Kochambra

I'm glad they sorted that one out. The Sinking City showed potential even if it wasn't fully realized. I would be interested in another game in that vein from Frogwares.

As long as voters don't go for the usual, lazy whatever-disney/pixar-released-this-year choice, I'm okay with any of those other movies winning the best animated feature prize.

@Uncle_Franklin "In some cases" may be the key word. Bugs that trigger only under a very specific set of circumstances are the hardest to catch

@HeadPirate So that's where you want to lead this conversation, then? Using adjectives such as "blind" and "fanatical" to describe the other person's opinion?

"Nintendo was worth more then Sony in 2016 and again in 2017 dude. Check your revisionist history a bit."
I didn't say a single thing about Nintendo's worth, so where's this alleged revisionism, precisely? The only thing I said about Nintendo is that there is zero chance of them being in a position of dominance in a market in the coming decades, similar to the one they had in the NES days. Or to the one Microsoft has in PC operating system market. We're not talking about being slightly ahead of the competition here, we're talking about being way ahead of them, which is the only way a company could try to get away with those ***** NES era practices.
And while we're on the subject, where do you get from that Nintendo has convinced me of anything? Again, the only thing I've said about them is that I'm aware of how they abused their huge market share in the past, but that there's no way in hell they're going to be in a position to commit such abuse again, because there's no way in hell they're regaining the huge market share and cultural dominance they had back in the day.

"No offence man, but your arguments make me want to ask you to point to where Microsoft touched you on this doll."
That "no offence" bit is particularly funny after starting your message with that "blind, fanatically brand loyalty" thing. You don't need to bring out any dolls, because I already told you how Microsoft hampered the development of the Internet by gaining dominance in the browser market with their monopolistic tactics. And that's just one instance of their practices damaging not just their clients but the whole industry.
Sure, it would be easier to ignore Microsoft's terrible track record, not think about any possible long term consequences of my actions and just do whatever seems instantly beneficial for me in the moment, like all those people who just used Internet Explorer back in the day. And then wait for the next fun Microsoft monopoly. Again, no thanks.

@HeadPirate "Netscape used to be on top, but MS convinced us they were less evil so MS took over"
That's not what happened. MS used their already existing monopoly in the operating system market to push their browser into everybody's laps. And I guess many people though something along the lines of "Hey, if I already have this in my computer, why bother looking for alternatives?" And what we got from that is years of technological stagnation under Microsoft's rule.
So yeah, I could ignore all of their long ***** history and go "Hey, Microsoft right now are offering a good value for money, why bother looking beyond that?" And just wait for the next fun Microsoft monopoly. No thanks.

ps. I'm aware of Nintendo's ***** practices in the NES era. The good news is that there is zero chance of Nintendo being in a similar position of dominance in a market in the coming decades.

@HeadPirate They're being so "generous" because they are behind their two main competitors in the console space. And you can see their strategy to gain the upper hand: Change the playing field to one were they are ahead of the competition (subscription services) and buying studios left and right. And you want to know what happens when Microsoft fulfills its monopolistic dreams? Just take a look to what happened when they won the first browser wars, and how they single-handedly hampered the development of web technology for years.

@eaglesfly76 Thanks for the recommendation!

With all the hype around it, I found Limbo extremely underwhelming, so I'm reticent to play another game by designer. Nice to hear some people enjoy these games, though.

I played Man of Medan (the first game in the series) on Switch and I found its B horror movie vibes pretty enjoyable, so I'm looking forward to giving this a try too

A quick reminder that Metacritic numbers don't say anything of merit about any game.
TotK and BG3 are probably my two most anticipated games released this year and I'm glad they're getting hype, but the only meaningful information about them comes from sources that actually took the time to play the games and then took their time to explain what worked and what didn't for them, not from some meaningless number concocted by a website dedicated solely to produce meaningless numbers.

Also, this is year we got two outstanding games that give almost unprecedented degrees of freedom to their players. That is fantastic news for everyone, not a f*****g competition.

