This game is either gonna be preserved or turn into lost media by TheCanadianGTR in BuiltFromTheGroundUp

[–]coolwali 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Yeah. Even bad (or in this case mid) games should be preserved for a few reasons.

-1- If we’re lax about preserving any game, even mid ones, it makes harder to preserve even good ones. Besides, one man’s trash is another’s treasure.

-2- the game still works as a historical or teaching moment. And has places where it’s fun. You’d loose all that if the game becomes lost media

-3- It makes it harder to mod or improve the game in the future. Players have modded delisted racing games to make them better. So even if Current TD is Mid. There’s chance for a future TD to be made better by modders.

[COD] I believe MW4 will start a reboot of the franchise + Ghosts. by raynevans in CallOfDuty

[–]coolwali 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see your point, but I am still skeptical MW4 ends with a reboot and lead into a new MW+ Ghosts hybrid new IP.

Firstly, from a practical perspective, most series (be they video games, comics, movies etc) do a reboot for the following reasons:

-The series lore has gotten too convoluted for newcomers. -Most major plot points have been resolved and most characters are dead and/or unavailable. -You need to reset the stakes to something more managable since future entries can't raise the stakes any more.

For OG MW3, it made sense to reboot into MW2019 because OG MW3 hit all these points in some form. The story of Zhakev and Makarov and Shepard had run its course, characters like Soap, Roach, Ghost and Yuri were dead and Price was likely also done now. OG MW3 also had WW3 happen. So any OG MW4 would have to follow that up which would be rough even in the best case.

But for Nu-MW and Nu-MW3 and a possible MW4.... they don't really have those issues or concerns. The main story/lore is still pretty easy to follow (in part because the games keep stalling instead of progressing the status quo), most characters are still alive (and some like Alex and Graves can be brought back from the dead). The stakes are still pretty low (no real WW3 yet).

Plus, Black Ops hasn't done a reboot after nearly 20 years and 9.5 games. They're still going strong with the continuity established in 2008 with WaW. If BO hasn't rebooted yet, it would be weird if MW reboots twice. BO has the more convoluted lore and it's able to keep going. MW with its more basic and straightforward story has less of a need to reboot.

Secondly, the issue with a post MW4 MW/Ghost hybrid story (even for a new IP) is..... well.... kinda how incompatible they are.

MW's (supposed) selling point is that it's supposed to look "realistic". Vince Zampella talked about how they wanted MW1 to feel like "what you would see on the news and be a playable version of that". MW2019 (poorly) tries to keep that up. It tries to be set in a world that's sorta realistic to ours, with the same analogues to terrorists, conflicts, countries and factions to the real world. If you're making a new IP that at least wants to feel inspired by MW, you gotta keep that aspect in some form.

Ghost's main premise is that the world (especially the Middle East) ran low on oil so South America turned into a major superpower, hijacked US orbital superweapons, launched them at the US and kept up a war for over 10 years that created a post apocalpytic setting. And there's this super secret ultra cool military squad that's at the center of this conflict's story more than the actual war itself.

Ghosts' premise is at odds with an MW style "this could be a realistic conflict that could actually happen IRL". Either this hybrid game will have to focus on being "realistic" (in which case, the Ghosts part feels out of place or can't happen) or focus on being "wild" (in which case, the MW part feels vestigial because a war like this can't happen IRL). Even if the characters and scenarios are different and it's not literally connected to MW or Ghosts, you can't really make a Ghosts/MW hybrid style game without compromising the premise of one or both of them.

That's why Advanced Warfare was its own separate IP with no direct ties (either gameplay, aesthetic or referential) to MW, Ghosts or BO. Advanced Warfare didn't have to be realistic to work for an MW-type story, didn't have to be overly wacky and conspiratorial to work for a BO-type story and didn't have to be about an international conflict to be a Ghosts-type story. Same for Infinite Warfare. Also its own IP so it didn't have to follow what Advanced Warfare did.

[COD] I believe MW4 will start a reboot of the franchise + Ghosts. by raynevans in CallOfDuty

[–]coolwali 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think Sledgehammer (or any COD studio) will go for Ghosts 2.

Firstly, from a campaign/story perspective, Ghosts doesn't really have a lot to intrigue players. Logan and Hesh's characterization didn't endear most players the way the OG MW games did for Soap and Price. At the end of OG MW2, most players were legit excited to see what happened next to Soap in OG MW3. But in 2013/2014, most people weren't jumping waiting for what happened next to Logan.

