Wormerine

Also as rumoured Halo Infinite multiplayer is out.

I rewatched the video and he mentions Darksider3 specifically. Skillup is one of the few reviewers that I watched that thought Darksiders3 was alright.

I only played Darksiders 1&2 and those are not Dark Souls type games. I mean both titles draw inspiration from Zelda so there is some minimal overlap. Darksiders3, however, I am told draws quite a bit from Dark Souls - also people generally didn't like that one.

It does look great indeed. I thin my previous question of “what does open world adds to DS formula” was somewhat answered.

Huh. It's strange it's not there. Who owns rights to it. Beamdog?

Well, with Obsidian being owned by Microsoft it might not be entirely up to Obsidian. Microsoft does release on steam, so 3rd party platforms aren't out of discussion. We will have to see. Grounded is still in developement and it is constatly updating, multiplayer game - as I understand being curated platform GOG isn't the easiest store front to work with. I have seen game updates delayed by days or weeks due to verification process. Personally, I do hope Obsidian will keep releasing games through steam - Outer Words did come out on GOG, which is a good sign, though I am not sure if it is an example of things yet to come, considering OW was made mostly before Microsoft acquisition and with another publisher.

News must be slow. But as to two pages long conversation: how appropriate character design is depends on the game and world itself. Boob armor is stupid from practical perspective, and PoE, which treated itself very seriously is probably better off avoiding that nonesence. A game that proprizes style over any kind of believability or immersion - sure, do whatever you feel look best.

We will see how things will develop, but according to all the reports at this point Microsoft strategies is said to be: let developers do their own thing. Game Pass tends to pop up more often then XBOX itself - and as subscription service, I think it will benefit from both mainstream big titles, and various small curiosities. In case of Obsidian they do have big projects (Outer Worlds2, Avowed), so it is quite possible they would allow for a small personal project. With a team as small as John Sawyer project it is not going to be a God of War console seller anyway.

Matty is content creation, the guest as I understand it is a "leaker" with some inside knowledge. As I understand it is historical setting - no alternative fantasy stuff.

“Josh is still make the game he said was making“. sounds a bit like “The Name of the Rose: the RPG”

I would assume something Dark Souls like (I am pretty sure that's the game that invented it to begin with) - other player ghosts, bloodstains, left messages pointing to secrets or screwing with you. If I remember well Elden Ring will have traditional DS pvp as well - though the last time they mentioned it would be only online for those who play coop. Horse would be disabled. Kinda werid way of doing it - I though DS already had a pretty good system for opting in and out of multiplayer.

Open-world is this concept that sounds good but rarely turns out interesting. If you let players to do anything at any point and go anywhere it's difficult to create something worth doing or experiencing - story wise you can't create a good one, as you have little control over story progression - a good story has to have arcs and developement and how do you create that stuff, if everyplayer can experience story in a different order (see Deadfire)? Gameplay wise - it's all about building complexity. You can't do that if you have no control over content. There is a reason, I think, why open-world games tend to have a depth of a puddle. And if you have progression system: how do you make sure that no matter where player goes the content will be sufficiently easy/challenging? And as stunning as open-world can be for first couple hours the spell quickly wanes as we realise how static the world is, how repetitive activities are, and one just wishes he could get to interesting stuff quicker. For example I prefered Metroidvenia like, developing world of Arkham Asylum over either of it's "open world" sequels, which felt more artificial and more static to me. So I like games which make you FEEL like you can go anywhere, but generally not open world - in that regard first half Dark Souls1 was all that it needed to be. There are open world games that I did enjoy: Witcher3, Gothic1&2, New Vegas. I do feel that while set in the open world, those games are more linear in nature, with open world being "a stage" rather then game itself. And there are sandbox games like Mount&Blade, but I think their nature is a bit different then your ususal Open World. There are also Metroidvanias - I tend to like those. So in case of Elden Ring, I am asking myself: what positive thing will be added to Dark Souls formula by going open world? Nothing comes to mind as of now, but I was sceptical about WItcher3 and it turned out to be the best in the series.