After the disastrous "Definitive Edition" we got for GTA, I'd settle for a "lazy port". If I don't like the asking price for what's on offer, I'll just wait for a sale.

The original game had a very interesting approach to the choice-driven-story genre and an intriguing twilightzone-esque narrative. This sequel sounds like a more developed and polished iteration of the formula, so I'm in

That's a shame!
Daedalic found their niche and had a good run making adventure games. But it seems like their market was getting smaller (apparently, the performance of their later adventure games was underwhelming), so they tried to make the leap to a different, bigger market and they didn't manage to land their one attempt. So it seems like they've gotten to a point where, as a software developer, they're no longer a viable business.
We're always eager to find someone to blame, to point fingers. But to me, this is just an example of how hard game development is. Particularly for a relatively small company from a non-english speaking country, trying to find its place in the market outside of the indie, low budget sphere.

For me, one of the most memorable bosses in the series is Argorok in Twilight Princess. I don't remember ever having my fear of heights so triggered by a video game

If they patch the bugs, I'm willing to give it a try.

@Sisilly_G I'm not so sure a 64GB cartridge could fit all three games, unless there has been some serious compression, which would translate to either lower quality assets or longer loading times (or both).

This looks almost reasonable, when compared to Konami's MGS swindle (Just 2 GB of data in the cartridge? Are you kidding me?).
It would be nice to know if you can purchase the games individually on the eShop.

Espgaluda II is the only one still missing from my Switch, but it won't be so for long

@Tupin They're not blaming Nintendo.

@UltimateOtaku91 They do follow their own advice, for the most part. In my interpretation, the advice isn't "do one iteration of a franchise in each machine", but "do one iteration of the same flavor of Mario in each machine".
Sure, on Switch we've had two Splatoon games, two Fire Emblem games and even two mainline 3D Zelda games. But while we've had many Mario games, no two of them could be considered very similar iterations of the same formula.
Nintendo may consider it reasonable to release three mainline Kirby games on Switch, to keep the franchise relevant in everybody's mind, but Mario doesn't need that, because there's a constant stream of different Mario flavors and spin-offs. Why release a second Mario Kart, when the first one is still selling so well? Why a second Mario Golf, or Mario Soccer, or Paper Mario? Why cannibalize their own sales?
There are exceptions, of course. If I remember correctly, there were two or three Mario Party games on 3ds?

I'm finding The Dark Pictures Anthology: Man Of Medan quite fun, even if it has some problems (navigation with fixed camera angles can be confusing some times). It does a good job laying out the mystery, inviting the player to find clues and put the pieces together. The plot has a kind of b-movie vibe, and that's part of the fun too. I just finished my first play-through and I'm ready to give it another go, making different choices.

@Il_Nintenditore Fair enough!

Boy, the snobbery in this comment section is truly off the charts!
What's wrong with you people? You got your big True Gamer™ treat just a few weeks ago. Is it really that hard to wrap your heads around the idea that there may be plenty of people out there with different gaming habits and needs than yours?
But sure, how dares Nintendo cater to any tastes other than YOURS, right? The sheer gall of that company!

In a world where portable games weren't considered second class, the Etrian Odyssey games would be mentioned in any conversation about the very best dungeon crawlers ever made, regardless of platform. Looking forward to mapping out the labyrinth (and evading FOEs) again on Switch

In this day and age, I guess we should be thankful we're still getting physical releases of movies at all. A sad state of affairs.

Nah, I still give the most ridiculous title crown to "Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon? Familia Myth Infinite Combate"

My first FF games were Revenant Wings and FF Tactics A2. Cool little games both. I have fond memories of them, which is more of what I can say about the main line games I've played (I really didn't like neither IV nor X).

Ugh, what a waste of talent! With most of these acquisitions, the game development world gets less diverse, more homogenized and boring.

@YANDMAN The relative power of the hardware doesn't excuse EA's scummy practice of releasing what amounts to the exact same software with a minimal data update, at the price of a brand new game, every single year.

