Ubisoft target audience when they play a good game
-
He said that he played through it in PS3 back in the day
Can Godmode be toggled in PS3?
-
Watch Dogs 2 is a weird one. I absolutely understand all the criticism and see the flaws, but I still play it and the breaks between two runs only get shorter. I love its rendition of SF and the Bay Area, the game has that je-ne-sais-quoi that draws me towards it.
Watch Dogs Legion though? Oh my goodness...
Thank you! I believe both titles are
abs((float)$incredible)/INF... The story, characters, references, technical features, or every single bit and algorithm is perfect...Not to mention upgraded kernels and shells, including drones and 'dgets!
Yet it all may not match the "good" you are searching for at this particular moment, or would it? How could we know!
Both titles were developed by different genius teams even, the former is Ubisoft Monreal, the latter - Ubisoft Toronto!
I.e. Even ifMetaSploitand notSnyk's orPortSwigger's but FOSS is there... you may still find that the payload in all the exploits the solution provides you with, written by OSINT or more hopefully red... authors on the wires, is indeed a required parameter to be set upon execution/injection by you, the main host in the network!
How to not find
Watch_Dogs 2andWatch_Dogs Legionboth very different and ineffably marvelous...
I uploaded a few screenshots found in some remote backups:
- Watch_Dogs 2: https://imgur.com/a/GZ7F88U;
- Watch_Dogs Legion: https://imgur.com/a/U07Yfch (Wrench is there, too, with Aiden!);
Being bored and hateful is a choice. It all depends on what you are searching for, doesn't it ^^
That is so... meta! ~ Wrench
-
Its world building and such is visual story telling.
This makes me think that the guy ran through the game instead of playing it. Just because what happened isn't spoonfed it doesn't mean it's not there.
Reminds me of all the haters of Dear Esther. -
Can Godmode be toggled in PS3?
I don't know that, I would guess not, probably
-
I did that for Control when I played that, I was just ready to be done. Im guessing by every other part of the review the person was also just ready for the game to end
I suppose people who don't enjoy overcoming challenges or figuring out strategies wouldn't enjoy a lot of videogames in general.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I have yet to play half life 2 (waiting on my son to get the motivation to help me beat decay, I’ve beat the other expansions)
But I can’t imagine that half life 2 doesn’t hold up when the first game is a masterpiece that holds up better than pretty much any FPS released after it
-
Sorry, no. And I am sorry you found LLM useful, and consider experimental/unverified data "dangerous", likely inadequately or for the sense of hateful trolling, and it's hard to live that way, I presume...
Related:
- https://lemmy.world/post/41419554/21487153
- https://mander.xyz/post/45102281/24408089
- https://lemmus.org/post/41151011/21366171Wanna share your ambien? I want to speak walrus with you.
-
I suppose people who don't enjoy overcoming challenges or figuring out strategies wouldn't enjoy a lot of videogames in general.
What does that have to do with anything? If someone's mentally checked out of the game so much that continuing to play through it becomes a slog, I can't blame them for cheating just to get it over with.
-
What does that have to do with anything? If someone's mentally checked out of the game so much that continuing to play through it becomes a slog, I can't blame them for cheating just to get it over with.
If you're not going to enjoy playing the game then you're better off not finishing it, because by finishing it that way you've robbed yourself of the joy of overcoming the challenge.
-
If you're not going to enjoy playing the game then you're better off not finishing it, because by finishing it that way you've robbed yourself of the joy of overcoming the challenge.
What challenge? HL2 is not a particularly difficult game. And there isn't going to be any joy in overcoming whatever challenge you're talking about if they're hating every second of the game. Its not like we're talking about a souls-like where they cheated because they couldn't defeat a boss. No, they cheated because they got bored, not because of some imaginary skill issue.
And they're not better off quitting if they still want to know how the game ends.
-
I mean, Kleiner saying "I had expected more warning!" is a sort of mixed surprise. If he's been gone for 20+ years, the natural reaction I might expect is "What...? That's impossible! We all thought you were dead! Or lost in Xen forever!" Heck, even Kleiner's reaction to the "slow teleport" you and Alyx take late in the game is much grander. "I had...given up hope of ever seeing you again!!"
