go with God of War first.
If not Ghost of Tsushima is absolutely fantastic. Then play God of War immediately after. :P
+2
Options
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
I think after story content is different from end-game content. Like, after story content is an optional hard boss in a JRPG. End-game content is GaaS stuff like Destiny or Anthem or Avengers or what not where you "have to" return every day to get new shit for [insert reason here]. Optional hard bosses are fine and if your game is good enough, I'll do it - like God of War, I enjoyed that game so much I went back after the end and did the Valkyrie boss fight. But GaaS? Don't care. I paid $60. I did everything for the story that I'm gonna do. I am not going to return to your game every day for the next 6 months for some new loot for no real reason.
Well I mean a GaaS that's the primary content. That's like the whole thing. Which yea I'm not interested in that but that is what you are getting one of those games for. It's right in the name.
And the GoW example is an example of it being done properly. Because that is NOT post story content. That's end game content that you can do after you beat the game if you prefer it that way. The way it should be. I did that stuff before beating the game. So I got to have it happen during the narrative. Instead of just gameplay for the sake of gameplay.
This is a brain worm. All of the gameplay is for the sake of the gameplay. It is not a meaningful narrative event in SMRPG that Mario fought a strangely out of place monster in a closet in one place. It was simply a tough fight offered for those who wanted to try it. You're carving up things in ways that really make no difference at all. I would say forcing a credits roll before a boss fight can be accessed is also... uncommon? I'm trying to think of some that aren't related to New Game+ and failing.
I think you're stuck on how you play games here maybe.
Gameplay without narrative purpose is not interesting to some people. Plenty of people it still is. Plenty of games are based entirely around just gameplay. And that's cool! But not how everyone plays games. Maybe It's just the wording but that's what i meant by gameplay for gameplay sake. Not saying it's a bad thing. Just not something I enjoy and not how I play games.
As for the other part yea, it doesn't matter for the person who likes to play stuff after the end boss if it's locked or unlocked. Nothing changes. That's why it's silly to lock it because that doesn't add anything and only blocks out certain kinds of people for no good reason.
And to last point... I'm not really sure what to say. Post-game locked content is EXTREMELY common. I mean shit there's a tvtropes page about that even says "but some others don't make everything the game has to offer available until you've beaten the game (that is, seen the credits) at least once. This is very common in Role-Playing Games and games with levels, but it can appear in every genre." So I'm not alone in thinking it's common.
I think after story content is different from end-game content. Like, after story content is an optional hard boss in a JRPG. End-game content is GaaS stuff like Destiny or Anthem or Avengers or what not where you "have to" return every day to get new shit for [insert reason here]. Optional hard bosses are fine and if your game is good enough, I'll do it - like God of War, I enjoyed that game so much I went back after the end and did the Valkyrie boss fight. But GaaS? Don't care. I paid $60. I did everything for the story that I'm gonna do. I am not going to return to your game every day for the next 6 months for some new loot for no real reason.
Well I mean a GaaS that's the primary content. That's like the whole thing. Which yea I'm not interested in that but that is what you are getting one of those games for. It's right in the name.
And the GoW example is an example of it being done properly. Because that is NOT post story content. That's end game content that you can do after you beat the game if you prefer it that way. The way it should be. I did that stuff before beating the game. So I got to have it happen during the narrative. Instead of just gameplay for the sake of gameplay.
This is a brain worm. All of the gameplay is for the sake of the gameplay. It is not a meaningful narrative event in SMRPG that Mario fought a strangely out of place monster in a closet in one place. It was simply a tough fight offered for those who wanted to try it. You're carving up things in ways that really make no difference at all. I would say forcing a credits roll before a boss fight can be accessed is also... uncommon? I'm trying to think of some that aren't related to New Game+ and failing.
I think you're stuck on how you play games here maybe.
Gameplay without narrative purpose is not interesting to some people. Plenty of people it still is. Plenty of games are based entirely around just gameplay. And that's cool! But not how everyone plays games. Maybe It's just the wording but that's what i meant by gameplay for gameplay sake. Not saying it's a bad thing. Just not something I enjoy and not how I play games.
As for the other part yea, it doesn't matter for the person who likes to play stuff after the end boss if it's locked or unlocked. Nothing changes. That's why it's silly to lock it because that doesn't add anything and only blocks out certain kinds of people for no good reason.
And to last point... I'm not really sure what to say. Post-game locked content is EXTREMELY common. I mean shit there's a tvtropes page about that even says "but some others don't make everything the game has to offer available until you've beaten the game (that is, seen the credits) at least once. This is very common in Role-Playing Games and games with levels, but it can appear in every genre." So I'm not alone in thinking it's common.
