• 0 Posts
  • 3 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: March 17th, 2024

help-circle
  • I will heavily disagree with you on your evaluation of Sly 4. The higher fidelity models doesn’t really add much to the characters that you couldn’t glean in prior entries in the series, and really only serves to give the characters a more plastic style all while minimizing the features that made them so memorable - their cartoonish aesthetic and stylized design. Not much changed on the design front for any of the major cast, besides more detail regarding their costumes. I will admit that more details on the smaller bits of their costume would be nice in the older entries, but compromising the style and aesthetic is a much worse tradeoff for what was gained. There’s many other people evaluating the level design in Sly 4 so I won’t go into that too much, but suffice to say, Sly 2 has comparable level design, and some are better in my personal opinion, but Sly 3 has the best level design of the franchise. None of those level designs were hindered or empowered by graphical capabilities. The only part that would have a noticeable impact, if anything, would be the post processing effects from some abilities in Sly 4, but I don’t really think those added that much to the experience, as most are gimmicks and costume based, meaning they are only used to solve puzzles and don’t play any further part in your arsenal except when the game specifically calls for those abilities.

    Now I don’t disagree that modern computing power could make the series much better, but AAA has this tunnel vision on graphical fidelity, when the indie scene has proved time and again, style always has and always will trump substance.

    Ratchet and Clank made the transition successfully because they didn’t overblow the graphical fidelity on Clank, it simply looks like a higher quality model of his early iterations, and has been made easier due to the armor and other sci-fi bits of technology in the series, as the genre scales better with the raw fidelity that most AAA developers pursue than other franchises.

    Doesn’t really help either that the first step that the Sly franchise took into this modern era was spearheaded by a third party studio. I’m not gonna bash Sanzaru that much, as it’s clear they had to put in a lot of work to approach Sony and Sucker Punch to even get permission to work on the franchise, and it shows in the humor of their mission design, although they were uncertain of themselves and it shows. So not only was Sanzaru dealing with the difficult position of having the newest entry of a beloved franchise, but also coming up with ways to modernize the gameplay and graphics in a franchise almost iconified in the early 2000’s comic and cartoon aesthetic.

    It’s clear they had more to juggle than could have honestly been expected of them, not the least of which that the franchise had been dead in the water for 8 years at that point, as the industry had slowed to a crawl after the creep of design scope and the upscaling of the industry caused much of the workflow to stagnate or recursion in on itself.


  • I’ve played the game while it was in early access, and now that I’ve played quite a bit (not all) of the game, I’d like to give my thoughts for anyone stumbling on this or keeping an eye on the game and trying to make a decision.

    First, the main feature of the game, beyond the aesthetic of an environmentalist version of post-apocalyptic world, is the airships. It’s a mobile base that is both a vehicle and where you do everything. The idea is nothing new, but the execution is done pretty well, in my opinion. There’s basic rooms, but you can unlock more rooms through exploration and research, which can result in some pretty interesting base designs and configurations.

    As far as a survival crafting game goes, it doesn’t do too bad to stand out in the sea of similar games, as the game originally began based around not having combat in it at all, but has since adopted some combat mechanics due to popular demand. The environmentalist messaging and themes are very obvious, and it jumped on the bandwagon fairly early on, before the themes got too worn out, so it isn’t stale storytelling at the very least.

    Now, for the changes between early access and 1.0, I will say it’s pretty drastic. I played the very early versions of early access, as well as most major updates that came out between then and now, and the difference is striking. First, in the beginning, you’d have to use a deck mounted extractor (think resource gathering laser tool) to gather materials, and you’d be able to acquire a portable version of the tool later on. In the 1.0 version of the game, that is turned on its head, where you get a portable one first, with deck mounted ones that don’t require energy later (for automation and convivence purposes). Resources feel much more in demand in the 1.0 version, as there is more to craft and upgrade, so you’ll be gathering and going through materials just as quickly. This is partly because most of the gameplay in early access involved exploring, with the underdust locations being the primary story progression areas. This meant that while you were exploring around, you’d be collecting materials passively, and because of this, you’d end up with tons of materials whenever you’d normally pivot to upgrading your base - right after getting a upgrade, or needing space for new facilities.