Yeah, that's probably because Kleiner knew the G-Man was involved in the interdimensional shit and had Gordon in stasis (or whatever), and he expected more warning when Gordon was on his way back, not just have him dropped on the doorstep, whereas the slow teleport was entirely experimental, accidental, and unexpected.
-
I have yet to play half life 2 (waiting on my son to get the motivation to help me beat decay, I’ve beat the other expansions)
But I can’t imagine that half life 2 doesn’t hold up when the first game is a masterpiece that holds up better than pretty much any FPS released after it
Unfortunately several parts do not hold up when you remove the novelty and temporal context. The whole game was mind blowing when it was new; I very much enjoyed it then. On a subsequent playthrough years later, there were definitely parts that just did not hold up. I used the console liberally at times because I couldn't be bothered to do them for real.
I think it's the consequence of bringing a truly revolutionary game to market with limited resources. There are clearly portions that exist to showcase the cool shit they could do rather than to drive the narrative or be genuinely fun.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Tbh, that's just the difference between someone who has nostalgia for a game and someone who doesn't.
I played Pokemon Red as a kid. I replayed it dozens of times since and it's always really fun. Just feels good.
I didn't play Pokemon Gold as a kid. I tried to play it quite a few times and never got throught it. Objectively, Gold is a much better game than Red in every regard. But I don't have nostalgia for it, so it's just an old game with bad UX, outdated gameplay and weak graphics to me. Can't get through it without getting bored and quitting.
HL2 was revolutionary, 22 years ago. Nowadays it's just woefully outdated in every respect including gameplay.
As OOP says e.g. about physics: That stuff was amazing in 2004, but it really isn't in 2026. Almost every shooter includes physics and in many cases better physics than HL2 did. In part because game designers have learned from HL2 and other games and improved upon it.
If you have nostalgia for HL2 because you played it as a kid, it's still going to be amazing to play. If you don't, then it won't.
-
Idk, of all the ways you could criticize Ubisoft, dragging this random guy just because he didn't care too much for HL2 (and then took the time to write down his thoughts instead just going "game bad
") feels silly.They make some good points about how we view "classic" games too.
A lot of 16-bit games are remembered fondly because of things like "look at how many colors are on the screen at once! Look at how big the sprites are- they're almost as big as the arcade version! Hear how there are 4 separate audio tracks that kind of almost sound like real instruments sometimes!".
Mario 64 is a great example for me. I hear other people was nostalgic about how incredible it was to be able to move in 3D space at the time, and how they spent hours just wandering around levels and marveling at the technology. For me, I did that with Crash Bandicoot (which came out a few months earlier in the US). And shortly after Spyro blew them both out of the water with its incredibly smooth controls and, imo, better graphics and sound. When I've tried to go back and play Mario 64 I find it a clunky mess of a game, more of a tech demo than anything else.
On the one hand I can respect the pioneers. The original thinkers who push the frontiers of what art can be. On the other hand, those games that rely so heavily on being "revolutionary for their time" often don't hold up well decades later when tons of games have done what they did better. I think it's possible to appreciate those games for what they did without enjoying going back and playing them.
When I look back at what I've played the past couple years, games like Control and Horizon: Zero Dawn stick out. I don't think either one of them had anything particularly innovative or new. I see any games coming out today where I say "wow that's a Control-like" game. But what they did do was execute on a high level, with a lot of polish and very few flaws. I think that's the biggest strength of AAA games: execution, not innovation.
-
“What the…how long have I been gone? What the hell happened to Earth?”
But, you KNOW what happened to the Earth. What would spelling it out add to the story, except replacing the wonder and accomplishment with a boring bit of exposition.
Having Gordon be a silent protagonist adds hugely to the first person experience of the game. Sure, you can add dialog and questions and elaborate, but that would detract from the experience. Picasso could have also added pointers to each of the characters in Guernica to explain how they relate to the bombing of the city, and it would make the painting a lot clearer... and a lot worse.