Vampire Survivors' victory seems particularly remarkable considering how these awards are designed from the ground up to favor big budget games. I mean, performer in a supporting role? How many indie games can even afford to have a main performer?

The only sane answer is Nessie. He hasn't been debunked, he's just very good at covering his tracks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-9J2P4XZUo

@-wc- Yeah, I had a similar problem with the It remake: The first few scares worked really well (in particular, the headless apparition on the stairs was brilliantly staged), but it quickly began overdoing the scare scenes and showing way too much, losing most of its power.

My personal vote goes to The Excavation of Hob's Barrow. Fingers crossed for more Wadjet Eye Games releases down the line.

Is the writing remotely decent this time around? I ask as someone who enjoyed the gameplay of Labyrinth of Refrain quite a bit, but found the dialogue so f****ng torturous I eventually gave up on the thing.

After Twilight Princess, going back to Ocarina of Time's tiny, kind of barren version of Hyrule Field feels almost claustrophobic. Yeah, it was groundbreaking at its time, but that time passed long ago and it's one of the elements of OoT that has not aged well at all.

@D_Munk It's also worth pointing out that pixel art can be surprisingly effective in horror games. As an example, one of the most unsettling games I've played on Switch is The Last Door, which uses extremely low resolution pixel art, and works all the better because of it

This being a Wadjet Eye Games release, the "Strong voice acting throughout" point comes are no surprise: They're consistently excellent in that area.
I've enjoyed every Wadget Eye adventure I've played so far and I'm a horror fan, so this game seems like a must for me

Limbo is the kind of game an angsty teenager would make, with its dark visuals (in the most literal sense), bargain bin nihilism and disproportionate delight in killing the child protagonist and punishing the player. The "ending" did not disappoint: It was was exactly what I was expecting after the preceding 5 hours, trying so hard to be deep and failing miserably. If you've never played it, don't waste your time with Limbo.

@Tharsman Oh, I'm well aware of how huge Microsoft already is, thank you very much. And they still care about their workforce... until they stop caring. And when that happens, there's nothing we will be able to do to change it if our only solution for unchecked corporate power is merging them into an even bigger corporation.
We're just making these giants bigger. Maybe this particular giant is being benevolent (in some aspects) for the time being, but whenever it decides to stop being nice, we're screwed because it's too big and powerful and our only solution to that problem seems to be to make another giant even more big and powerful.

@Tharsman "They won’t allow a toxic game dev bro manager to ruin their corporate reputation"
Until they have to do it.
How have we reached this point with Activision, when it's publicly known how bad working conditions are there, and there are have been barely any change and no bad consequences for Kotick whatsoever? By creating a power structure so big that's it's impervious to such trifles as having a bad reputation among workers. Kotick and his investors don't ***** care as long as the money keeps flowing in.
You're telling me that's not the case with Microsoft right now? Well, that nice for your friends in the short term, but in the long run, they'll have to contend with an ever bigger behemoth and with whomever happens to be put on top. And if that person happens to have priorities similar to Kotick's, believe me, no HR under this person's orders is going to save them.
And then what? We'll pray for another merger to deliver them from evil?

@Tharsman Are the working conditions in Microsoft any better? And if they are, for how long? If they ever devolve into a toxic working environment, what will be the solution? Pray for another, even bigger buyout?
If our only solution for the problems created by unchecked corporate power is to create an even bigger, more monolithic corporation, we're really screwed.

@electrolite77 "the counterpoint to that is many AB employees may benefit from a change of employer"
That's a possibility that may come to happen or not for current employees of Activision. What's certain is that anyone working in the gaming industry and looking for a change of employer will have one pretty significant option less than before the buyout.