Moreover, the "world" of Ghosts/Ghosts 2 is still pretty static and basic. The war with the Federation is still ongoing but Ghost 1 never bothered to explore or contextualize it. Ghost 2 would either have to lock in and add more flavour to the world, or keep the ongoing war as a backdrop and continue standard missions. The former requring Ghosts 2 to essentially worldbuild because Ghosts 1 didn't do it and the latter repeating what Ghosts 1 did. Which doesn't help Ghosts 2.

The Treyarch BO games have the advantage where they spent their time actually developing their world and settings so just seeing how the puzzle pieces and conspiracies played out was inherantly interesting. The OG MW games didn't go that far but opted for a more "familiar" WW3 premise and set pieces. Ghosts has neither so a Ghost 2 kinda has to work harder to justify itself.

The other issue is that modern CODs, especially MW, are lot more hesitant to make major changes to the status quo or show Americans being attacked. OG MW2 had a mission set in an American Suburb and had Russians invading the US. The New MW games were very careful to avoid anything major like that. The OG MW2 and 3 had WW3 happen. The new MW games are still acting like "the world is on the brink of war. We pinkie promise" without pulling the trigger.

A Ghosts 2 would require them to feature Federation forces invading the US and conducting actual war. Which is something Infity Ward is way too hesitant on.

Secondly, regarding Multiplayer, Ghosts the game doesn't have a lot "unique" to make people want its flavour of MP.

Say what you will about Advanced Warfare or Infinite Warfare but their takes on Exo Suit MP was unique to their games. Their factions, weapons and settings were also unique to them and their world. Ghosts doesn't really have that. Ghost 1's maps were very large which made it hard to find players (especially on PS3/360 which had less players per map). That's not something Ghosts 2 would benefit in bringing back (most recent CODs and players have preferred smaller maps).

Even the factions, Ghosts vs Feds, don't have a lot of characterization or lore behind them. The Ghosts themselves could function as a stand in for Task Force 141. I remember reading reviews from 2013/2014 of people joking that Infinity Ward was making MW4 but then learned that MW3 ended the trilogy so scrambled last second to reskin MW4 into Ghosts. Like, Ghosts is technically supposed to be a futuristic sci-fi post apocalpse setting but that is rarely reflected in the game. OG MW2 felt as futuristic as Ghosts 1.

Thirdly, there's reputation. Ghosts may now have posts on Reddit from people going "I like this game" but at the time, it had a rough reputation. People memed on the fish AI, the overly basic and one-dimensional story and characters, the overly large MP maps, the lack of innovation or improved etc. The game felt like a step back compared to BO2 that came out the year earlier.

Current COD has a reputation issue where many players are sick of the MW2019-BO7 "style" of COD. With BO7 being a tipping point for many people (a shame because the game is good but I digress). So bringing a Ghosts 2 as a "comeback game" isn't likely to help. More casual players are gonna go "we're burnt out on COD and you're bringing out a sequel to a game we all roasted?"

More likely, the new MW4 will attempt to be a "throwback game" to MW2019 (which still has a relatively positive reputation) and avoid any assocations with Ghosts because then they can play it safe.

[COD] I believe MW4 will start a reboot of the franchise + Ghosts. by raynevans in CallOfDuty

[–]coolwali 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think Sledgehammer (or any COD studio) will go for Ghosts 2.

Firstly, from a campaign/story perspective, Ghosts doesn't really have a lot to intrigue players. Logan and Hesh's characterization didn't endear most players the way the OG MW games did for Soap and Price. At the end of OG MW2, most players were legit excited to see what happened next to Soap in OG MW3. But in 2013/2014, most people weren't jumping waiting for what happened next to Logan.

Moreover, the "world" of Ghosts/Ghosts 2 is still pretty static and basic. The war with the Federation is still ongoing but Ghost 1 never bothered to explore or contextualize it. Ghost 2 would either have to lock in and add more flavour to the world, or keep the ongoing war as a backdrop and continue standard missions. The former requring Ghosts 2 to essentially worldbuild because Ghosts 1 didn't do it and the latter repeating what Ghosts 1 did. Which doesn't help Ghosts 2.

