Upcoming games you nitpicky ****bags look forward to ***** about in the future.

Currently viewing this thread:

Bromden

Archduke
Best answers
0
They say "Yay, 7 million people claimed our game, what a success!", but they think "Ff****, we should have asked for money."
 

Count Delinard

Lord of Uxkhal
Global Moderator
WBNWVC
Best answers
0
They say "Yay, 7 million people claimed our game, what a success!", but they think "Ff****, we should have asked for money."
I believe Epic paid for that, so either way they got their money.

Also, their biggest sellers ever (like TW warhammer 1 or 2) supposedly didn’t sell more than 5 million copies, so I highly doubt Troy would’ve sold more than 1 or 2 million copies if it wouldn’t have been free.
 

Adorno

Bedroom Assassin
Duke
WBNWM&BVC
Best answers
0
I think the idea was to get more people interested in the TW franchise, so they might sell more of the other/older games.
And for Epic (presumably paying for it) it's of course about getting traffic on their store.
 

Adorno

Bedroom Assassin
Duke
WBNWM&BVC
Best answers
0
Those companies are really good at market analysis. I think it went very much as expected for them.



Willem Dafoe? You son of a *****, I'm in!

TWELVE MINUTES is a real-time top-down interactive thriller with an accessible click and drag interface.

What should be a romantic evening with your wife turns into a nightmare when a police detective breaks into your home, accuses your wife of murder and beats you to death…

Only for you to find yourself immediately returned to the exact moment you opened the front door, stuck in a TWELVE-MINUTE time loop, doomed to relive the same terror again and again…

Unless you can find a way to use the knowledge of what’s coming to change the outcome and break the loop.

TWELVE MINUTES blends the dream-like tension of THE SHINING with the claustrophobia of REAR WINDOW and the fragmented structure of MEMENTO.

Featuring James McAvoy, Daisy Ridley, and Willem Dafoe.
 

Arvenski

Count
M&BWB
Best answers
0
Yeah... Not only that but how many people out of the 7.5 million who claimed it will ever even install it.
Yeah, really. I've got at least a couple of games like that, where I've grabbed them because hey, free ****, better grab it, but then I've never done anything with them. I'm sure a lot of people do the same.

On that line of thought, I think I got a game for free from GoG or Humble Bundle once, and I can't even remember what it was called. I might have an email somewhere with a download link, but who knows if it'd even work anymore.
 

Antonis

Marquis
WBWF&SVCNW
Best answers
0
Tbh, I am not sure what I expected, either. It seems that he sticks to Tin Tin, though. I mean, of all the things that could have stayed with him.
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Master Knight
Best answers
0

It's evolving interestingly. I love how deadly the combat actually is.
I am very interested in this game, I am following it periodically (It has a couple of new videos...animation and photogrametry Iirc...).
The curious thing is that I already knew the creator before knowing about the game because of its magnificent stuff related to mocap-animations.
 

Mushbeast

Squire
Best answers
0
A bit of a blast from the past, but Soldat 2 and Serious Sam 4 are coming out this week.
Keen to try them both out, and the "LEGION" system (basically having hundred of thousands of enemies on screen, which a fair few games are starting to figure out) for Serious Sam 4 has me interested.
 

Noudelle

Grandmaster Knight
WBM&BWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0

@Kentucky James VII this video came out yesterday, how close is it to your own vision?
I don't know about Jimmy's vision, but this game doesn't really appeal to me and it sorts of rubs me the wrong way.
Instead of being a game that simulates medieval economics, politics, and so on, which is what it appears to do on the surface, it seems like the kind of game where you 'race' against competing lords (AI).

There's the simulation game, like Crusader Kings or Rimworld, where the world is fully simulated and can go on forever while retaining 'authenticity' for lack of a better word. The world can exist without the player and function perfectly fine. In these games, world simulation is more important than game balance.

And there's the race game, like Civ, Endless Space / Legend or, god forbid, Total War games. In these games, 'authentic' simulation goes out the window in favor of a more gamey, competitive simulation to provide a fair and 'balanced' playground for the competitors to fight over. The world only exists in the context of this 'competition' between various factions.
What I absolutely hate about these games is that, as a player, there is no reason to ever continue playing after type of substantial setback.
Because these games are so focused on competition, any setback can mean total defeat. In these games, victory is binary. you either win completely, or you lose completely. If you fall behind, odds are you'll keep falling behind at an exponential rate (, or however the **** maths work).There's no reason for anyone to keep playing through defeat, because these are games where you either win or you lose, and you've already lost. It's simply a waste of time.
In the event of defeat, the player has to options: quit and start over, or save-scum. Both options coming from a failure in game design.

With CKII, what I like about it is that victory is not binary. This is a game where you decide how you want to win, and how you want to achieve it. You're not on a timer, and there's no rush. Defeat very often is only a temporary setback, or a change of pace, depending on how you want to see it.
With Rimworld, what I love about it, is that you have a concrete goal, but you're not on a timer. Setbacks are a fundamental and constant part of this game. If you save-scum defeat in Rimworld, you literally don't know how to play the game. Not because you've failed in the first place, but because of your failure to accept this defeat, and power through it.
The game is designed around you getting back up after defeat, stronger and more prepared. Save-scumming would mean skipping what makes this game appealing in the first place.
Total defeat can and does happen, at which point, and only at this point, a restart is necessary.

The point is, in Rimworld the only time where you have to start another playthrough is when you're met with total defeat, this event often being exciting and dramatic.
In Total War, Civ and Endless Space / Legend, this moment frequently occurs in the event of a mere setback. Because in these games, even a minor setback can mean total defeat.
Playing grindy turn-based games for 10 hours only to realize somewhere down the line that you can't win, is an experience that everyone who has played those games can relate to. It has all the dramatic effect of a wet fart.

I refuse to play Total War games in multiplayer (or at all) anymore because of that. These are games where both players throw 20 hours of their time into preparing for the one, often very anti-climactic battle after which one player gains an irreversible advantage over the other. And so the playthrough effectively ends in one tiny, ****ty battle after 20 hours of playtime. I've never played a Total War game where this doesn't happen. The same goes for singleplayer, except you as the player are more often on the winning side. And then at one point you realize you can autoresolve the entire continent into submission, and there's no reason to keep playing, because you've effectively won.

That said, this 'race' format can work perfectly fine in shorter games, like traditional RTS's, because defeat is sudden and doesn't waste your time. The only reason this doesn't work with longer games is because they literally waste your time.

Also the name sucks.
 
Last edited: