RightHandOfIkaros @ RightHandOfIkaros @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

3,582

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Its was similar in some way, but it was also very different in others.

With the exception of Ghost Recon 1, which was first person, the series was always a third person shooter genre, but it occasionally was first person depending on the platform and the game (Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 1 is in first person only for PS2, Xbox, and PC, but is optionally third person on Xbox 360. GRAW 2 is in third person for all platforms). Most Ghost Recon games are third person, and this was likely an intentional choice to make a game that does not directly compete with Rainbow Six, another Ubisoft series.

Ghost Recon had some semblance of realism, but not on the level of Rainbow Six and definitely not on the level of Ready or Not. Rainbow Six in its later years also began to lose its realistic style and became more and more fanciful, culminating in Siege having crossovers that don't make sense for the game or genre (I love NieR, but 2B does not belong in Rainbow Six, and her model in the game looks awful anyway).

Ghost Recons biggest difference is that Ghost Recon has a military focus, whereas Rainbow Six is more focused on SWAT or counterterrorism efforts. To this end, Rainbow Six often featured levels with enclosed spaces such as the inside of buildings or airplanes and a lot of close quarters combat, while Ghost Recon favors more open maps and long range encounters. Ghost Recon also featured vehicles and vehicular combat sections while Rainbow Six generally did not. For example, Ghost Recon would sometimes have a helicopter or tank appear to assist your squad in combat, perhaps against another enemy vehicle. If Rainbow Six ever featured a vehicle, it definitely wasnt a tank assisting your squad, and at most was a helicopter shooting through building glass or something similar.

Yeah, it was Rainbow Six, not Ghost Recon lol.

It's this. Japanese businesses almost always only truly care about the Japanese market. If something does well in foreign countries but does poorly in Japan, it can be expected that product will never be made again, or changes will be made to attempt to make it sell more in Japan, even if that means alienating the rest of the foreign market that already liked the way it was.

I dont see how this is not illegal. This is directly sabotaging the financial stability of Ubisoft for all of the shareholders except the Guillemot family and Tencent.

Other media should. But getting it to happen on games is a good first step considering games are the MOST profitable form of media.

I dunno, Lemmy is a pretty uninviting place generally, and incredibly user unfriendly. Just navigating the UI can be a challenge, let alone navigating the minefield of other users looking for a reason to have internet beef.

Its up to you, really, but I think it has a greater chance of backfiring than if growth occurs naturally without content creator influence.

"Persona promises not to retain the photo for longer than 7 days and will not have access to your Reddit data such as the subreddits you visit,"

Why would they need to have it any longer than the few seconds it takes to verify the age?

Wireless "storms" can happen causing unreliable wireless communication. Especially if the wireless signals are on the same or very similar frequency.

Thank you for the red circle. I didn't see it until I saw the circle. Thank you.

Dang, they really got you for the entire length of your car. What a bummer.

Stop that, you're scaring him!!

I only bring up RE4 since it released in 2005. Morrowind is even older at 2002. My point was more that there aren't any indie games that match the content or polish of those games, as old as they are.

Its mostly a limit of indie in general. Not enough money or time to match AAA games of even 20 years ago. AA absolutely should be at minimum matching 20 year old games, but even the funding AA gets should be enough for AAA games from 2010.

I would argue that is not true. I don't see many Indie games that match AAA games from 2010 in polish or content, honestly. Maybe there are a few, but I cannot think of any off the too of my head. Most are like AAA of 25+ years ago.

On a technical level it may be achievable that an Indie game matches a 2010 AAA game, but I think mechanically speaking that has not happened yet. Indie games have a hard time even matching the content and polish of 20 year old games from 2005. Where is the Indie Resident Evil 4, or Elder Scrolls III Morrowind? Some Indie games try to compete, but they either aren't polished enough, look like they released in 1999, or are too short in content to compare to those games.

We need to go back. Everything now is too sterile. Publishers do not take any risks on games anymore. We don't get games like Illbleed or Burnout from AAA funding anymore. Games that look at a genre and really ask what actually belongs in that genre.

Nowadays its all unoptimized Unreal Engine copy-paste Over the Shoulder perspective slop.

Indie is being more experimental these days simply because of how easy it is to develop video games now, but still lacks the necessary funding to create experiences on par with what AAA can offer.

Thank you, I'll be here all week, folks.

Persona trying very hard to be the modern day version of Wizardry. Unfortunately for Persona, I doubt it will ever match how prolific the inspiration of Wizardry has become.

I bet even Persona was inspired by Wizardry in some way.

I'm too old for this community, aren't I?

Definitely Coffin Princess Chaika. Absolutely. Couldn't possibly be anything else.

I don't like Tesla, but its hard to argue with the execution on this one. I might think its ugly, but at least it looks well put together, which is more than I can say for some kit cars I have seen.

Unless it's a physical Collector's Edition that comes with extra stuff like a physical statue or prop or whatever. Digital Collector's Editions are not real Collector's Editions.