"As for one decision making structure vs two, that’s not really true."
Oh, but it is. Activision had its way of doing things and Microsoft had its way of doing things. After the buyout, there will be only one way.
Will that mean the end of successful Activision franchises? Of course not! But it will mean that whatever is being done with those franchises sticks to the same general criteria and decision-making that guides Microsoft's franchises. And every future IP or franchise will have to stick to that very same criteria.
I'm far from the world's biggest expert in either Microsoft's or Activision's catalogues, but would Spyro had ever happened or would it had become what it is under a Microsoft rule? Did Microsoft ever produce something equivalent? Or a Call of Duty? Or a Skylanders? Those franchises became what they are under the Activision rule. You may like their decisions or not (I personally loathe what COD became with the first Modern Warfare), but it was their own distinct criteria what we saw in those games. Now it won't be anymore.
Let's say that before the buyout, 15% of all big budget games were being produced according to Activision's criteria and 15% according to Microsoft's criteria (those percentages are made out, of course). Then, after the buyout, 30% of big budget games will be produced according to Microsoft's criteria and 0% according to Activision's criteria. A significant loss in diversity.

@johnvboy I'm not comparing Microsoft and Sony, but Microsoft and Activision. Before the acquisition, there were two different companies making their own decisions on what games to produce and how to produce them. After the acquisition, there will be only one company with one single set of rules and criteria for the production of those games. That applies to any acquisition of any game producer by a different one, but it's particularly troubling when such an acquisition affects such a big portion of the game industry.
That the company behind the acquisition happens to be a platform holder makes it even more troubling.
Going back to your argument: Sure, nowadays the the console hardware that we're getting from Microsoft and Sony is very similar, but it wasn't that similar in the past and their paths may diverge again in the future. If we had one single platform holder, there would be no possibility of divergence; there would only be one single path.

@johnvboy I'm not saying that they'll be less creative working for one platform. What I'm saying is that they will all be working for the same employer and they'll have to abide by this single employer's rules and decisions on what projects get made and in what terms they get made, which ultimately means less diversity.

@johnvboy "most consumers will not buy pretty much one console" English is not my native language so it may be a misunderstanding on my part, but maybe there's a typo in that sentence?

Regarding the rest of your points:
I don't recall reading or hearing significant complaints about the optimization of the big multiplatform titles from Activision/EA/Ubisoft. I'm sure there are individual cases where performance has been a real problem, but generally speaking, performance of multiplatform titles seems to be good enough for most consumers. Whatever slight performance gain there could be in sticking to a single platform seems irrelevant compared to the loss in the amount of games you can play in the platform of your choice, because they've become exclusive.
As for developers, they'll have less employment options (work for Microsoft or work for Activision becomes work for Microsoft or work for Microsoft). And where there used to be two decision making structures making different decisions about game development, now there's only one, which means less diversity.

@johnvboy Any platform holder buying such a big portion of the market is bad news for consumers. It means less diversity and less competition.

@PKDuckman "MS brought all of their XB1 era games to PC"
Not exactly. They brought them to Windows, which they also own.
And yeah, they're still supporting that one single game of their vast catalog (Minecraft) in multiple platforms... until the moment they eventually decide they don't need to do it anymore.
If the Activision buyout goes through, having the power of decision for such a huge segment of the market reside in a single company will be terrible news for consumers in the long run, no matter how pro-competition they buying company is supposed to be. And let's not fool ourselves: Microsoft has a history of anti-competition practices at least as long as those of Sony and Nintendo.

There's no rush, Night School Studios. Take the time you need to make another brilliant game.

@BulbasaurusRex So you would depend on Nintendo's continued willingness to provide that service. Personally, I'd rather remove that additional dependency from the equation.

@San_D Microsoft can allow playing games which released 3 generations ago because XBox consoles have been basically Windows PCs from its very first generation. Each successive XBox iteration has used the same hardware architecture, just bringing it up to speed in terms of PC hardware improvements.
When Nintendo decided to go with the portable/home console hybrid route for the Switch, they had little option but to use a new architecture: One powerful enough to deliver a good home console experience, but light enough so that size and energy consumption weren't an issue in portable mode.
Changing the architecture of a console line is pain in the ass for everyone involved, but particularly for console manufacturers themselves. They have to rebuild their platform practically from the ground up, instead of building on top of what they already had the previous generation. It's not a decision taken lightly.