I want to compare Half-Life with SOMA here (so spoilers for both). They're both great experiences, but Gordon is silent while Simon won't shut up. Simon needs to asks questions because the story requires you to understand some things, and some people need very basic explanations. When I played SOMA, I kept waiting for there to be a secret plottwist that Simon was copied incorrectly and was thus either braindamaged, or modified not to recognise reality for a specific purpose. No, that didn't happen, Simon is instead an absolute moron who completely fails to realize that everyone constantly being copied means that he too will be copied instead of having his mind relocated. The game treats this as some kind of big realization, when it was in fact absolutely blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention. It's literally the core of the game. Simon, being a moron, then takes this out on the person helping him, because he's a moron.
Not only is the main character an idiot, I'm being railroaded into taking decisions that are stupid, which are then reacted to as if I couldn't possibly have foreseen this, implying I (the player) am probably really stupid too. That was a huge detraction in SOMA. Simon is an idiot for the sole purpose of getting the information to you, the player, because apparently you need to be informed like you're some kind of idiot too.
On the other hand, Gordon doesn't talk. That's a BIG restriction, but it also means you don't even have to option to ask questions. On the other hand, you don't need to; all the reasonable questions you might have are answered in the game by environmental storytelling. Who are the combine? Well, we see them beating up random humans, speaking a weird garbled message, we hear speeches by Breen, we see the combine raid random apartments. It's very clear who they are without Gordon needing to ask about it. It's like starting a book in medias res, which is quite common in writing.
Half-Life 2 assumes you can make connections, and you need to do so because Gordon doesn't talk. SOMA assumes you're an idiot, and reinforces that constantly by Simon talking to people like an idiot.
It doesn't exactly need to be a secret plottwist, given the game literally starts with Simon's brain damage, but there is also a bit of optional exposition about half way through about the gen 1 brainscans being primitive. Admittedly, it being consistent with the plot didn't make Simon any less infuriating, at least for me.
-
is the time shown on steam reviews accurate? cause i'd guess that it takes more than 12 minutes for a casual player to finish half-life 2
in fact i checked and the world record in speedrunning is around 36 minutes lol
If you launch the game outside steam the time isn't accounted for. I know this because I love playing Timespinner with a randomizer. Inside steam I have 40h of played time. If the timer counted my randomizer sessions I'd have at least 4x that
-
I firmly believe the only reason this game is "beloved" is the same reason that iPhones sell just because of the logo of the company that made them.
It's more nostalgia than branding. I'll entirely agree that half life hasn't aged great, but what's important is the historical context. The games were groundbreaking for the time, especially HL2 with its physics engine and gravity gun. I remember playing it just days after release then being shocked and amazed at those different systems. There just weren't many games with that level of polish tackling such a wide scope.
Just like with watershed TV/movie/music, it seems quaint and overhyped as their innovations become the norm.
Just like with watershed TV/movie/music, it seems quaint and overhyped as their innovations become the norm.
There is even a trope that describes that
-
Tbh, that's just the difference between someone who has nostalgia for a game and someone who doesn't.
I played Pokemon Red as a kid. I replayed it dozens of times since and it's always really fun. Just feels good.
I didn't play Pokemon Gold as a kid. I tried to play it quite a few times and never got throught it. Objectively, Gold is a much better game than Red in every regard. But I don't have nostalgia for it, so it's just an old game with bad UX, outdated gameplay and weak graphics to me. Can't get through it without getting bored and quitting.
HL2 was revolutionary, 22 years ago. Nowadays it's just woefully outdated in every respect including gameplay.
As OOP says e.g. about physics: That stuff was amazing in 2004, but it really isn't in 2026. Almost every shooter includes physics and in many cases better physics than HL2 did. In part because game designers have learned from HL2 and other games and improved upon it.
If you have nostalgia for HL2 because you played it as a kid, it's still going to be amazing to play. If you don't, then it won't.
I would agree with you in theory, however I am the same age as Half-Life 2. I never got around to playing it until it was already an old game (11-12? MAYBE 13). I played other shooters before, like various CoD games, Bioshock Infinite, etc., but they never clicked with Me. They obviously took great influence from it, every shooter did, but I could tell even as a kid that they didn’t do it as well