I understand caring about content that is related to the narrative. None of these bosses or whatever are, except in specialized cases. Like, in Kingdom Hearts 1, you fight a ghost monster in Neverland as an optional boss. It has nothing to do with anything, it's just a challenge invented to test your resource management (spell MP) in a way that never was in the main game. If that boss was locked behind seeing the credits roll first, it would be equally meaningless to the narrative of the game. If that monster is fun to fight before the credits, it should be equally fun to fight after them. If you're claiming it's not, that you WOULD enjoy the fight, but now you can't, that's the brain worm. If you're instead saying bosses of that nature don't interest you in any case, I have no disagreement to make with that concept.
Like, especially in RPGs, the vast majority of the gameplay content truly has nothing to do with the story. In Final Fantasy X, you fight a boss monster who eats Chocobos. If you don't win quickly enough, the gang is pushed off a cliff. Nothing results in this, they're fine. If you're quicker and stronger with combat, they don't get pushed off a cliff. This entire battle is there because in RPGs, they like to put bosses in to make the combat push back on the player a bit more. It can be narratively significant that the boss is very strong and fighting it CAN mean something to the characters, but often it's just there and could be swapped to anything. Fighting Sin or Yunalesca has narrative meaning, fighting the Chocobo Eater or whatever doesn't. Nearly all post content super bosses are just other versions of the Chocobo Eater, but even less so, because the characters at least reacted to the Chocobo Eater's existence, something that often does not happen with other such bosses.
There's nothing wrong with post game content. But I will say that I also suffer from the condition where, if the story is all wrapped up and I see credits and "The End", a switch gets flipped in my brain and it's very difficult to get back into things. An actual post world to interact with definitely helps, as opposed to just rewinding the clock back to 2 minutes to midnight.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
+2
Options
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
I think after story content is different from end-game content. Like, after story content is an optional hard boss in a JRPG. End-game content is GaaS stuff like Destiny or Anthem or Avengers or what not where you "have to" return every day to get new shit for [insert reason here]. Optional hard bosses are fine and if your game is good enough, I'll do it - like God of War, I enjoyed that game so much I went back after the end and did the Valkyrie boss fight. But GaaS? Don't care. I paid $60. I did everything for the story that I'm gonna do. I am not going to return to your game every day for the next 6 months for some new loot for no real reason.
Well I mean a GaaS that's the primary content. That's like the whole thing. Which yea I'm not interested in that but that is what you are getting one of those games for. It's right in the name.
And the GoW example is an example of it being done properly. Because that is NOT post story content. That's end game content that you can do after you beat the game if you prefer it that way. The way it should be. I did that stuff before beating the game. So I got to have it happen during the narrative. Instead of just gameplay for the sake of gameplay.
This is a brain worm. All of the gameplay is for the sake of the gameplay. It is not a meaningful narrative event in SMRPG that Mario fought a strangely out of place monster in a closet in one place. It was simply a tough fight offered for those who wanted to try it. You're carving up things in ways that really make no difference at all. I would say forcing a credits roll before a boss fight can be accessed is also... uncommon? I'm trying to think of some that aren't related to New Game+ and failing.
I think you're stuck on how you play games here maybe.
Gameplay without narrative purpose is not interesting to some people. Plenty of people it still is. Plenty of games are based entirely around just gameplay. And that's cool! But not how everyone plays games. Maybe It's just the wording but that's what i meant by gameplay for gameplay sake. Not saying it's a bad thing. Just not something I enjoy and not how I play games.
As for the other part yea, it doesn't matter for the person who likes to play stuff after the end boss if it's locked or unlocked. Nothing changes. That's why it's silly to lock it because that doesn't add anything and only blocks out certain kinds of people for no good reason.
And to last point... I'm not really sure what to say. Post-game locked content is EXTREMELY common. I mean shit there's a tvtropes page about that even says "but some others don't make everything the game has to offer available until you've beaten the game (that is, seen the credits) at least once. This is very common in Role-Playing Games and games with levels, but it can appear in every genre." So I'm not alone in thinking it's common.
I understand caring about content that is related to the narrative. None of these bosses or whatever are, except in specialized cases. Like, in Kingdom Hearts 1, you fight a ghost monster in Neverland as an optional boss. It has nothing to do with anything, it's just a challenge invented to test your resource management (spell MP) in a way that never was in the main game. If that boss was locked behind seeing the credits roll first, it would be equally meaningless to the narrative of the game. If that monster is fun to fight before the credits, it should be equally fun to fight after them. If you're claiming it's not, that you WOULD enjoy the fight, but now you can't, that's the brain worm. If you're instead saying bosses of that nature don't interest you in any case, I have no disagreement to make with that concept.
Like, especially in RPGs, the vast majority of the gameplay content truly has nothing to do with the story. In Final Fantasy X, you fight a boss monster who eats Chocobos. If you don't win quickly enough, the gang is pushed off a cliff. Nothing results in this, they're fine. If you're quicker and stronger with combat, they don't get pushed off a cliff. This entire battle is there because in RPGs, they like to put bosses in to make the combat push back on the player a bit more. It can be narratively significant that the boss is very strong and fighting it CAN mean something to the characters, but often it's just there and could be swapped to anything. Fighting Sin or Yunalesca has narrative meaning, fighting the Chocobo Eater or whatever doesn't. Nearly all post content super bosses are just other versions of the Chocobo Eater, but even less so, because the characters at least reacted to the Chocobo Eater's existence, something that often does not happen with other such bosses.