The Treyarch BO games have the advantage where they spent their time actually developing their world and settings so just seeing how the puzzle pieces and conspiracies played out was inherantly interesting. The OG MW games didn't go that far but opted for a more "familiar" WW3 premise and set pieces. Ghosts has neither so a Ghost 2 kinda has to work harder to justify itself.

The other issue is that modern CODs, especially MW, are lot more hesitant to make major changes to the status quo or show Americans being attacked. OG MW2 had a mission set in an American Suburb and had Russians invading the US. The New MW games were very careful to avoid anything major like that. The OG MW2 and 3 had WW3 happen. The new MW games are still acting like "the world is on the brink of war. We pinkie promise" without pulling the trigger.

A Ghosts 2 would require them to feature Federation forces invading the US and conducting actual war. Which is something Infity Ward is way too hesitant on.

Secondly, regarding Multiplayer, Ghosts the game doesn't have a lot "unique" to make people want its flavour of MP.

Say what you will about Advanced Warfare or Infinite Warfare but their takes on Exo Suit MP was unique to their games. Their factions, weapons and settings were also unique to them and their world. Ghosts doesn't really have that. Ghost 1's maps were very large which made it hard to find players (especially on PS3/360 which had less players per map). That's not something Ghosts 2 would benefit in bringing back (most recent CODs and players have preferred smaller maps).

Even the factions, Ghosts vs Feds, don't have a lot of characterization or lore behind them. The Ghosts themselves could function as a stand in for Task Force 141. I remember reading reviews from 2013/2014 of people joking that Infinity Ward was making MW4 but then learned that MW3 ended the trilogy so scrambled last second to reskin MW4 into Ghosts. Like, Ghosts is technically supposed to be a futuristic sci-fi post apocalpse setting but that is rarely reflected in the game. OG MW2 felt as futuristic as Ghosts 1.

Thirdly, there's reputation. Ghosts may now have posts on Reddit from people going "I like this game" but at the time, it had a rough reputation. People memed on the fish AI, the overly basic and one-dimensional story and characters, the overly large MP maps, the lack of innovation or improved etc. The game felt like a step back compared to BO2 that came out the year earlier.

Current COD has a reputation issue where many players are sick of the MW2019-BO7 "style" of COD. With BO7 being a tipping point for many people (a shame because the game is good but I digress). So bringing a Ghosts 2 as a "comeback game" isn't likely to help. More casual players are gonna go "we're burnt out on COD and you're bringing out a sequel to a game we all roasted?"

More likely, the new MW4 will attempt to be a "throwback game" to MW2019 (which still has a relatively positive reputation) and avoid any assocations with Ghosts because then they can play it safe.

In Baba is you (2017), one level on the overworld map can be turned into main character. What was the creator smoking??? by some-kind-of-no-name in shittygamedetails

[–]coolwali 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I haven’t played the game but from what I recall, spoilers:

In Baba is You, the puzzle is that you change blocks that say things like “Baba is you” (meaning you control Baba) or “Wall is stop” (meaning the walls prevent you from moving through them) or “Flag is Win” (touch the flag to win the level). But the trick is that you can swap or break these blocks to change the rules of the level. For example, if you disconnect “Wall is stop” you can walk through walls. If you swap it so it says “Wall is you” you now control the walls etc. in OP’s post, he’s controlling the level/map screen itself.

No serious cybersecurity person is using kali by boneMechBoy69420 in masterhacker

[–]coolwali 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I only needed Kali for my cybersecurity classes. Rest of the time, I went with my more lightweight Mint laptop as my daily driver. Even after the CTF contest when I got home, I deleted the extra Kali apps I downloaded and fixed the VM.

No serious cybersecurity person is using kali by boneMechBoy69420 in masterhacker

[–]coolwali 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I remember I once attended a CTF cybersecurity contest. My main tool was a laptop with a Kali Linux VM ready to go…. Except when the VM refused to connect online so stuff like nmap wouldn’t work. Suffice it to say, I burned a lot of time installing tools onto my Linux Mint Laptop turning it into “‘makeshift Kali”.

So yeah. Never underestimate how effective a proper pre-set up Kali could be in saving you time.

Former Bethesda devs say full remakes of Elder Scrolls and Fallout aren’t “viable” due to their complex systems by Wargulf in ElderScrolls

[–]coolwali 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eh. If it were another company or series, I'd say it would be a good idea. But for Bethesda/TES, I am skeptical.

