- 0 Posts
- 23 Comments
I don’t see the point of limiting the nominees to just one-per-game, for best performance. There’s still only one winner, and if that game legitimately had that many fantastic performances, more power to 'em.
I’ll second the idea of keeping Best Indie and Best Debut Indie separate. I’ll go further and say E33 just isn’t an Indie game, it’s pretty solidly AA.
I’m definitely overstating for effect, but yeah, to me, the game very much feels like they wanted to cater to the inhuman speedrunning and challenge running crowd from Hollow Knight, and made things unreasonable for causal/average gamers.
Maybe my bias is in having played and loved Hollow Knight first, but I NEVER felt like I was being given an unreasonable challenge in Hollow Knight. And Hollow Knight, by the late and post game, is HARD. They just managed to balance the difficulty curve so masterfully, that every escalation felt natural, even exciting.
Silksong, overall, did NOT do this for me. The early game felt obnoxiously punishing, the mid-game completely fell off a cliff into easy, once you get a handful of key upgrades, and the late game just varied all across the spectrum.
There’s about 3 different “no double-damage” mods that I’ve tried, for a boss I just couldn’t be assed to try legit, anymore. They all seemed to work, fine.
There was a “respawn outside the boss room, instead of at a bench” mod that I installed for a particular boss (you can probably guess), but I can’t really speak about whether it works, cause I happened to beat it on the next try after installing.
There was an “infinite shards” mod I tried, but it didn’t work at all, and I didn’t see any others, so be wary of that one.
Referring to mods available on Nexus Mods, BTW.
Sounds like maybe this is the “ranked mode” that rumors were going around about? Thank god, if so, the last thing this game needs is more incentive for players to be competitive against each other.
Neat concept, it sounds like. They really are just using this game as an excuse to try every new idea they have, aren’t they?
The CEO’s take here is actually pretty on-point. The article title over-simplifies, a bit.
The problem he points out is that a “failed” game that doesn’t sell well, or even sells moderately, is still a valuable game, and experience for the developer(s), but it also often means financial ruin for the studio. In his opinion, it’s that such studios aren’t recognizing when they’re releasing into an over-crowded genre, and need to adjust their budget expectations down.
Cause yeah, people SHOULD be able to make shit little games, without having to re-tool their entire career if it doesn’t do terribly well.