See for me everything I am doing during the story is part of it. Every bit of extra combat is my characters getting stronger and better at fighting so they can accomplish their goals. If I run around to get another quick level it is exactly that. My characters are practicing more to get stronger. A big super boss that awards a special weapon is an extra goal to ensure the characters are strong enough to stop whatever evil is threatening the world.
I'm not talking about actually being mentioned in the story. I'm saying it's happening *during* the narrative. While my characters are still on their quest. It's all part of the adventure. Everything they do during that time is part of their adventure and piece of how their goals were accomplished. If all of the prior combat was removed the characters would have been unable to finish a boss fight eventually and the world wouldn't be saved. The adventure came to an end. All of the combat and gear gathering along the adventure was the whole reason the story is able to continue on.
Once the credits roll and the story ends there is no more narrative taking place. If I jump back in I'm now purely just interacting with gameplay. This is no longer part of the adventure the characters are on. No longer happening during the narrative.
Man, Dad of War is good. I'm almost to the end, I think?
I'm almost to the second attempt to get to the land of the giants. Wonder if they'll explain why Atreus was suddenly a jerk for a while and why he now thinks he wasn't himself while in jerk mode. I mean, besides being the son of the god of seething rage.
I think after story content is different from end-game content. Like, after story content is an optional hard boss in a JRPG. End-game content is GaaS stuff like Destiny or Anthem or Avengers or what not where you "have to" return every day to get new shit for [insert reason here]. Optional hard bosses are fine and if your game is good enough, I'll do it - like God of War, I enjoyed that game so much I went back after the end and did the Valkyrie boss fight. But GaaS? Don't care. I paid $60. I did everything for the story that I'm gonna do. I am not going to return to your game every day for the next 6 months for some new loot for no real reason.
Well I mean a GaaS that's the primary content. That's like the whole thing. Which yea I'm not interested in that but that is what you are getting one of those games for. It's right in the name.
And the GoW example is an example of it being done properly. Because that is NOT post story content. That's end game content that you can do after you beat the game if you prefer it that way. The way it should be. I did that stuff before beating the game. So I got to have it happen during the narrative. Instead of just gameplay for the sake of gameplay.
This is a brain worm. All of the gameplay is for the sake of the gameplay. It is not a meaningful narrative event in SMRPG that Mario fought a strangely out of place monster in a closet in one place. It was simply a tough fight offered for those who wanted to try it. You're carving up things in ways that really make no difference at all. I would say forcing a credits roll before a boss fight can be accessed is also... uncommon? I'm trying to think of some that aren't related to New Game+ and failing.
I think you're stuck on how you play games here maybe.
Gameplay without narrative purpose is not interesting to some people. Plenty of people it still is. Plenty of games are based entirely around just gameplay. And that's cool! But not how everyone plays games. Maybe It's just the wording but that's what i meant by gameplay for gameplay sake. Not saying it's a bad thing. Just not something I enjoy and not how I play games.
As for the other part yea, it doesn't matter for the person who likes to play stuff after the end boss if it's locked or unlocked. Nothing changes. That's why it's silly to lock it because that doesn't add anything and only blocks out certain kinds of people for no good reason.
And to last point... I'm not really sure what to say. Post-game locked content is EXTREMELY common. I mean shit there's a tvtropes page about that even says "but some others don't make everything the game has to offer available until you've beaten the game (that is, seen the credits) at least once. This is very common in Role-Playing Games and games with levels, but it can appear in every genre." So I'm not alone in thinking it's common.
I understand caring about content that is related to the narrative. None of these bosses or whatever are, except in specialized cases. Like, in Kingdom Hearts 1, you fight a ghost monster in Neverland as an optional boss. It has nothing to do with anything, it's just a challenge invented to test your resource management (spell MP) in a way that never was in the main game. If that boss was locked behind seeing the credits roll first, it would be equally meaningless to the narrative of the game. If that monster is fun to fight before the credits, it should be equally fun to fight after them. If you're claiming it's not, that you WOULD enjoy the fight, but now you can't, that's the brain worm. If you're instead saying bosses of that nature don't interest you in any case, I have no disagreement to make with that concept.
Like, especially in RPGs, the vast majority of the gameplay content truly has nothing to do with the story. In Final Fantasy X, you fight a boss monster who eats Chocobos. If you don't win quickly enough, the gang is pushed off a cliff. Nothing results in this, they're fine. If you're quicker and stronger with combat, they don't get pushed off a cliff. This entire battle is there because in RPGs, they like to put bosses in to make the combat push back on the player a bit more. It can be narratively significant that the boss is very strong and fighting it CAN mean something to the characters, but often it's just there and could be swapped to anything. Fighting Sin or Yunalesca has narrative meaning, fighting the Chocobo Eater or whatever doesn't. Nearly all post content super bosses are just other versions of the Chocobo Eater, but even less so, because the characters at least reacted to the Chocobo Eater's existence, something that often does not happen with other such bosses.
