Hurlshort

Hmm, I wonder if I can still get a refund on Fallout 76. I've got a couple hours in, but I don't know if I'll play it again.

The best horses fire rockets out of their rear end. A horse is a horse, of course, of course.

I love the idea of long travel times, weirdly enough. But yeah, it has to be stable.

Shane Black was definitely the best part of the film. I thought it was alright. I liked the concept.

I'm only 49% into the RDR2 story with a ton of hours, but sometimes I turn it on and just end up wandering across new areas checking out buildings I see on the map, or clouds of smoke, or just following animal tracks. Heck, just studying all the different animals with my binoculars takes a good amount of my time. I'm pretty sure I can play this game forever.

That's how you get crabs, man.

I loved the original King's Quest, but it was high maintenance as all heck. It would be a better comparison to say new games are vapid and easy, whereas old ones are interesting but complicated.

I agree with you on the risk free stuff (although thankfully we've had a real renaissance of indie developers.) But I think you're minimizing the importance of the visual element, given that gaming is by and large a visual medium. I also think you are dismissing the quality of modern game engines, sound, and general stability. There is a lot more going on with the jump from this: To this:

User reviews are pretty hard to judge though. Fallout 4 has 80k mostly positive reviews on Steam, while NV has 40k overwhelmingly positive reviews. Metacritic has a bigger gap, but with a lot less reviews. What does all that mean? Now Fallout 76 is a much clearer example of a terrible turn. Holy moly, that thing is getting killed. ME:A also had a very sharp drop compared to the previous games, so I agree that it also fits the definition of a cautionary tale.

I don't remember Fallout 4 getting bad reviews, according to Metacritic it charted a bit higher than NV. It certainly sold tremendously, so I'm not sure it is much of a cautionary tale. Fallout 76 is a much better example if you are looking to show a flaw with Bethesda. Seems a bit early to compare them to Bioware, since it might just be one misstep and it's not clear how 'all-in' they are on it.

I'd say it is bigger, because you will experience a couple game breaking bugs and have to start over.

AP is doing pretty well as a second and third choice though, which would fit its reputation as a bit of an unpolished gem. Really it's just Fallout and Star Wars eating up a lot of votes, which would make sense because they are very popular properties. I'd say it is less about sequels or other people's IP's, since Dungeon Siege, South Park, and even NWN2 aren't doing much in the way of votes. You could also probably lump together all of the PoE (1&2) to show that their own IP has done very well in the poll.

The Mrs. Clause reveal was perfect.

Although to be fair, most people who liked PoE1 but disliked Deadfire probably don't spend much time on the forum anymore. Whereas you still have a pretty active Deadfire community, since it is the most recent release.

Fair enough, although I don't think it is just Sony. I believe all the consoles charge for online play.

Ok, but RDR2 more than delivered the content you would expect for $60. I mean, if it shipped with no online mode, it would still be a great value as a consumer. If it is obvious why they charge for online, why are people complaining about it?

Geez, I better stop naming my horses after my children.

Again, either companies look to pull in money via more than just straight sales, or they end up increasing the price of the games. No one wants $250 games, so we end up with all sorts of other expenses. Subs are better than loads of microtransactions and dlc's, in my eyes.

I didn't even know the horse could die permanently. I used that revive shot on mine one time. Also, go get a treasure map. Life is much easier with a couple grand in the bank. I never worry much about paying bounties anymore.

You always want to pay the same price for that game as you did in the 80's, despite the fact development costs and expectations of quality have increased tremendously.

There are a few ways Sony (and all these other companies) can recoup the cost of running dedicated servers, since your ISP isn't kicking them any money. They can raise prices on hardware, software, subscription model, or microtransactions. Sub model is usually the best deal for a consumer.

As long as you got a good jury, GD, you'd be fine. People hate those door to door missionaries.

Five bucks a month seems pretty reasonable for access to a bunch of games and online services. I don't have an interest in it myself, but they are offering a service. I am not sure what price point you folks think would be fair.

If WoD came out anything like the Shadowrun games, I would be jazzed.

What is in a Chuckwagon Sandwich? Might just be a regional name. I just bought a 22 pound turkey at Costco for $8, so we are making that tomorrow after brining it overnight.