So pwetty. I suppose I won't know how I feel about it until I try it. Looks good - like they are expanding pure dungeon crawling of Dark Souls into a more well rounded aRPG. Will it be better for it, though? We shall see.

Yes, mods, something I very rarely engage with, and definitely not in games I don't like to begin with. It is a must for Bethesda, but I tend to limit myself to stuff like properly designed UI etc. I remember watching Noah's usual overly long Neverwinter Nights critique, and he made an interesting argument that NWN1 campaign was intentionally crap - a showcase of what engine can do, but formulaic, bland and uninspired enough so players reaction will be: pfff, I can do that better! I am not convinced about intentional brilliance of NWN1 undercooked campaign, but it did make me think of my experiences with Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout3. I tried more mods with Fallout: New Vegas, but I found community made content was clearly of a lower quality then base game. Are Bethesda titles intentionally shoddy, so modding it feels natural? It's not like one can break things further.

I tried, and in true Bethesda game fashion I got bored. According to my steam I did sink over 32 hours into it though. I think those were two seperate attempts. I can't recall a single interesting thing from my time with that game. It's popularity truly confuses me.

It is complete. Dark Souls continuing fine tradition of the final boss being a complete pushover.

My library of installed titles is growing larged, so I am trying to trim some titles I am close to completion. First on the menu is Dark Souls3 from which I took a break once I started DLCs and realized it will be the most demanding part of the playthrough. After some weeks off I have been pushing through them, and it's been some excellent content. Honestly, this is first DS content IMO that reaches quality level of DS1 DLC. Maps have been intertwined and tricky, bosses ranged from good to excellent. I am not nearing of end of DLC2 - just dragon Midir and final boss are left. Managed to trigger 2nd phase of Midir so I hope I am getting near beating him - 2nd phase doesn't seem that harder then phase1 - unless of course, there is surprise phase3 which those DLCs rather liked to surprise with. I installed through Game Pass Doom Eternal, as a first on "free" games that I want to give a go but don't want to pay for. I didn't like Doom 2016 at all - I think I am not into shooters in general but it felt to me slow, repetitive and I found collectibles annoying. I am only 2nd mission into DE so we will see how it will go, but so far.... loving it. Mobility is far better then in D1, and I think enemy design is better as well - far more aggressive, but with weak points to exploit. It has energy and excitement that just wasn't present in D1. I also like that they seemed to embrace slapstick - glory kills seem both briefer, and have some hilarious animations. Collectibles are far easier to find on the first run, even without pricey upgrades - which I appreciate. Upgrade system now feels more like Devil May Cry - gradual unlocking of toys to play with tutorialising the game, rather then something tedious to grind for. EDIT: Yup, one dragon down. He didn't trigger his super, duper instant kill if hit beam attack this time. Didn't manage to learn how to survive reliably that one.

haha. I love platformers. It's just not a terribly good one.

Like the tone, liked the setting and liked the unlockable "documentary" videos. But, darn I remember platforming being very sloppy in this one.

Hey, $9.99 adds up overtime :-).

I must admit, while playing the latest build of BG3 early access, I was thinking to myself: I miss times when I was the target audience. As far as I am concerned if someone wants Astarion in their game, they don't deserve games.

I am concerned why there is only one dog. That's not a healthy people to dog ratio.

Moral of the story: don't rush games out for an easy buck. It makes everyone miserable. The thing I dislike most about ME3 ending, is that it distracts from how shoddy the rest of the game is. Devs should always do self contained one-game-at-the-time. The only trilogy that payed off was Witcher - and arguably it is a disjointed trilogy where games work better on their own, then in sequence. I replayed the trilogy a while back, and while playing ME I was already feeling sad by how disappointingly the set ups will be "resolved".