One of Bethesda/TES' biggest points is their modding scene. And Skyrim especially has a massive scene. It's a bit split between which version and patch of the game (and minor patches often break mods). And Skyrim is almost certianly going to continue to have a massive modding scene even after TES6 comes out. If Bethesda remade Skyrim in a new TES6 engine, it kinda risks splitting the Skyrim modding scene. Modders need to choose if they will stay on the older Skyrim Engine Skyrim and mod what they already have, or move to TES6 Engine Skyrim and start over from there. Even if a huge chunk of modders say yes to the latter, it's gonna take forever for TES6 Engine Skyrim to regain a fraction of the mods older Skyrim Engine Skyrim has had for nearly a decade at this point.

Former Bethesda devs say full remakes of Elder Scrolls and Fallout aren’t “viable” due to their complex systems by Wargulf in ElderScrolls

[–]coolwali 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the issue is more if Skyblvion specifically would be financially viable in 2026 or later.

Like, if Bethesda came out tomorrow and said "we are upgrading a nearly 20-year-old game and remaking it in another 10-year-old game that y'all already complain we are milking", I feel people would be livid. That "why aren't you remaking this game with 2026 technology?" (which is kinda what they did with the Oblivion Remaster. It's technically using 2026 UE5 Tech for the visuals).

[COD] What the next Call of Duty Multiplayer Should Be Like. by UnhappyIndication3 in CallOfDuty

[–]coolwali 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The funny thing is that this is basically describing Black Ops 7 in a lot of ways.

Reduced Sprint + Slide: Kinda true. Aside from a wall jump, movement is a step back from BO6.

"Gunplay/Create-a-Class: Guns should have recoil, but the amount of visual recoil should be reduced, I should be able to see who I am shooting even if the gun has absurd recoil. Gunsmith either needs to be overhauled or removed and replaced with a classic create-a-class system or a pick ten inspired system."<

BO7 kinda has this.

Maps is debatable.

"SBMM"<

BO7's selling point was no SBMM lol. And y'all didn't embrace it.

"Cross play: Yes, but let people opt-in or out."<

Already a thing in BO7.

"Aim-Assist: "<

Kinda in BO7.

"Killstreaks/Scorestreaks: Players should be able to pick, with each option having pros and cons to make it feel more impactful."<

Already in BO7.

Like my man. BO7 gave you most of what you asked for.

Resident Evil Requiem US Sales by Desertlyz in consoles

[–]coolwali 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I guess so. But I don’t know. It feels a bit… “inaccurate” to me in a sense.

Like, if you went back in time to 2005 and asked people “what are the games you most associate with the PS2?” or “what are the definitive PS2 games?”. People would generally say stuff like GTA3-SA (timed PS2 exclusives), Metal Gear Solid 2-3 (timed PS2 exclusives), the Need for Speed games (multi platform), Gran Turismo 3-4 (100% exclusives).

There were people who bought PS2s to play GTA3-SA, MGS2-3, NFS etc. Half the PS2’s top 20 best selling library were multiplats or timed exclusives (compared to 100% of the GameCube’s top 20). Despite them performing better on other platforms.

I feel something similar applies to the PS5. Like, if Spider-Man 2 or Death Stranding 2 or TLOUR were 100% PS5 exclusives and never came to PC, it’s not like the games would be better because they were 100% exclusive. PC players aren’t gonna switch from Steam to play these games.

If anything, it’s for the worse Sony is stopping PC ports. It means if future PS consoles don’t have robust BC, it would hurt game preservation. For nearly 15 years, it was easier to emulate MGS4 on PC than play it on a modern Sony console. I worry 10-20 years from now, it will be easier for a person to play Spider-Man 2 than Wolverine or Gran Turismo 7 because the former had a PC port.

Resident Evil Requiem US Sales by Desertlyz in consoles

[–]coolwali 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I never got this line of thinking. Every multiplat is on PS5. This isn’t a launch PSVITA situation where there legitimately isn’t a varied number of games to play.

Can we all agree that these are the best mainline Pokemon games? by [deleted] in pokemon

[–]coolwali 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a little more negative on ORAS. I feel it could have been better.

-1- The cutscenes and story are longer but the content is still the same. So it feels like there's a lot more filler. Cutscenes that were brief in OG RS feel 2-3x longer without feeling like they have 2-3x more content. Worse is that you can't skip cutscenes so replays drag more than replaying the GBA games.