See for me everything I am doing during the story is part of it. Every bit of extra combat is my characters getting stronger and better at fighting so they can accomplish their goals. If I run around to get another quick level it is exactly that. My characters are practicing more to get stronger. A big super boss that awards a special weapon is an extra goal to ensure the characters are strong enough to stop whatever evil is threatening the world.
I'm not talking about actually being mentioned in the story. I'm saying it's happening *during* the narrative. While my characters are still on their quest. It's all part of the adventure. Everything they do during that time is part of their adventure and piece of how their goals were accomplished. If all of the prior combat was removed the characters would have been unable to finish a boss fight eventually and the world wouldn't be saved. The adventure came to an end. All of the combat and gear gathering along the adventure was the whole reason the story is able to continue on.
Once the credits roll and the story ends there is no more narrative taking place. If I jump back in I'm now purely just interacting with gameplay. This is no longer part of the adventure the characters are on. No longer happening during the narrative.
How are you determining that 'the story ends there' other than the credits rolling? Or is that the only criteria?
I would say there's a definable difference between pulling the car into the home garage after a long trip and turning off the engine... vs driving the car as far down the highway as possible until it sputters out of gas and you basically leave it on the side of the road. Both are technically "endings", but the former has a more defined sense of closure to it.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Options
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
I think after story content is different from end-game content. Like, after story content is an optional hard boss in a JRPG. End-game content is GaaS stuff like Destiny or Anthem or Avengers or what not where you "have to" return every day to get new shit for [insert reason here]. Optional hard bosses are fine and if your game is good enough, I'll do it - like God of War, I enjoyed that game so much I went back after the end and did the Valkyrie boss fight. But GaaS? Don't care. I paid $60. I did everything for the story that I'm gonna do. I am not going to return to your game every day for the next 6 months for some new loot for no real reason.
Well I mean a GaaS that's the primary content. That's like the whole thing. Which yea I'm not interested in that but that is what you are getting one of those games for. It's right in the name.
And the GoW example is an example of it being done properly. Because that is NOT post story content. That's end game content that you can do after you beat the game if you prefer it that way. The way it should be. I did that stuff before beating the game. So I got to have it happen during the narrative. Instead of just gameplay for the sake of gameplay.
This is a brain worm. All of the gameplay is for the sake of the gameplay. It is not a meaningful narrative event in SMRPG that Mario fought a strangely out of place monster in a closet in one place. It was simply a tough fight offered for those who wanted to try it. You're carving up things in ways that really make no difference at all. I would say forcing a credits roll before a boss fight can be accessed is also... uncommon? I'm trying to think of some that aren't related to New Game+ and failing.
I think you're stuck on how you play games here maybe.
Gameplay without narrative purpose is not interesting to some people. Plenty of people it still is. Plenty of games are based entirely around just gameplay. And that's cool! But not how everyone plays games. Maybe It's just the wording but that's what i meant by gameplay for gameplay sake. Not saying it's a bad thing. Just not something I enjoy and not how I play games.
As for the other part yea, it doesn't matter for the person who likes to play stuff after the end boss if it's locked or unlocked. Nothing changes. That's why it's silly to lock it because that doesn't add anything and only blocks out certain kinds of people for no good reason.
And to last point... I'm not really sure what to say. Post-game locked content is EXTREMELY common. I mean shit there's a tvtropes page about that even says "but some others don't make everything the game has to offer available until you've beaten the game (that is, seen the credits) at least once. This is very common in Role-Playing Games and games with levels, but it can appear in every genre." So I'm not alone in thinking it's common.
I understand caring about content that is related to the narrative. None of these bosses or whatever are, except in specialized cases. Like, in Kingdom Hearts 1, you fight a ghost monster in Neverland as an optional boss. It has nothing to do with anything, it's just a challenge invented to test your resource management (spell MP) in a way that never was in the main game. If that boss was locked behind seeing the credits roll first, it would be equally meaningless to the narrative of the game. If that monster is fun to fight before the credits, it should be equally fun to fight after them. If you're claiming it's not, that you WOULD enjoy the fight, but now you can't, that's the brain worm. If you're instead saying bosses of that nature don't interest you in any case, I have no disagreement to make with that concept.
Like, especially in RPGs, the vast majority of the gameplay content truly has nothing to do with the story. In Final Fantasy X, you fight a boss monster who eats Chocobos. If you don't win quickly enough, the gang is pushed off a cliff. Nothing results in this, they're fine. If you're quicker and stronger with combat, they don't get pushed off a cliff. This entire battle is there because in RPGs, they like to put bosses in to make the combat push back on the player a bit more. It can be narratively significant that the boss is very strong and fighting it CAN mean something to the characters, but often it's just there and could be swapped to anything. Fighting Sin or Yunalesca has narrative meaning, fighting the Chocobo Eater or whatever doesn't. Nearly all post content super bosses are just other versions of the Chocobo Eater, but even less so, because the characters at least reacted to the Chocobo Eater's existence, something that often does not happen with other such bosses.
