cttttt
@cttttt@lemmy.world
- Comment on Hollow Knight: Silksong Sparks Debate About Difficulty and Boss Runbacks 3 weeks ago:
Honestly, Hollow Knight 1, and what I’ve played so far of Silk Song have frustrating runback only if you feel that exploration should carry no risk. And also if you feel the consequences–dropping your resources and needing to abandon them–are game ending.
The devs make no attempt to hide the fact that the father afield you get, the more dangerous it gets, but that you can get stronger if you make the most of what you’ve already explored.
Resources are unlimited in the world, so you can always get back to where you were even if you abandon your cocoon/shade. You can also go back and spend the resources before you lose them.
Once I realized that venturing too far off carries a growing risk, I started looking out for the telltale signs that I’m entering a boss room. When this happens or even when I just feel like I’m going to lose all health, I just venture back and spend at the nearest shop or just prioritize finding a bench. Where I don’t heed the warning and go in anyway, I take it as my fault I can’t recover my shade/silk before I once again prioritize finding a bench.
All that said, at least so far I’ve found that whereas in Hollow Knight, if you die in a boss fight you’re not equipped for, you MUST abandon it or try again. In Silk Song, the silk cocoon actually helps with the fight: instead of also trying to kill you, it’s extra health that you can save until mid-way through the fight. Also, some boss rooms don’t lock the entrance (at all or as quickly) so you can die closer to the entrance and safely recover your stuff.
After starting Silk Song, I went back and started replaying the original and some changes like this are actually actually a quality of life improvement over the first 😂😂😂.
(I’m just irrationally mad that they removed the cheeseable pogoing. It was so cheeseable but I get why they tweaked the mechanic to become harder to use in exactly the same way. I’m actually using the other offensive abilities more.)
- Comment on Steam Now Warns Consumers That They're Buying a License, Not a Game During a Purchase 11 months ago:
I vaguely remember having on the order of 5mbps “broadband” when Steam worn me down enough for me to give it a shot over the alternatives 🙄. It was pretty bad at first, but it worked. But maybe broadband adoption was more of a thing in Canada back then.
- Comment on Steam Now Warns Consumers That They're Buying a License, Not a Game During a Purchase 11 months ago:
Before Steam (esp. right before Steam) it was common for a disc to have nothing but a 100mb installer that attempted to download the game, or an actual game build so buggy that you were forced to download patches that required you to be online.
Prior to this, games came with serial numbers and needed to be activated online. This made reselling PC games no longer a thing as you needed to trust who you were buying the game from.
In both cases, the physical disc was yours, but it was pretty useless. It wasn’t the game, but also was required to play the game.
Before that, we had truly resellable DRM: “Enter the 3rd word on the 20th page of the manual 🤣”.
- Comment on Steam Now Warns Consumers That They're Buying a License, Not a Game During a Purchase 11 months ago:
I think the answer was to introduce a law which would force digital market places to clearly describe what users are paying for, for folks who weren’t around during the controversial time when Steam and Xbox Live Arcade came out and can’t grasp the concept; folks who didn’t observe the reality before and after this shift.
Even though it was abundantly clear already, this is what the California law is all about.
If, with this clear explanation, you still want to merely get a license to use games via a service, you should be able to do it.
Valve isn’t doing anything wrong: far from it. Steam is awesome and I understand that one day, it could all go away and with it, all the games I have access to.
I also understand that, at any time, Valve may decide that they don’t want me to use Steam anymore, or that someone may hack into my account and I won’t have access anymore.
Finally, I get that even now, things that I could do with physical games; I can’t do with my Steam library (eg. Easily play a game on my Steam Deck while someone also plays another game on my desktop, or sell a game disc that sits on my desk).
I understood this when I reluctantly signed up to Steam to play Half Life 2 back in the day when it was a complete dumpster fire of a buggy mess of a service. But it has improved so much since then.
Hey, do you, but I don’t see what the big deal is. We’ve already protested that Steam was a bad idea, and Valve was literally the devil, but it’s actually turned out to be objectively more convenient than any alternative to play games, and it’s no longer Valve forcing us to install Steam to play their games. Practically the entire industry has shifted, plus there are now alternatives (besides piracy) like GoG. Hopefully this law causes more competition in that DRM free space.
- Comment on Balatro Mobile - Official Release Date Trailer (Sept 26!) 1 year ago:
Dev’s gonna have to pull a Flappy Bird 💰💰💰
- Comment on Riot's fighting game 2XKO will use Vanguard anti-cheat 1 year ago:
Don’t get it twisted. We definitely agree.
This will effectively add any computer it’s installed on to a botnet and create another attack vector (via Vanguard).
The tradeoff I described, tho, is one on the Riot side. And as much as this form of anticheat is ridiculous, it makes sense given Riot’s business model. A bunch of cheaters can easily waste their money and engineering effort. They made the deliberate choice to narrow their market of potential players to those who are willing to install Vanguard and feel that Vanguard pushes most cheaters out of that narrow market. It makes sense.
Re: That tradeoff, tho, users aren’t involved. The tradeoff users have is between installing the game or not.
And again we both agree, installing this to an important computer or on your home network carries a tonne of risk.
- Comment on Riot's fighting game 2XKO will use Vanguard anti-cheat 1 year ago:
Not that I’m defending Vanguard, but Riot’s choosing to invest in developer resources for Vanguard (and in finding cheat developers) so they don’t have to invest in server capacity or developer resources to support cheater only lobbies.
As long as their anticheat is effective, every cheater they can repel is some amount of server capacity that legitimate players can use.
Also, cheaters in the types of games Riot makes will cause some amount of opponents to simply leave the game in frustration. So part of this is just trying to keep players who are willing to install the game happy.
They’ve chosen to make free to play games, so this tradeoff actually makes sense for Riot. But again, kernel level hacks aren’t something everyone will or even should install.
It’s all about tradeoffs.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 year ago:
If all computer hardware was a single solid colour and just worked, there would be fewer reasons to replace it or pay more for different models. It’s like skins in an online game: if you give people a choice, some will pay more just because something looks different…some will buy yet another one because it, too looks different.
- Comment on Games that require you to unlock the basic functions of the game can suck my nuts. 1 year ago:
I guess another example of the Portal technique, where the teaching moments are blended into gameplay, is Cocoon. It takes that concept to an extreme.
Can’t wait for a sequel/DLC tho.
- Comment on Report: Bungie CEO blames layoffs on waning interest in Destiny 2 1 year ago:
The more established term is a live service game: A game where development continues far beyond release with a trickle of content to keep players playing (and paying).
- Comment on Stop using Fandom 1 year ago:
Yah. Fandom is an Adblock-required site. And even then it’s pretty hard to browse.
- Comment on Cyberpunk patch 2.01 now available 1 year ago:
Heh. Kinda related, but any competitive multiplayer game’s community makes way more content than a post out of even one line patch notes. This is normal.
It’s cool that someone passionate enough about Cyberpunk (or CDPR themselves) posted it to drive discussion about the efforts they’re making to continue to turn around that insanely horrible launch. The comments show that at least someone cared to see the post.