• 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 6th, 2024

help-circle

  • Have you ever played Diablo 1? Graphics in HoT straight up look like they were ripped from the og diablo 1. Also, both of them have a very similar loop: you go to the dungeon, you kill a bunch of stuff, you come back to the hub area. I never fancied Vampire Survivors before I had the chance to play HoT more than a year ago, and the similarities in graphics and gameplay loop between it and the first diablo were THE reason that made me buy and play the game.

    EDIT: yes, Halls of Torment is the actual best in the genre. I’ve played most of the famous ones (Vampire Survivors, Soulstone Survivors, Holocure, Death must Die, Deep Rock Survivor, Pathfinder Gallows something…), and HoT is clearly a cut above the others in how solid it is built and how great it iterates on the ‘survivors’ trope. A game that is technically not a survivors but scratches a similar itch and has been hogging a lot of my time right now is Kill Knight.







  • As someone who carries a tablet around for note taking and making drafts, the idea behind a phone that turns into a tablet is hugely attractive to me, but this is not quite what I would want. I’d be super down for one that folds flat, and does away with the huge camera bump. Get me a nice stylus, a foldable keyboard and a simple folding support to hold the phone at an angle, and that’s essentially a desktop that can fit into your pockets.



  • It’s not what I’m saying either. I don’t know where you found any such claims in my comment. All I said is that games are supposed to be games, and failing is supposed to be part of games. You can fail even in a chill game like Stardew Valley, and you probably will on your first playthrough if you don’t look anything up. The game won’t game over because of it, but you will spend your entire second year suffering and trying to fix the mistakes you made in your first year. I can’t remember a single game I played where failing was not something that could happen that felt better because of it. Case in point: I was playing Jusant and was interested in the game, until I realized I couldn’t truly fail in that game, and all of the mechanics in place that looked like they were game mechanics, were actually just smoke and mirrors.


  • I can understand why most of the titles made it onto the list, but I can’t agree at all with the order of the list. The order was clearly made by some people who are heavily nostalgic towards older games. I’ve played Dragon Age Origins and The Witcher 3, and there’s not even a question in my mind that DAO is the better RPG out of the two. And, to me, also the better game (I can’t even understand how people find that the hours of cutscenes right in the beginning of TW3 is somehow fine). And don’t get me wrong, I love Dark Souls, but DS can’t be classified as a pc rpg unless you’re tripping. It’s an action game with rpg elements. I’ve also played Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2, and those games are not that good if you remove your nostalgia glasses. And I played both of those when I was a kid, so you can’t tell me it’s because I didn’t experience them in their time period. The writers of this list seem to love clunkyness and perceived potential above all else. The clunkier a game, the better. As seen on that high of an evaluation of Kingmaker, another game I played, can see as cool, but can’t bring myself to truly respect when they made the stupid decision to make combat spells like web last for their real 10 minutes time even after combat has ended, so that I had to stare at my screen for 10 minutes while my stupid dwarf failed check after check to get out of the web, and I had to actually wait 10 whole minutes for the spell to end. As an actual DM for TRPGs for 20+ years, taking rules from tabletop rpgs and porting them to videogames 1:1 just shows a lacking understanding of game design. A game with such an obvious flaw makes no sense to be placed that high into the list.



  • That’s a mentality that was the norm back in 2010, and one of the reasons the og dark souls got called a “very hard game”. It wasn’t that hard of a game, it was just a game that let you die as many times as mistakes you made, and it’s both objectively a better game for it, while also being hugely influential to the industry on this particular matter. To the point that it has been given the title and award of “ultimate game of all times”. Deserved for reminding that games are supposed to be games, and failing is 100% supposed to be part of it.