See for me everything I am doing during the story is part of it. Every bit of extra combat is my characters getting stronger and better at fighting so they can accomplish their goals. If I run around to get another quick level it is exactly that. My characters are practicing more to get stronger. A big super boss that awards a special weapon is an extra goal to ensure the characters are strong enough to stop whatever evil is threatening the world.
I'm not talking about actually being mentioned in the story. I'm saying it's happening *during* the narrative. While my characters are still on their quest. It's all part of the adventure. Everything they do during that time is part of their adventure and piece of how their goals were accomplished. If all of the prior combat was removed the characters would have been unable to finish a boss fight eventually and the world wouldn't be saved. The adventure came to an end. All of the combat and gear gathering along the adventure was the whole reason the story is able to continue on.
Once the credits roll and the story ends there is no more narrative taking place. If I jump back in I'm now purely just interacting with gameplay. This is no longer part of the adventure the characters are on. No longer happening during the narrative.
How are you determining that 'the story ends there' other than the credits rolling? Or is that the only criteria?
Well as mentioned above one of the biggest offenders are the "drop you back at the save point before the last boss"
There's no way to go further into the story than that. So that makes it pretty clear.
And in the rarer case where you can just keep going in the world if there is no more story being told by the game just with some new bosses standing where they were before then well.. there's no more story!
If there is more story there that leads to the opposite problem that some people have wherein then it feels like it's just a continuation of the game anyway. That doesn't bother me but I can see how that would bother people. And if you go far enough with that(DQ) then it's just sort of a fake credit roll into the actual final chapter of the game. Which if that's where the extra stuff is then yea I'm down! But that is used pretty rarely.
So either make the locked content actually have a meaningful reason to be locked and develop that or don't lock it.
House Marque made some games I enjoyed on previous systems also as I’m a sucker for rogue- likes this is the perfect option to blow the dust off the PS5.
I still can't stomach $70 for a game.
Doesn't bother me too much when I remind myself that the inflation adjusted cost of a SNES game was about twice that. If 15 year old me could afford a game on my allowance, 45 year old me can deal.
That said, there are a ton of games to be had for $20 these days, soooooo.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
As far as Roguelikes/lites/whatever-theyre-called, I want something that plays like Sundered did. You got currency from killing things, and when you died you got to spend that currency on things that provided immediate and tangible improvements, such that dying was barely even a setback. Yeah, you had to start back from the hub, but even playing for five minutes at a time you always had a sense of progress.
Doesn't sound like Returnal is that thing, but I'm still intrigued.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
House Marque made some games I enjoyed on previous systems also as I’m a sucker for rogue- likes this is the perfect option to blow the dust off the PS5.
I still can't stomach $70 for a game.
Doesn't bother me too much when I remind myself that the inflation adjusted cost of a SNES game was about twice that. If 15 year old me could afford a game on my allowance, 45 year old me can deal.
That said, there are a ton of games to be had for $20 these days, soooooo.
I didn't start buying games for myself until the early 2000's, so perhaps I was spoiled by $50 games in my youth.
Returnal is looking more rogue and less -lite the more I see of it, which doesn't bother me at all. I've spent enough time with Hades, Dead Cells, Crawl Stone Soup, Nova Drift, and Risk of Rain 2 to know that it's probably my jam. The ontological mystery laced through it is also a difficult lure for me to resist. Don't think I'll pre-order, but unless the reviews bomb in the first week, I'm in. It is interesting that individual runs are looking to be longer than a lot of other roguelikes, at least if you are meticulous about exploring and looting. The haptic implementation seems cool too.
Regarding post-game or optional stuff... I actually really appreciate an epilogue or a victory lap, like the scavenger hunt after the credits roll on Miles Morales, or in Hades,
Persephone's long con to host a family reunion.
I also like side quests for more exploring or story or mechanical challenges or sweet loot, and I'm likely go back post credits and finish any I missed if I can. I get that both of those are different from a GaaS "end game" grind, but I don't really have an opinion on the idea of an end game grind. Maybe that it's nice to have some measure of progression or encouragement to use different abilities besides "replay the whole thing" if I do really enjoy the moment-to-moment gameplay. But it all comes down to "am I still having fun," and I'm not going to chase down a platinum medal if I'm not still having fun.
Someone said you could get horizon zero dawn for free now? I have it on disc but I’d like the digital version, I can’t seem to find how to get it for free, I have ps plus but my free games this month just say days gone and Abe’s odyssey
When I go to that play at home thing it just asks me to put the disc in? Is there no way to get a digital game once you have a disc installed? Or do I have to reinstall or redownload or something
Prohass on
0
Options
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
Someone said you could get horizon zero dawn for free now? I have it on disc but I’d like the digital version, I can’t seem to find how to get it for free, I have ps plus but my free games this month just say days gone and Abe’s odyssey
When I go to that play at home thing it just asks me to put the disc in? Is there no way to get a digital game once you have a disc installed? Or do I have to reinstall or redownload or something
Good question. I don't think it's PS5 only, but I was able to get it from the Play @ Home screen. I did not have it installed from the disc version prior. Maybe try uninstalling the disc version first?
