That said, Mount and Blade is kind of special in that it is the only game I have ever played that did horseback riding OR archery well, regardless of the lack of polish in other areas.
Come on - he has not released a release for 500 days. Of course he plays games. How else can you keep up with market research? If you make it big and can never play games because you are too dedicated to what made you big, will you be happy and grow? No!That said, Mount and Blade is kind of special in that it is the only game I have ever played that did horseback riding OR archery well, regardless of the lack of polish in other areas.
Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. But I agree that was a particularly good thing that M&B does very well. The satisfaction of swinging a massive two-handed sword to the side of your horse as you charge into the battle line cutting down enemies left and right only to emerge behind the enemy advance and crashing into his now undefended archers was a masterpiece of visceral fun. That small detail also gets a 10/10 from me.
As another solo "dev" trying to tackle a big project, I honestly don't know how Alex has time to play practically anything. I mean, I know I'm an amateur and all, but his output of internal code, API, and well designed systems makes me feel like a 2 year old stacking blocks - not that I mind haha.
Oh for the love of.... if the perceived implication of my post was that Alex doesn't or shouldn't take breaks, that was not my intention! It's good that he does for all the reasons stated. I was complimenting his ability to manage his time regardless and create really good things...Relax, you were not the target of anyone's anathema. This is just a gentle discourse on M&B-type-games.
Relax, you were not the target of anyone's anathema. This is just a gentle discourse on M&B-type-games.
Starsector is impressive to me on the level that Dwarf Fortress, Dominions, Terraria, and Stardew Valley are impressive. They all make me think - wow, 1/2 person(s) can accomplish this? Then what am I doing with my life? Unlike the other ones, though, Starsector actually has fantastic graphics.I wouldn't say Starsector has fantastic graphics, unless you mean in comparison to those titles (I also have a bias against retro pixel style). GraphicsLib does make it look mighty nice, though, props to DR.
All the Mount and Blade games have always been a very rough and somewhat irritating collection of good ideas executed quite poorly. It used to be charming, but with Bannerlord they just don't have as many or as good reasons why things are so rough and shabby.
As ever, community creators will save them from themselves and that seems like the business model they want to follow.
I wouldn't say Starsector has fantastic graphics, unless you mean in comparison to those titles (I also have a bias against retro pixel style). GraphicsLib does make it look mighty nice, though, props to DR.Really? I think the graphics are great. Especially the stars. I can't think of a top-down 2D game that I think has better graphics. Although it is a little unfortunate (aesthetically) that when traveling your ships are represented by tiny dots.
All the Mount and Blade games have always been very rough ... It used to be charming, but with Bannerlord they just don't have as many or as good reasons why things are so rough and shabby.
I fully support indie devs and smaller dev companies such as Tale Worlds, sunk thousands of hours into Warband and Viking Invasion, yet was utterly dismayed with the quality of launch of Banner Lord.When it was in development for 10 years, I really didn't understand how it could possibly be unfinished at release, but there you have it...
Another game to watch out for is Subnautica Below Zero. I waited a year after it became available on Steam, then started, assuming maybe some of the end-game content was incomplete. Then after a couple weeks (fortunately I had not played much), they invalidated save games by completely dumping the original start and storyline and who knows what else (and this is for a game with a lot of voice-work). I don't recommend touching it until final release, "Very Positive" reviews notwithstanding.TBH, the way Below Zero is shaping up, you would think that the game was the first in the series... It really shows the fact that they are shooting for a switch release with the much smaller (1/2 to 1/3) play area, slower everything, removed tools and greatly diminished feelings of loneliness and solitude like in the first game
Sad to hear Below Zero is suffering development troubles.
Regarding map size, TBH Subnautica's map was too large with too many dead zones where it was never worth going. Starsector also suffers from pointless empty areas (star systems with no planets, for example), though some of that could be filled with new types of content.
Sad to hear Below Zero is suffering development troubles.Regarding Subnautica's map, it is true that a lot of zones are either uninteresting because of the lack of unique loot(beside decorative wildlife) or simply not worth the risk/travel. But i wouldn't say it was too large, in open worlds you either accept that not every square meter is equal, or you end-up adding a hundred same-ish tertiary quests/rewards that are more of a grind than actual exploration *cough* TESV/BOTW *cough*.
Regarding map size, TBH Subnautica's map was too large with too many dead zones where it was never worth going. Starsector also suffers from pointless empty areas (star systems with no planets, for example), though some of that could be filled with new types of content.
