As always, I'm leaving all questions to all presenters all at once, and because it is early morning as me writing this, I'm unable to answer the questions posed to me for several hours as I'm about to head off to work and I want to make sure I give each, any, and all questions posed to me the time they deserve. Without further ado:
To @ffff0 regarding Forza Horizon 5:
1.) I’m someone who likes playing in isolation as opposed to having any multiplayer components. How integrated is the online experience and is it something you can opt out of/turn off? Is it even possible to play offline?
2.) A major issue with Forza games is the licensing of the cars to the point these games can only be up for sale for only a few years before they’re delisted. Does this make the game (and series/franchise for that matter) having an impending discontinue date limit it’s viability years in the future?
To @bruno_saurus regarding God of War (2018):
1.) For as much praise God of War (2018) gets, it does have some flaws. The first criticism I have is having unnecessary tasks that add nothing, or there just to be there. A premium example of this is the Labors. I get all the different ways of taking out enemies incentivizes different play, but they so pointless with little reward. Do you agree or disagree the Labors add to the game and why/why not?
2.) While I agree combat is very strong, it does suffer from the standard trappings of finding a combination of Runics/Enchantments you enjoy and never feeling incentivized to switch things up. Personally, I have the setup I’ve got and haven’t changed across multiple New Game Plus playthroughs. This includes armor giving me the best stats, despite not being into the look of said armor. Do you think outside of the ice/fire dynamic of your weapons and enemies, which being only binary isn’t all that in-depth in itself, the game provides enough justification for you to switch up tactics/loadouts and fully delve into its systems?
To @JDINCINERATOR regarding What Remains of Edith Finch:
1.) In many cases, it’s not really a personal dealbreaker if a game’s replay-ability isn’t great, and with you saying the game’s only a couple hours, it does have me wondering: How well does the game incentivize multiple playthroughs? Is it a one-and-done until you want to go through the story again, or because the minimal time commitment, is it immune to fatigue for repeated playthroughs in a short span of time?
2.) And on the flip side, you clearly feel, for you, the game does more than enough with the little time it has and not overstay its welcome to leave a lasting impact. However, if someone plays this and doesn’t vibe with the story, well that’s it. There’s nothing else it really offers to people. Do you think it could/should have more aspects to the game (like more family members’ stories, mini-games, etc.) to incentivize players to spend time with it longer?
To @DIPSET regarding The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay:
1.) One thing I always think about when it comes to Hall of Greats, be it the Allies’ or ours, is if the presentation does a wonderful job to entice me to play, how simple would it be for me to get a copy. And as you demonstrate right at the end, physical appears to be the way to go with it being delisted. A cursory glance shows its originally for only OG Xbox and Windows, whereas it being bundled with Assault on Dark Athena brought it forward one generation. If one isn’t concerned about it being used, it’s pretty cheap to get, but new copies are much higher in cost. Do you think going through the effort of purchasing a copy (much like your own real world example of not available to rent, purchase only) for older platforms that many probably don’t own anymore is enough for this single game?
2.) You’ve said a lot of terms that appeal to me: “Stealth based,” “immersive-sim elements,” “simple dialogue trees,” and so on, and the foundational gameplay looks solid, but one thing I’m not able to get past (and yes, it is ENTIRELY subjective) is how it looks. Even with the remaster, everything looks in a way that’s hard to describe, but it clearly shows its age and it’s off putting to me, to the point there are games of the time (and older) that I feel do 3D models a lot better. In your opinion, do you think it graphically holds up, not just in today’s space, but against its contemporaries as well?
To @Shoulderguy regarding XCOM: Enemy Unknown:
1.) You briefly touch on it in your presentation, but there appears to be a lot of things you need to manage to stay on top of things, and while you explicitly state a couple times this is one of the most approachable strategy games out there, that doesn’t mean the genre in itself is simple, nor many of the systems can be ignored. So a two parter: A.) Can you please explain the gameplay differences in these systems (to use your listed examples: Battles, new research, launching satellites and Monitoring monthly council reports) and B.) How integral they are to success/failure?
2.) One of the most notorious things I’ve heard about XCOM (and I think you briefly vaguely reference it in the optional mode you discuss), is how you can have a high percentage chance of a hit at point-blank range and completely miss it due to RNG. How prevalent are these kinds of examples and further, how punishing/forgiving is the RNG overall?
To @Capnbobamous regarding The Outer Wilds:
1.) One of the biggest hangups I have regarding this is how, as you state a couple times in your presentation, and Isla as well, to truly talk about the best aspects of the game fundamentally spoils its very nature. Do you think this is a detriment when trying to convince people to play, when the “going in blind” advice needs to be so heavily relied upon?
2.) Personally speaking, I’m not a fan of almost aimless, “go where you want, do what you want” types of games, insofar as not having at least one concrete marker to guide me when I’m ready to progress to a main objective. With all that happens in The Outer Wilds, do you think the game does a good enough job helping you keep up with all your discoveries without running the risk of forgetting key details while simultaneously implicitly pointing you in the direction you need to go?
To @Oscillator regarding Star Fox 64:
1.) To me, on-rails shooter is a genre that on its surface sounds restrictive in that most (but not all) of time you don’t fully have three-dimensional, 360 degree spherical movement, nor do you have the ability to explore outside of shooting targets and enemies. Does Star Fox 64 allow you any freedom to fly around many of the levels and take in the atmosphere?
2.) In the two videos you’ve provided, something that jumped out to me is the camera is always behind you and in order to look/go behind, you must do a u-turn, but the camera quickly sticks back behind you again. Do you think it’s a hindrance to not have any expansive camera control during gameplay?