Someone said you could get horizon zero dawn for free now? I have it on disc but I’d like the digital version, I can’t seem to find how to get it for free, I have ps plus but my free games this month just say days gone and Abe’s odyssey
When I go to that play at home thing it just asks me to put the disc in? Is there no way to get a digital game once you have a disc installed? Or do I have to reinstall or redownload or something
I think the issue is once again really fuckin' bizarre file sorting by Sony. Because Horizon disc version, Horizon stand alone digital version, and PS Hits Horizon Complete Edition are all completely different games in their system. Meanwhile the console wants to collate them all into one game icon, and the process of differentiating them is equally fuckin' bizarre.
You'll also have to delete the disc version off your hard drive if it's there and download the digital version. Your saves will be fine.
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Yep I had to delete it and then download the digital version. Also i find it weird that they call it deleting on PlayStation, on Xbox they call it uninstalling, which sounds way less scary.
]Returnal is looking more rogue and less -lite the more I see of it, which doesn't bother me at all. I've spent enough time with Hades, Dead Cells, Crawl Stone Soup, Nova Drift, and Risk of Rain 2 to know that it's probably my jam. The ontological mystery laced through it is also a difficult lure for me to resist. Don't think I'll pre-order, but unless the reviews bomb in the first week, I'm in. It is interesting that individual runs are looking to be longer than a lot of other roguelikes, at least if you are meticulous about exploring and looting. The haptic implementation seems cool too.
Regarding post-game or optional stuff... I actually really appreciate an epilogue or a victory lap, like the scavenger hunt after the credits roll on Miles Morales, or in Hades,
Persephone's long con to host a family reunion.
I also like side quests for more exploring or story or mechanical challenges or sweet loot, and I'm likely go back post credits and finish any I missed if I can. I get that both of those are different from a GaaS "end game" grind, but I don't really have an opinion on the idea of an end game grind. Maybe that it's nice to have some measure of progression or encouragement to use different abilities besides "replay the whole thing" if I do really enjoy the moment-to-moment gameplay. But it all comes down to "am I still having fun," and I'm not going to chase down a platinum medal if I'm not still having fun.
Errr I'd say the opposite is true.
It's extra lite. Which is smart since they are trying to hit bigger appeal.
But it's kinda hard to call a game with check points more rogue than lite as that is the least rogue thing ever.
The only reason I'm considering it is because of how hard they are swinging towards the "lite" side of it.
DemonStacey on
0
Options
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
Doesn't bother me too much when I remind myself that the inflation adjusted cost of a SNES game was about twice that. If 15 year old me could afford a game on my allowance, 45 year old me can deal.
sure but here's the thing
1) when I was 12 I was RENTING SNES games for a few bucks for a week
2) games are now 90 FUCKING DOLLARS in canada
Inflation doesn't matter, that is too god damned much for a video game
Doesn't bother me too much when I remind myself that the inflation adjusted cost of a SNES game was about twice that. If 15 year old me could afford a game on my allowance, 45 year old me can deal.
sure but here's the thing
1) when I was 12 I was RENTING SNES games for a few bucks for a week
2) games are now 90 FUCKING DOLLARS in canada
Inflation doesn't matter, that is too god damned much for a video game
to that point, some SNES games were 80+ dollars at release too. I remember Chrono Trigger was like $80, and several others were up there too.
+1
Options
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
Yep, I paid 70 bucks for Super Mario RPG at release.
Posts
I still can't stomach $70 for a game.
I'm happy to see the gameplay reveals that have been posted over the last couple of days. Especially the reports that there is "generous auto-aim" (because that's where I'm seriously lacking).
I've pre-ordered it tonight and started the pre-load. Now my biggest complaint is that 2pm Friday 30 April (PDT) is 7am Saturday 1 May (AEST) and I'm not about to get up early on a weekend day.
Haha, yea that's exactly why I said that first line! Plenty of people like you actively do NOT want longer games no matter what.
For me anything under 20 is always going to feel too short. I'll play it and enjoy it but that means I'll be done in a week and that just kinda sucks. I play only play narrative based games and spending a week with the world and characters means I'll never be able to fully get into them.
20-40 I am ok with for action-y type games. Or games where I am more experiencing like a movie and not being part of the story. Something like The Last of Us fits here. I still want it to last more than a week but I'm not building up characters or making myself part of the story so it's ok to be a bit short.
For an RPG 50 hours is the bare minimum and that is what I'm going to call short for an RPG and leave me wanting more. I'll always be hoping for at least 80 and if it's great game give me 100+.
I don't want it to end and I want to spend as much time with the characters and world as possible.
