Steam didn't do that. Even Super Nintendo cartridges tried to claim in the Terms and Conditions that you legally didn't own the copy you paid for. It was never contested, and thus we have the current software ownership debacle.
The combat doesn't suck. Morrowinds combat is good, you just don't understand how it works when you are new to the game.
The weapon swing animation tells the game to roll Attack dice, just like in a Table Talk RPG like Dungeons and Dragons. Then, if your Attack Roll (with modifiers like current fatigue, weapon skill, etc) beats the enemy's Armor Class (with modifiers like their current fatigue and enchantments, etc), its a hit. Otherwise, its a miss.
The one thing Morrowind could have done better with combat is communicating the feedback to the player better. Because the game can get the result of the roll immediately, it can then change what animation plays back to the player, so rather than always playing back the same weapon swing animation regardless of result, it should instead choose different animations based on the result. Missed? Play an animatiom that looks like the player missed. Hit? Play an animation that looks like a hit. Hit but damage was blocked? You get the idea.
Perhaps it would be helpful if the game displayed a UI dice result to better communicate this, who knows. I like the game better without floating damage numbers, but they could be helpful to reduce frustration of new players that don't understand how the game works.
Well according to Frank O'connor, a non-zero number of them hate Halo. Its why they were hired. If I had to guess, from the way they have mistreated the franchise, its more than 60% of them at the least.
Investors are not required to form an indie studio. They are not required to build a fun game that makes a lot of money. Indie studios do not require massive injections of cash. Most indie studios are formed on what is available to the team collectively. It isn't something that is easy, it takes effort, but it is not impossible. Most indie studios are initially formed with like, less than $20k USD in total investment. Many are just one guy with a budget of $0.
It is more likely that the amount of money that an investor would realistically need to give is considered too small to be worth the PR, but too big to just give away in a whim. Enough that one or multiple studio members could easily take out a personal load to invest into the studio without needing a private investor.
Now, if those people are demanding multiple big six+ figure investments, then they aren't trying to form an indie studio, they're trying to form a AAA studio that is publisher independant. Which is an unreasonable ask.
I mean, they haven't released any console exclusives, making all their games available on the competition console, AND they increased prices.
I would never believe if they didn't say they were doing it on purpose to manipulate market data. Probably to try to push the idea of a cloud subscription-only, disk driveless, hard diskless plastic box.
What advertising though? They didn't have to pay for The Game Awards spot, Jeff just gave it to them for free. I haven't seen any commercials or ads outside of that either. I think Concord had more advertising than Highguard, with Concord getting multiple devlogs and previews across a few Sony hosted events, IIRC.
Even still, its got more legs to stand on than Concord had, which was zero.
I think its serviceable unlike Concord, which required too many changes.
I guess we just have to wait and see if the server is shut down in two weeks. In reality, I don't think we will ever see as monumental a train wreck as Concord was. Probably ever.
Well its not Concord 2.0. Already has WAY more players than Concord ever did, almost 100k peak players on Steam alone, currently 67k in-game as of the time I am posting this.
I can't say that 3v3 is the right fit for the game, the maps are rather large for it. But I think with a bit more work in a few updates, it has far more staying power than Concord ever had.
Do you say the same for Epic Games Store exclusives?
The game was delisted from Steam right before GOG dropped this. I am not giving Ubisoft more money for Cold Fear. Since nobody can buy it on Steam anymore, there is no pro-consumer reason that the GOG fixes could not have been given to everyone that already owned the game on Steam as a free update.
Ubisoft wants me to buy the game I already own again. I am not doing that. I don't care if 2% or whatever goes to GOG for their fixes. I know that more than 50% is going to Ubisoft.
Now this is a classic. Its too bad Star Wars doesnt make more squad-based shooters. Battlefront from EA was pretty trash but also much more arcadey that I had hoped, especially coming from DICE. I wish they had just literally re-skinned Battlefield 4 as Star Wars.
A particularly hard game with more reliance on squad mechanics and teamwork that I have enjoyed playing is Ready or Not.
Its not a game for everyone, due to the developers trying to portray realistic to life crime situations that a SWAT team might be sent in on. Some missions include taking down robbers, child exploiters, terrorists, active shooters, etc. However, it is very satisfying to fully clear a mission with zero deaths, full evidence collection, and see that juicy S ranking at the end of the mission. Its really hard to do it on some missions, though. You can't take a lot of damage before you die, most times I get hit one time and its either an immediate death or I need to stop the character from bleeding out, which happens pretty fast. You can wear armor but it makes you really slow and doesn't do much in the tougher missions when the perps stop using the little guns and knives.
You get some cool tools, like being able to see your squadmate's helmet camera live feed, a camera wand, a battering ram, explosive charges, shields, and door wedges.
Maybe its something you and your friends might want to try after Halo? Though maybe you wouldn't want another shooter.
As a lifelong Star Wars fan, 7 was decent. I walked away thinking it was really just a repeat of 4, but it was also Disney's first try at it so I gave it a little slack. It was a little sloppy in some places and had problems, but not something so tragic.
Rian Johnson ruined Star Wars. It was his lifelong goal, he said it on video. He got what he wanted. 8 was so monumentally bad that I can't even be mad at 9. Half of 8 didn't even matter and could have been a deleted scene. It didn't even leave any loose ends for 9 to wrap up.
Then 9 comes out and while it was bad, it was still better than 8. I have to give JJ Abrams credit, I dont know how he even managed to write a follow up to 8.
I think my biggest gripe is how Disney squandered the opportunity they had to have the original cast together on screen at the same time for one last celebratory film. Well that and their fundamental misunderstanding of Star Wars.
Thankfully with Kathleen gone, maybe Favreau can have more breathing room to invite George for his direct opinion more. Favreau isn't great either, but at least he has done better than what Kathleen oversaw, more or less.
Steam didn't do that. Even Super Nintendo cartridges tried to claim in the Terms and Conditions that you legally didn't own the copy you paid for. It was never contested, and thus we have the current software ownership debacle.