One of the things that contributed to that was the developer's decision to cram it's own identity politics into it. For example, did you know that the only item in the game that is meant to hurt animals was and still is the standard knife?
There is nothing else but an itty bitty butter knife in a game with 30 meter long translucent sea snakes that want to eat you because the company, under their own admission, is for animal rights and found it wrong to give you anything else to defend yourself with.
Not for story, not for immersion (pun intended) but simply to have their game reflect their personal agenda. I will not take away any of the game's stellar features but developing games this way overcomplicates the already arduous task of creating something people will play and have a blast with.
One of the things that contributed to that was the developer's decision to cram it's own identity politics into it. For example, did you know that the only item in the game that is meant to hurt animals was and still is the standard knife?
There is nothing else but an itty bitty butter knife in a game with 30 meter long translucent sea snakes that want to eat you because the company, under their own admission, is for animal rights and found it wrong to give you anything else to defend yourself with.
Not for story, not for immersion (pun intended) but simply to have their game reflect their personal agenda. I will not take away any of the game's stellar features but developing games this way overcomplicates the already arduous task of creating something people will play and have a blast with.
I think it was an excellent design decision for creating the awesome "fear the deep" atmosphere Subnautica evokes, regardless of why they did it. Frankly, there were still plenty of ways to fight your way through the game, the Prawn suit being the prime example, so if they were really so against harming animals they did a pretty bad job of preventing it.
There's a million things you can't do in games... The whole point of a game (IMO) is to find a winning course of action within the constraints presented by the game mechanics. As long as the challenge of winning the game is interesting within the context of the mechanics, I don't see any reason why the ability to kill animals is required for a game to be good. I also don't think it makes a game bad, it's just another mechanic that can be included or not included, and has no bearing on the quality of the game.Thank you, the game would've never been as immersive and frightening if we weren't in a position of weakness, and it's only perceived weakness as we can easily perma-freeze any enemy and slice it to death.
Tbh, I think games with more constraints on player actions are often more fun because they end up being more challenging. If there is no reason to do things in a game and you just do whatever you want, I find it somewhat boring usually, unless the gameplay itself is super engaging.
There's a million things you can't do in games... The whole point of a game (IMO) is to find a winning course of action within the constraints presented by the game mechanics. As long as the challenge of winning the game is interesting within the context of the mechanics, I don't see any reason why the ability to kill animals is required for a game to be good. I also don't think it makes a game bad, it's just another mechanic that can be included or not included, and has no bearing on the quality of the game.Thank you, the game would've never been as immersive and frightening if we weren't in a position of weakness, and it's only perceived weakness as we can easily perma-freeze any enemy and slice it to death.
Tbh, I think games with more constraints on player actions are often more fun because they end up being more challenging. If there is no reason to do things in a game and you just do whatever you want, I find it somewhat boring usually, unless the gameplay itself is super engaging.
A weapon reassure the player in any game with enemies, case in point being Alien Isolation when you first get your hands on the flamethrower.
Thalassophobia and fear of the dark/unknown do most of the work, the sparse reef can be orders of magnitude scarier than the lost river just because of the environment, not knowing what could come for you but thinking you have no chance if it does.
But that's coming from someone who can't play Minecraft or Starsector at night, the intensity of irrational fears do vary between people.
It seem we've seen the same string of videos talking about the subject in question, indeed terror is a more appropriate term, or even dread in some cases. I do know about Fate and was told that Zero is the most depressing part(had to go through VPN for that link though, blocked in some places).There's a million things you can't do in games... The whole point of a game (IMO) is to find a winning course of action within the constraints presented by the game mechanics. As long as the challenge of winning the game is interesting within the context of the mechanics, I don't see any reason why the ability to kill animals is required for a game to be good. I also don't think it makes a game bad, it's just another mechanic that can be included or not included, and has no bearing on the quality of the game.Thank you, the game would've never been as immersive and frightening if we weren't in a position of weakness, and it's only perceived weakness as we can easily perma-freeze any enemy and slice it to death.
Tbh, I think games with more constraints on player actions are often more fun because they end up being more challenging. If there is no reason to do things in a game and you just do whatever you want, I find it somewhat boring usually, unless the gameplay itself is super engaging.
A weapon reassure the player in any game with enemies, case in point being Alien Isolation when you first get your hands on the flamethrower.
Thalassophobia and fear of the dark/unknown do most of the work, the sparse reef can be orders of magnitude scarier than the lost river just because of the environment, not knowing what could come for you but thinking you have no chance if it does.
But that's coming from someone who can't play Minecraft or Starsector at night, the intensity of irrational fears do vary between people.