I should also note that I do not replay anything ever for any reason. So once I beat even a sub 20 hour game in a week or whatever I'm never going to touch it again. Which is also why for a game I enjoy I want it to be nice and long because once it's over that;s it for me. I'll never be back in there again outside of a sequel
Moneywise I don't give a hell. $70 even now still feels like a bargain for the amount of entertainment I get out of games.Going to a music festival for a weekend costs hundreds of dollars and that's still worth doing. Taking the GF to a movie for 2 hours costs $50 at this point and that's still a fun time. Going out to a nice dinner for an hour costs more than a game. So yea, I'm never really concerned about the pricing there.
For my part, the sweet spot is 10-20 hours. Less than that feels short for $60, and definitely too short at $70. But it also depends on the game. Something like DmC or Bayonetta shouldn't be more than 15 hours, while something like an indie platformer shouldn't be longer than 10, yet something like a JRPG shouldn't be less than 30. When you get above 40 hours, I struggle to finish, usually taking a break for a few months to play other things before eventually picking it back up and running it to the finish.
Also, if your game also has an "end game", I don't care. Once I finish the story, I'm done. I'm not going to go back to it to grind shit out to get slightly better gear for some nebulous reason.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Yep!
If it's not part of the narrative I'm not doing it.
Which is why I absolutely DESPISE how many (j)RPGs have been jumping on locking all the big special bosses and stuff into a post game with no relation to the narrative.
I actually enjoy those big supper bosses and they add a lot to my experience in those games. But I am not doing it if it's no longer taking place within the narrative.
And it's honestly just super lazy design that serves no purpose other than to sell the idea of extra content even though it's not any more content and doesn't actually benefit anyone by locking it like that.
I could not disagree more. I think most people are good with the story being told and the hard extra content being optional. It's certainly not lazy, but rather a fairly traditional at this point JRPG design convention.
I never would've made it through FFX if that whole monster arena stuff was mandatory.
Nowhere did I suggest that content shouldn't be optional..
I love that optional content. I want to play that optional content.
I will no longer be interested in that optional content if you lock it after beating the final boss and therefore leaving it to take place outside the narrative period of the game.
Let it be optional and let the player play it when they enjoy it. This is the way it was done (and still occasional is done) in many many games without issue. This isn't some random made up suggestion. There's just been more games with the arbitrary and pointless lock that serves no purpose other than to lazily say there's "post game" content.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Well I mean a GaaS that's the primary content. That's like the whole thing. Which yea I'm not interested in that but that is what you are getting one of those games for. It's right in the name.
And the GoW example is an example of it being done properly. Because that is NOT post story content. That's end game content that you can do after you beat the game if you prefer it that way. The way it should be. I did that stuff before beating the game. So I got to have it happen during the narrative. Instead of just gameplay for the sake of gameplay.
This is a brain worm. All of the gameplay is for the sake of the gameplay. It is not a meaningful narrative event in SMRPG that Mario fought a strangely out of place monster in a closet in one place. It was simply a tough fight offered for those who wanted to try it. You're carving up things in ways that really make no difference at all. I would say forcing a credits roll before a boss fight can be accessed is also... uncommon? I'm trying to think of some that aren't related to New Game+ and failing.
Now I just figure out what game to play first. I didn't have a PS4 so that's a huge backlog to play. FF7 Remake would have been my first pick but now seems it makes more sense to just wait for the PS5 version with DLC in June.
Ghost of Tsushima or God of War, maybe? I think I need an 8-Ball.
If you have children go with God of War first.
If not Ghost of Tsushima is absolutely fantastic. Then play God of War immediately after. :P
I think you're stuck on how you play games here maybe.
Gameplay without narrative purpose is not interesting to some people. Plenty of people it still is. Plenty of games are based entirely around just gameplay. And that's cool! But not how everyone plays games. Maybe It's just the wording but that's what i meant by gameplay for gameplay sake. Not saying it's a bad thing. Just not something I enjoy and not how I play games.
As for the other part yea, it doesn't matter for the person who likes to play stuff after the end boss if it's locked or unlocked. Nothing changes. That's why it's silly to lock it because that doesn't add anything and only blocks out certain kinds of people for no good reason.
And to last point... I'm not really sure what to say. Post-game locked content is EXTREMELY common. I mean shit there's a tvtropes page about that even says "but some others don't make everything the game has to offer available until you've beaten the game (that is, seen the credits) at least once. This is very common in Role-Playing Games and games with levels, but it can appear in every genre." So I'm not alone in thinking it's common.
I understand caring about content that is related to the narrative. None of these bosses or whatever are, except in specialized cases. Like, in Kingdom Hearts 1, you fight a ghost monster in Neverland as an optional boss. It has nothing to do with anything, it's just a challenge invented to test your resource management (spell MP) in a way that never was in the main game. If that boss was locked behind seeing the credits roll first, it would be equally meaningless to the narrative of the game. If that monster is fun to fight before the credits, it should be equally fun to fight after them. If you're claiming it's not, that you WOULD enjoy the fight, but now you can't, that's the brain worm. If you're instead saying bosses of that nature don't interest you in any case, I have no disagreement to make with that concept.
