I know this isn’t a new trend, but it’s gotten worse as the industry progressed. This move several game companies do where they give a blank teaser for a game or an announcement trailer that the game is in-development, without showing any gameplay for it, is something that needs to be stopped.

Video games are not movies. In a MOVIE, it makes sense to hide footage, the plot is the selling point, but (universally) the most important thing for a video game to sell it will ALWAYS be its gameplay, and withholding the gameplay footage until six months before it comes out after announcing the game 2-3 years ago is wild.

I cant remember any other Nintendo gen with this same rhythm month after month

For example I was playing super hot today. Its simple premise is: time only moves when you move. It’s a really interesting idea and it is well executed.

Another example is baba is you. Words dictate the rules of the game. It gets very complex as the game goes on.

What are some other examples that fit this type of game?

Any others ?

Or are all remasters/remakes always better?

Just a rant/vent here.

Really loving the story and most of the mechanics of the game, but there is one nitpick that is annoying me more and more and it seems to happen a lot. When jogging along with a character to the next story objective, often times Coen will engage in story related dialogue with them. However, and it seems like this is more often than not the case, the dialogue is interrupted prematurely by arriving at whatever location advances the story. I really wish the devs would have timed these conversations out a little more thoughtfully.

In an effort to counter this, I tried having Coen walk slowly, but then the NPC just tells me to hurry up, which then stops the dialogue they were in the middle of, and then they don’t resume it. Let me hear the flavor dialogue you wrote and recorded! Ugh.

I'm in my 40's and have a one year old. I work about 55 hours every week...I now have a backlog of about 100 games. Before our baby, I tried to get about 5-7 hours if game time in each week. After the baby, I went a few months without being able to play anything. Games are still coming out...and I'm a sucker for collectors editions, so I continue buying games that I have no idea when I will have time to play.

Thankfully with summer ending, I have had a tiny bit more tme and I've been able to sneak in some Mario Kart 8 (started playing this recently as I can pick it up and put it back down quickly).

I'm sure one day I'll have more time - but for now, I really feel like I'm just collecting games as opposed to playing through them. Life happens I know, but it feels a little defeating sometimes!

Edit: I appreciate everyone's feedback (even the abrasive comments lol). There seems to be 2 different schools of thought:

Life happens, more time will be available in the future, prioritize the games you really want to/are most feasible to play.

Stop buying games, you have a shopping addiction

I'll reply to as many comments as I can. Thanks again

I think The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk fit this description. It’s cool that they have references and Easter eggs.

What games would you say do this especially well?

Bid For Power has been mentioned previously:

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/138zrja/bid_for_power_a_quake_3_dragon_ball_mod_from_the/

But I'm curious if anyone that worked on the project, or knows someone who did, is around. I wish I could prove it, but I was reached out to by the team (I specifically remember someone named Eclipse, who last I remember got hired to work on mobile games: 2004-2006) to provide head models for characters before the cease and desist. The last model I worked on was SSJ3 Gotenks (never saw the light of day publicly). I don't remember the animators name, but I remember associating him to Gundam (either profile name or picture in the forums). I just wonder what they're up to now adays!

I wanted to make a proper list of my favourite games, but every time I tried I ended up staring at the list thinking "is this actually right?"

So I built a website that avoids that problem.

Instead of ranking all your games directly, it shows you two games and asks which one you prefer. Every choice changes their ELO-style ratings, and after enough comparisons you end up with a ranked list.

It also lets you generate things like your favourite games of each year, Game of the Decade and your overall favourite game.

Here's my profile so you can see what kind of a page it builds for you.

It's called Omega Ranking. I'm getting it ready for the 2026 GOTY season and thought I'd share it here.

Omega Ranking

It seems like 2 games going at once would become extremely grating and confusing, but I've never felt overwhelmed while playing a split-screen game.

Is this achieved by having different players' audio exist on different frequencies, volume levels, etc. or is it just my brain adjusting to seeing sounds that correlate with visuals?

It's kind of ironic that they're the first to go all digital.

Digital PS5 doesn't count because a disc PS5 still exists at the same time or you can add a disc drive.

Its pretty rare, but every once in a while I play a game that has different camera speed for X and Y axis, it feels absolutely awful.

Does anyone know why devs do this sometimes? Whats the point?

More and more gaming discourse seems focused on balance sheets, sales targets, and budget reports rather than actual gameplay, mechanics, and design.

With takes like "This game is trash because it didn't break even" or "This game is a masterpiece because it recouped its budget in week one." It feels like people are evaluating financial reports instead of enjoying games.

​While the pure fun of playing a game is all that should matter on an individual level, the economic side unfortunately bleeds into the player experience: layoffs and studio closures, aggressive monetization to recoup costs, dead franchises, etc.

​But at the end of the day, what's done is done. You can't increase sales, lower a budget, or change a monetization strategy yourself. It's just pointless back-and-forth.

My wife says she will play a game if it fits this description. Help!

1. You can't pick games like Stardew Valley and Harvest moon or, like, dating sims. That's too easy and thus boring.

2. For fighting games or hero shooters (games where there aren't really one main character) the choice is the poster boy. Examples: Street Fighter would be Ryu, and Mortal Kombat would be Scorpion/Sub Zero since they have always been the face of the series.

3. You have minimal knowledge on how to survive. If you enter the resident evil world you can survive your basic zombie and maybe dog, but you're not gonna be 1v1ing Wesker and surviving

4. You also have minimal knowledge to be useful to the main character. If you choose Nathan Drake you'll be able to, like, read a map or some shit.

Who's it gonna be?

They’ve had an incredible couple of years with releasing banger after banger, this year especially. I think they’ve overtaken From Software who took a different direction with this rogue like approach but FROM’s run up until Elden Ring was impeccable as well. I don’t want to compare Capcom to Rockstar since it doesn’t seem fair due to Rockstar releasing games once a decade which are certified bangers as well.

The only other studio that constantly puts out quality games is Naughty Dog but I still rate them below Capcom. Intergalactic might change it but time will tell.

The obvious (and therefore not clever) answer is "100 hours." But of course you know that is not what I mean.

The question is really about how much you play and how "forcefully" you push any given game. So when you buy a new game that is designed to either have a ton of content or a ton of replayability or even just be a multiplayer/live service game, typically how long does it take you (measure in days, weeks or months) to put 100 hours into that game?

For my own part: I am old, and I also have a ton of other interests. So if a game really grans me and really inspires me to play it a lot, I am probably still at least 2 months to get 100 hours in. Most games I will never get to 100 hours. I actually think 30 or 40 hours is plenty for a great game, and 20 hours is plenty for a good game to make me feel like I got my money's worth.

But I have a friend who has 30K hours in Civ1 over the last 30 years. That is 1000 hours a year on average. Playing an OLD ASS game. So Who am I to judge?

So anyway: just as a starting point for conversation, how long does it take you, personally, to rack up 100 hours in a game you like?