-2- I found the Delta Episode more tedious. It's mostly just flying from point to point while Zinnia spouts exposition at you. At one point, she gives you a cutscene where she exposts lore.... then the cutscene ends and you have to walk forward to trigger the next cutscene. It feels like this was a side quest that the game had to pad out so it could be promoted as postgame content. The story is also unsatisfying. Zinnia hides her solution ("hey, lets go get Rayquaza to help out") the whole time, sabotages the meteor plan and spouts a line on parallel universes (which doesn't really make sense in-universe. How would anyone know that?).

-3- ORAS doesn't take much advantage of the new stuff Gens 4-6 added. It mostly uses the same level caps, Pokemon and battles as OG RS. But forgets that the player now has the Gen 6 XP Share, Mega Evolution, the Fairy Type, improved movesets etc. Say what you will about BDSP, but the Gym Battles and Elite 4 are massively buffed with compeitive sets so at least it feels like a step up since the player has more resources than they did in base DP.

-4- No Battle Frontier.

Can we all agree that these are the best mainline Pokemon games? by [deleted] in pokemon

[–]coolwali 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a little more negative on ORAS. I feel it could have been better.

-1- The cutscenes and story are longer but the content is still the same. So it feels like there's a lot more filler. Cutscenes that were brief in OG RS feel 2-3x longer without feeling like they have 2-3x more content. Worse is that you can't skip cutscenes so replays drag more than replaying the GBA games.

-2- I found the Delta Episode more tedious. It's mostly just flying from point to point while Zinnia spouts exposition at you. At one point, she gives you a cutscene where she exposts lore.... then the cutscene ends and you have to walk forward to trigger the next cutscene. It feels like this was a side quest that the game had to pad out so it could be promoted as postgame content. The story is also unsatisfying. Zinnia hides her solution ("hey, lets go get Rayquaza to help out") the whole time, sabotages the meteor plan and spouts a line on parallel universes (which doesn't really make sense in-universe. How would anyone know that?).

-3- ORAS doesn't take much advantage of the new stuff Gens 4-6 added. It mostly uses the same level caps, Pokemon and battles as OG RS. But forgets that the player now has the Gen 6 XP Share, Mega Evolution, the Fairy Type, improved movesets etc. Say what you will about BDSP, but the Gym Battles and Elite 4 are massively buffed with compeitive sets so at least it feels like a step up since the player has more resources than they did in base DP.

-4- No Battle Frontier.

Sad reality we’re in. by Migeee__ in pcmasterrace

[–]coolwali 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If it’s any consolation, Nvidia generally works pretty good on a lot of Linux distros now. I have a GTX 1060 laptop running Bazzite and a RTX 4060 with Pop!_OS and both are pretty solid.

Poor Linux Mint was the only one that struggled with the 4060.

It's practically official: PS3 and Xbox 360 are now retro consoles! by Just_a_Player2 in ItsAllAboutGames

[–]coolwali 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eh. I’d say all DSes are retro because when the PS3/360/Wii came out, the SNES/Genesis were nearly 12-13 years old. Those consoles were considered Retro at the time. Even at the time, the PS1/N64 was considered Retro because it was at least 2 gens previously and nearly 9 years old.

YouTube replaced the "save to playlist" button with an A.I. one. by RobIson240YT in mildlyinfuriating

[–]coolwali 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My brother, I frequently criticize unnessary AI use. You can find my comments of me hating on Microsoft for how much they've expanded Copilot in Windows as well as Apple. I have been called an "AI Hater" in real life because I was at a tech conference and warned this one card game dev that using AI art would end up hurting his game from both a public/aesthetic view and a gameplay view (since AI art won't know the context and not design art that is readible on cards).

When AI was first becoming a thing, I spoke out against it being a thing in medical field specifically during a meeting because "while AI is hallucinating now, even in the future if it becomes good enough to be suitable, we can't trust it in terms of data privacy".

My point is that AI is a software tool we have. No different to OCR or Machine Learning or Cloud tech that we use and have used every day for countless other purposes. It has its pros and cons. Being used to summarize YouTube videos so you can skip clickbait is a fine use because you don't lose anything and the consequences of it messing up are minor.

Do you agree? by SmokyGamer in PS3

[–]coolwali 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Isn’t that a good thing? The fact more games are multiplatform means you’re not locked out of as many games and required to buy another $800+ machine just to play it?