安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
此主題的作者已將一篇留言標為問題解答。
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
Well my retro era is the 8-16 bit era. I can play stuff from the 32 bit era and upwards. Q2 is the one and only really old game I replay.
An indie game just a game that wasn't financially backed by a large publisher, like Sony, Microsoft, EA, Ubisoft, etc.
That typically means the developers have the freedom to do whatever they want with the game and spend as much time as they need to make it, instead of being constrained by what a publisher wants them to include in the game, and having to rush in order to get features done by specific deadlines.
Subnautica, Astroneer, Redout, Kerbal Space Program, and Garry's Mod among others are all indie games.
OP even put almost 3000 hours into Garry's Mod, for someone who claims to not like indie games. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Dark Souls like games; they are starting to become part of the curse now.
Edit: I left out battle royale games, because they are cursed beyond recognition.
🤷♂️
You just buy the wrong games I guess.
you are in a unlucky situation as a young gamer today. when i was your age, the games market was small enough to know about almost every game just by reading magazines (printed).
today the amount of games is so hughe, that even journalists have to specialize in 1-2 areas of gaming because its just to much to know about everything. and we consumer have even less of a cahnce to know.
we can use the internet today to get information about any game today actually but nobody is able to absorb everything. that means even if you realy realy want to know every game, you can not hook up. every day 80 games are beeing released.
our perception is also limited by advertisement that focus on grabbing our attention to only a few games and companies. that means most of all games dont get any attention and it deosnt matter if the game is actually good or not. quality does nothing to do with succes.
the amount of money big companies like Ubisoft, EA, and blizzard for example, spend for advertisement equals 40% (more or less) of the whole produktion cost of a game. they spend almost as much money for just "telling us (lies)" how awesome there game will be, as they put into there content. its easy to tell why games sell well, but arent actually good.
our perception gets even more limited because we consumer are slowly pushed into subscription models, that supply our demand of playing games and limit our choice to a only a fraction of games THEY CHOSE FOR US. steam, ORIGIN, uplay, epic and other "free" platforms limit our freedom of choice and focus our antention on a certain prechosen content. steam offer a hughe libary of games, but the sales come from the main page advertisment and sales.
imagine it like that. do you know netflix? if you only use netflix to watch movies and series because you pay a few bucks a month and have free access to all content, then you only see there content. that means you miss 99% of all other content without knowing. its like living in a box and not knowing that there is a outside much bigger then this.
and then, there seem to be no other option then sticking to a few companies or games. i could spend 4 hours a day, what i did, just to know every game that might interest me. there were times i pirated 50-100 gb a day just to try out every game i could. at the end i stick to steam, uplay and epic, even beeing aware of the fatal consequnces. its sad, that "choice" today means. "yes" or "get the hell out of there" . thats not choice, thats blackmailing.
your personal perception about soulless and boring gaming is the best thing you can experience today. now your open to explore gaming on all different levels and that makes you independant.
to answer your question. your probaly wrong and right at the same time, saying games becomming soulles and boring. but its not "becomming". thats the status since 15 years. the moment became mainstream since 2006 and mobile gaming made everybody a gamer with a smart phone and the slightes urge to play a game. older gamers would probably say games became soulless and boring even 30 years ago.
you know, the most important decision you can make and make it with biggest responsibility, is how you spend your money. every dollar support the best games and the worst. microtrnasactions, lootboxes, bad sequels, DLC cut content, free to play and every other crap only exist, because to many people spend there money on it. and these new monetarisation systems, that could have been a oportunity for all developers to create more games with better content, became just another way to create money money money, for those, who dont care about good content... i was realy exited about leaving the fixed price of a game. now i just ahte what it has become.
and dont worry. it gets even worse when you become nostalgic :)
If you don't play RPG'S you don't know games very well thus can't ask this question.
Plenty of games made in the last 5 years that have complex and deep stories and substance but you can't know you only play shooters or souless games from the past
Some of them, sure but...
Well, people have to draw [inspiration] from somewhere.
We can see some really unique & amazing things come about in the near future from people who have taken the time to carefully analyze the games of the last 40, or so, years that they've grown up with.
People who don't do that won't likely do anything better than game developers of old times - more-over, game developers of old times were drawing from theatrical & literary media experiences in order to craft their stuff - and it shows. The arts [that] the original game developers loved are reflected in their games. They had analyzed -SOMETHING- which they used as their artistic vision. Many modern developers just throw / slap a bunch of random stuff they come up with together and call that a game. ...which can produce some interesting results but without an artistic vision or experience, usually falls flat.
The original game developers had no video-games they could analyze the designs of and evaluate what was working and what was not. The works of older developers, will likely still turn out better than a lot of modern stuff published by people who rush into development without any artistic vision or experience, though.
They were also extremely innovative, in their own way, [those original / old games] ...because they had to be. They were first. There was no other works in the medium to refer or defer to. (Those same developers don't ever have to venture outside of "safe" territory now, though.)
Depends on what kind of time you're spending on them. Forced grinding is not good. You should be able to beat a game without needing to grind at all -- & for the few people who quite surprisingly actually -like- grinding... there should be the option to do so. More time required doesn't equate to the game being better, though. (Nor does being able to beat it faster.)
But... for someone who doesn't like indie games, thems the ropes. Either you can pay high prices for current "triple-A" titles that only stay in safe territory, or you can get cheaper prices for stuff made by small teams that generally don't have the time & resources to make HD 3D-modeled environments.
I think "Baba Is You" is one of the most innovative indie titles there is but I'd bet that you'd take a look at it and think it to be "too retro".
Also, the whole reason you're able to get those old "triple-A" titles for cheaper ...is because they're old! They used to be $60 each too!
Undertale... retro... hahahaha... do people even know what they're talking about [when people complain about Undertale]?
The graphics are like... the only really retro thing about it.
If that's the issue, why not slam / criticize all of those cheap RPG-Maker games that are failing miserably at being Final Fantasy VI? They try so much harder to be "retro" & They often lack the deep story, soundtrack, and somewhat innovative use of a limited graphics system that FFVI had (and they're made on better hardware & with better resources - the things it was doing with its visual staging shouldn't still be innovative).
Undertale isn't the horrible game that people say - but the game IS over-hyped, over-fanaticized (fanaticized - NOT fantasized; it's a real word) ...and frankly, also over-criticized. I get why it's all of those things with people - there's a few things it does extremely well, while being mediocre at quite a lot of the other things it is doing.
Not saying that Dxpress does this but plenty of other people in this topic seem to: -- you can't even say that you like the game without people going "ewww... you're one of THOSE people!" (in a manner of speaking) and it's just kind of like... makes me shake my head and think "people need to grow up".
I hear a lot of criticism towards games that doesn't really describe, cover, or even mention any of the things that people tend to think are actually lacking in the games they are complaining about. I think Undertale is a good game but I can also tell someone exactly what I think it is lacking, and there's many things it could do better.
Now, personally, I think that the gaming market is -overall-, quite uninspired. Whenever someone pulls out a really innovative idea, everybody (or most, anyways) goes "whoa! that's so original and advanced!" but the truth is... those things, along with many innovative ideas that have never even been implemented yet, could have been done 2 decades ago.
So... I write down everything that I think is working well, and everything I think isn't (along with WHY), along with my own vision for what would be great - and then hope that one day I'll be able to implement said visions without falling short. Because game development -CAN- do better.