You know what's worse than forced positions of weakness?
Having a weapon given to you, providing safety, only to find out it barely does anything and is basically a facade of your own hubris. It's a lot more sophisiticated than "hah, you only get this knife, now go out there!".
This exact same thing happens in Alien:Isolation by the way. You get the flamethrower and think it's just going to solve all your issues only to find out that the more you have to use it the more the alien will progressively ignore it up to the point when you may aswell not use it. It's (IMO) a lot more sphisticated and sadistic than just denying you even a false hope of things working out.
Actually, let me just give up one of the best scenes from Fate:Zero where the audience is introduced to "Bluebeard" and the concept of pure despair. (Start at 2:30 or even 3:25 if you're short on time, it loses much of the buildup and context tough). Just beware that it's not for sensible audiences despite being...well...anime and the stereotypes that come with it, namely the "cartoons are for kids" one.Spoilerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdxtZ6UxYVo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdxtZ6UxYVo)[close]
Edit: Okay. Let me actually quote the relevant thing "Bluebeard" says that fits into the point I'm making:Some forms of terror are fresher than others.
The more intense the fear, the more the emotions die.
Terror, in its truest sense, is not a static state, but a dynamic one.
It is the moment when hope turns into despair.
Did you enjoy that?
The taste of fresh terror and death?
It seem we've seen the same string of videos talking about the subject in question, indeed terror is a more appropriate term, or even dread in some cases. I do know about Fate and was told that Zero is the most depressing part(had to go through VPN for that link though, blocked in some places).There's a million things you can't do in games... The whole point of a game (IMO) is to find a winning course of action within the constraints presented by the game mechanics. As long as the challenge of winning the game is interesting within the context of the mechanics, I don't see any reason why the ability to kill animals is required for a game to be good. I also don't think it makes a game bad, it's just another mechanic that can be included or not included, and has no bearing on the quality of the game.Thank you, the game would've never been as immersive and frightening if we weren't in a position of weakness, and it's only perceived weakness as we can easily perma-freeze any enemy and slice it to death.
Tbh, I think games with more constraints on player actions are often more fun because they end up being more challenging. If there is no reason to do things in a game and you just do whatever you want, I find it somewhat boring usually, unless the gameplay itself is super engaging.
A weapon reassure the player in any game with enemies, case in point being Alien Isolation when you first get your hands on the flamethrower.
Thalassophobia and fear of the dark/unknown do most of the work, the sparse reef can be orders of magnitude scarier than the lost river just because of the environment, not knowing what could come for you but thinking you have no chance if it does.
But that's coming from someone who can't play Minecraft or Starsector at night, the intensity of irrational fears do vary between people.
You know what's worse than forced positions of weakness?
Having a weapon given to you, providing safety, only to find out it barely does anything and is basically a facade of your own hubris. It's a lot more sophisiticated than "hah, you only get this knife, now go out there!".
This exact same thing happens in Alien:Isolation by the way. You get the flamethrower and think it's just going to solve all your issues only to find out that the more you have to use it the more the alien will progressively ignore it up to the point when you may aswell not use it. It's (IMO) a lot more sphisticated and sadistic than just denying you even a false hope of things working out.
Actually, let me just give up one of the best scenes from Fate:Zero where the audience is introduced to "Bluebeard" and the concept of pure despair. (Start at 2:30 or even 3:25 if you're short on time, it loses much of the buildup and context tough). Just beware that it's not for sensible audiences despite being...well...anime and the stereotypes that come with it, namely the "cartoons are for kids" one.Spoilerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdxtZ6UxYVo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdxtZ6UxYVo)[close]
Edit: Okay. Let me actually quote the relevant thing "Bluebeard" says that fits into the point I'm making:Some forms of terror are fresher than others.
The more intense the fear, the more the emotions die.
Terror, in its truest sense, is not a static state, but a dynamic one.
It is the moment when hope turns into despair.
Did you enjoy that?
The taste of fresh terror and death?
Glad to see that we are in agreement, cheap horror and jumpscares are only worth reaction videos, creating the environment to place the mind in primal alert is where the work is, followed by luring the player into a false sense of security in order to plunge again.
I will admit that it is where Subnautica fails, as you only grow in confidence over time. True fear disappear in the lost river, nothing is out of sight, everything is well lit 24/7, and the only actual danger is running circles in front of you.
I do wonder what is your opinion on dread, such as "A quiet place" that decided hiding the monster until the last 15 minutes wasn't the point of the movie.