Like, especially in RPGs, the vast majority of the gameplay content truly has nothing to do with the story. In Final Fantasy X, you fight a boss monster who eats Chocobos. If you don't win quickly enough, the gang is pushed off a cliff. Nothing results in this, they're fine. If you're quicker and stronger with combat, they don't get pushed off a cliff. This entire battle is there because in RPGs, they like to put bosses in to make the combat push back on the player a bit more. It can be narratively significant that the boss is very strong and fighting it CAN mean something to the characters, but often it's just there and could be swapped to anything. Fighting Sin or Yunalesca has narrative meaning, fighting the Chocobo Eater or whatever doesn't. Nearly all post content super bosses are just other versions of the Chocobo Eater, but even less so, because the characters at least reacted to the Chocobo Eater's existence, something that often does not happen with other such bosses.
See for me everything I am doing during the story is part of it. Every bit of extra combat is my characters getting stronger and better at fighting so they can accomplish their goals. If I run around to get another quick level it is exactly that. My characters are practicing more to get stronger. A big super boss that awards a special weapon is an extra goal to ensure the characters are strong enough to stop whatever evil is threatening the world.
I'm not talking about actually being mentioned in the story. I'm saying it's happening *during* the narrative. While my characters are still on their quest. It's all part of the adventure. Everything they do during that time is part of their adventure and piece of how their goals were accomplished. If all of the prior combat was removed the characters would have been unable to finish a boss fight eventually and the world wouldn't be saved. The adventure came to an end. All of the combat and gear gathering along the adventure was the whole reason the story is able to continue on.
Once the credits roll and the story ends there is no more narrative taking place. If I jump back in I'm now purely just interacting with gameplay. This is no longer part of the adventure the characters are on. No longer happening during the narrative.
How are you determining that 'the story ends there' other than the credits rolling? Or is that the only criteria?
I would say there's a definable difference between pulling the car into the home garage after a long trip and turning off the engine... vs driving the car as far down the highway as possible until it sputters out of gas and you basically leave it on the side of the road. Both are technically "endings", but the former has a more defined sense of closure to it.
Well as mentioned above one of the biggest offenders are the "drop you back at the save point before the last boss"
There's no way to go further into the story than that. So that makes it pretty clear.
And in the rarer case where you can just keep going in the world if there is no more story being told by the game just with some new bosses standing where they were before then well.. there's no more story!
If there is more story there that leads to the opposite problem that some people have wherein then it feels like it's just a continuation of the game anyway. That doesn't bother me but I can see how that would bother people. And if you go far enough with that(DQ) then it's just sort of a fake credit roll into the actual final chapter of the game. Which if that's where the extra stuff is then yea I'm down! But that is used pretty rarely.
So either make the locked content actually have a meaningful reason to be locked and develop that or don't lock it.
Doesn't bother me too much when I remind myself that the inflation adjusted cost of a SNES game was about twice that. If 15 year old me could afford a game on my allowance, 45 year old me can deal.
That said, there are a ton of games to be had for $20 these days, soooooo.
Doesn't sound like Returnal is that thing, but I'm still intrigued.
I didn't start buying games for myself until the early 2000's, so perhaps I was spoiled by $50 games in my youth.
Regarding post-game or optional stuff... I actually really appreciate an epilogue or a victory lap, like the scavenger hunt after the credits roll on Miles Morales, or in Hades,
When I go to that play at home thing it just asks me to put the disc in? Is there no way to get a digital game once you have a disc installed? Or do I have to reinstall or redownload or something
Good question. I don't think it's PS5 only, but I was able to get it from the Play @ Home screen. I did not have it installed from the disc version prior. Maybe try uninstalling the disc version first?
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
https://store.playstation.com/en-us/product/UP9000-CUSA10237_00-HRZCE00000000000
I think the issue is once again really fuckin' bizarre file sorting by Sony. Because Horizon disc version, Horizon stand alone digital version, and PS Hits Horizon Complete Edition are all completely different games in their system. Meanwhile the console wants to collate them all into one game icon, and the process of differentiating them is equally fuckin' bizarre.
You'll also have to delete the disc version off your hard drive if it's there and download the digital version. Your saves will be fine.
https://t.co/vr7e378lQo
Wario really is the champ.
Errr I'd say the opposite is true.
It's extra lite. Which is smart since they are trying to hit bigger appeal.
But it's kinda hard to call a game with check points more rogue than lite as that is the least rogue thing ever.
The only reason I'm considering it is because of how hard they are swinging towards the "lite" side of it.
1) when I was 12 I was RENTING SNES games for a few bucks for a week
2) games are now 90 FUCKING DOLLARS in canada
Inflation doesn't matter, that is too god damned much for a video game
to that point, some SNES games were 80+ dollars at release too. I remember Chrono Trigger was like $80, and several others were up there too.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Battle.net: IronSquirrel#1462