Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor
FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Free Trial
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
11 days 17 hours
Path of Exile
8 days 15 hours
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
6 days 16 hours
I greatly enjoyed all previous Mass Effect games and all previous Dragon Age games (yes, including Dragon Age 2, though I might be in the minority there).
None of them are perfect and all of them have lots of faults, but I thoroughly enjoyed them despite their flaws. I'm hoping I can say the same for Andromeda.
I'm currently downloading the game through Origin Access, so I'm guessing I'll know for sure soon.
To be fair, I'll be purchasing the game (if it's any good, looking forward to reviews prior to launch) from an official retailer instead, since it's cheaper than if I'd subscribe to Origin Access and purchasing the game directly from EA.
You just blew my mind.
People have become so used to how it is now they're scared of/bothered by essentially the same thing with a new name.
The problem is that tech-oriented websites forget that we are the minority, and the majority of people search for an application or something on google, click the first link, click the first big "DOWNLOAD" button, and then tell their computer to install it.
What you are saying is how it currently is.
I understand what you're saying, but Microsoft doesn't "need" the extra sales - they're not going out of business any time soon because of the extra sales they would've gotten from a Steam release.
I would of course prefer to use Steam as well, but to be honest, I don't care if I download the games from Steam, Uplay, Origin, GOG or any other place for that matter.
Now, the Windows Store absolutely has its issues and it's pretty bad compared to the other digital distribution clients available. It needs more features and it needs to get fixed in other regards as well. Especially removing or make it easy to hide shitty mobile games and stuff. Simply put, a better store front overall.
However, I purchase and play good games. I don't care where I have to purchase and download them. I will support good games no matter the choice of client and so far, Microsoft has been releasing some good games (especially Gears of War 4 and Forza Horizon 3. Killer Instinct is pretty good if you're into those games as well - I'm not. And the mini-version of Forza is great for what it is as well). If they continue to do so and if they make their store front better, people will follow - just like they did with Origin and, in many cases, Uplay.
What a reasonable and mature stance on the the topic, my respect. It's a rare sight on the internet today. And I like to add that I totally agree with you, my first and foremost interest is to play good games. I don't know any client that would seriously hinder me to have fun with games, the Windows Store included. Sure, it's far from perfect but it's getting better and most important, you can just play your games like anywhere else.
Sounds like "top level" would play it wrong then, seeing there are ways to counter blocks, either by guard breaking or (at least with some characters, I don't know them all) hitting the opponent with an unblockable attack. There might be other ways as well, but I'm really not that good at the game and don't know all the moves.
Even unblockable attacks can be parried if you time it right!
I know your comment is old, but it feels like it would've been easier to make the game "as good as possible" thanks to PC hardware and then "simply" downgrading it to work at a locked fps on console?
Sounds like "reworking the game from the ground up" takes a lot longer than doing it right from the start.
Giving fair warning, this message is relatively jumbled. There final paragraph makes a fairly good attempt of a TL:DR.
I truly wish it was that simple. Over the last few months I've been learning my way around Unity (the game development engine, not the Ubisoft game) and specifically C#. You'd think that PC, being the superior hardware, would be the harder console to output to. Unfortunately that's not the case. Both MS and Sony set a large number of hoops that developers need to jump through before they are allowed to release a game on their respective console. Would you believe that to release on the Xbox One, you are required to code in some interactivity with the Kinect? There is a legitimate essay worth of hoops that developers need to jump through to be allowed to release a game on the console, and neither company is willing to release their full list in case the other company missed one (as then they would copy the idea of checking X).
Then there is the way that the hardware works. By coding for either the xbOne or PS4, you know exactly how much power you have. How many cores the CPU/GPU have, the RAM. You can be very efficient with what loads when, ordering the file management and load-in order so that the console gets the very best performance. If you were to swap from console to PC, you simply need to remove that logic and let the system load in a standard order. Far harder to introduce that logic to a complete game than it is to remove it.
But in short, the character models and graphics are the easiest part of porting. The high quality versions of these will already exist and be available for the PC version to use (notice how Fallout 4 high-res textures came out now? That's because only now can top-PC's run the models they made). What's most likely delaying the PC release is the code itself, which if written for PC first, would result in either being unable to release on the consoles, or extremely laggy/buggy ports on the consoles. The power of the consoles is so weak that you cannot code in the same way you do with PC's. Far more factors need to be considered when telling such a limited resource what to do.
Clicking on links in articles to retailers or publishers may mean we earn a small commission. More