162

submitted 1 year ago by LeylaaLovee@lemmy.fmhy.ml to c/games@lemmy.world

443 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Any weird/controversial opinions? I'll start. Before the remake, the best version of Resident Evil 4 was the Wii version. The Wiimote controls old Resi's tank controls better than any other controller at the time. The PC version had a bunch of little bugs and detractors that the Wii version just doesn't have.

I'll extend this by saying that the Wiimote is actually pretty damn good for shooters, and particularly good for accessibility. Not having to cramp up my hands to press buttons is awesome for having arthritis. Aiming with the Wiimote and moving with the nunchuck just feel really natural, you barely have to move your fingers for anything.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] mojo@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

Sony exclusives are anti consumer, and Naughty Dog games are more just cinematics then game.

[-] mechanicalmind@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 year ago

I think you can take the "sony" out of that sentence...although exclusives can potentially be healthy to avoid monopolies and grant competition between makers.

[-] LeylaaLovee@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I'm mostly fine with Sony's exclusives. I don't love exclusives, but Sony funds a lot of games from the start. Their exclusives would often not exist without their funding. You know what I have a huge fucking problem with though? Microsoft buying companies and games already in progress to make exclusive. Microsoft has not contributed to Starfield, they haven't contributed to any Activision games, all they're doing is taking shit that would have existed with or without Microsoft and holding them hostage. They even did this with the OG Halo, it was originally supposed to be a Mac OS game.

All the companies do this, but Microsoft is by far the worst in recent memory. At least Sony and Nintendo actually make good games to hide it. They don't built their entire game libraries on buying other people's shit.

[-] mechanicalmind@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago

Microsoft is doing what Epic tried to (and miserably failed): they tried buying exclusives with Fortnite money but gave "us" (between quotes because I personally have never given into Epic's "here's a free game to dig into your data") a shit launcher with fewer functions than steam had when it first launched.

[-] tal@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I don't really see how doing first-party development and acquiring third-party IP is functionally different. Nintendo still isn't going to release a Zelda title on other platforms.

Maybe there's a human psychology element there -- if a title already was available across platforms, I feel like I "lost" something. With a first-party title, I never had it in the first place. Humans do have loss aversion, are more upset about losing something then not getting it in the first place.

But it seems to me that any rational economic restrictions on acquiring third-party IP to do exclusives should also apply to first-party development.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago

Bethesda said Starfield would have released about a year or more ago if Microsoft hadn't purchased them. They've provided them the resources to keep going until the game is done. To say they aren't contributing to it is just completely misinformed.

I don't like exclusives at all. They're just greed. Both companies are a out equal for it though, except I will say Microsoft at least still let's their exclusives be played on PC.