    The 1.0 version is much more streamlined in that story and story required equipment is all marked out for you, meaning you can beeline from one place to the next without much wasted time; great if you’re in a hurry or a journalist, but it does hurt the pacing in terms of resource scarcity. Not to say that resources are any more or less rare, they’re very abundant, in fact. However, due to adding some new resources that are used interspersed throughout the crafting process for more complex items means that you will always have a deficiency somewhere.

    I mentioned progression and story being streamlined in 1.0, but in truth it has had a massive overhaul, with proper zones to halt early players wandering into areas they do not have the tools to actually make use of, and to segment story into decent chunks. The game has more side grades for equipment than before, and they add interesting choices for gameplay, although due to the late adoption of combat, the upgrade system for combat is relatively shallow.

    From my perspective, it was a promising survival game that focused more on base building and dealing with size constraints, and the interplay with base building, which has developed into a proper, feature complete game. The gameplay may not be for everyone, but it is clear it had a vision for what the game would be, and successfully achieved that goal.

    Based on what I’ve played before the 1.0 release, I know that there is more content and mechanics to encounter, so I’ll reply with an update once I’ve properly finished the game and can give a more comprehensive review.


  • I’m sorry this is so off-kilter that I’m not sure what mental hoops you jumped through to end up like that. Laws are made entirely on morals. It’s why murder is illegal, theft is illegal, and insider trading is illegal. It’s always been about morality, and the key here is to get enough people to agree with you that it becomes a general consensus among the general public, or at least make it widespread enough to have it be important for the lawmakers.

    You could create an initiative called “stop killing animals”, and you wouldn’t be a dick, you’d just be another extremist vegetarian. It’s not hard to see where vegetarians got the reputation from. If you tried to insist you hold a moral high ground without clearly explaining why you think something is wrong, and got angry that people don’t agree with you, then you’d be a dick.

    The whole point is getting people to agree to these morals, and its difficult due to how entrenched a lot of people are in their own heads or scriptures. But the fact that the initiative is pulling these kinds of numbers proves that it’s not being a dick to ask for laws to back up customer rights that people feel are being violated.

    As far as what you’re saying here:

    I’m fine with having more consumer protection and making it clear if a company is selling ownership or temporary access. Right now it’s often not clear and that is definitely an issue. But completely making the sale of temporary access illegal is just strange.

    I’m unsure of what you mean by ‘temporary access’. Are you referring to the practice where corporations are trying to take advantage of selling licenses for games? Courts in the US have ruled that if you bought a license, you own that copy of the license as it typically took the form of a storage media- like a game cartridge or a DVD. The only difference in modern day is that computers and storage media are cheaper than ever, so laws haven’t caught up with digital distribution.

    Companies abuse this legal loophole by not damaging the ‘license’ for the game that you own, but by making the contents of the ‘license’ defunct and inoperable. That’s a heavily legal gray zone, even back in the early 2000’s, and the only reason they get away with it is because the average citizen doesn’t have the income to dispute these obvious violations of consumer rights due to income disparity. They know that, and it emboldens them.

    As far as this part:

    If you dont agree to temporary access, then don’t buy it. There are many games that are being sold DRM free, you own them completely, and they’ll work forever. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy something they don’t agree with.

    I’m not sure if this is your honest thoughts, or put out there in good faith even. The argument ‘just don’t buy it’ is reductive and fails to address the problem. It always has been, and always will be. It’s the equivalent of ‘just find a better job’, ‘just earn more money’, or other bootstrap advice. The free market is incapable of policing itself. If your belief is that voting with your wallet is effective, that just shows how uneducated you truly are.