TwilightVulpine

Considering it again, if the goal was to get the player to reflect critically about the sort of game they are participating of, then maybe laying on so thick on how the player, and solely the player, is at fault for pushing it to the end, is if anything counterproductive to that. Players of war shooters seeking a heroic fantasy don't exist in isolation, they exist in a culture that glorifies war and violence, with many parties that profit over it and/or want to incentive it.

To borrow the metaphor, "Walker" really did follow "Konrad's" orders, every step of the way. The author may be absent but the constraints of the story and gameplay are already set, the player can't truly break free without disengaging, and they can't evaluate critically without being engaged.

But the confrontation with Konrad, considering his and Walker's state, really suggests that they believe the issue is all in the players' agency and mindset, rather than the lack of a broader understanding. It claims that the player is at fault for "wanting to be a hero", no comment as to why they believe this is what a hero ought to be like, and what led them to believe that.

At least an option to disengage within the fiction would be appreciated. I'm not too keen on this idea that closing the game works as a conclusion. A closed book doesn't have a different story. It's not like Walker will leave his path if you are not playing it. Without a different resolution, even the guilt that they try to lay on the player can't stick as well.

Same. When I played, at a couple points I tried to go all the way back to the beginning, when it seemed like the initial mission Walker was assigned was in some way fulfilled or inviable. When the game had absolutely no response to that, it kinda detracted from my appreciation for the message of the game. For all that it has to say about hero fantasies and the player engaging in it, it doesn't have any alternative to that. It needs the player to commit the sins that it wants to denounce.

We just have low expectations since BDSP. But I wish more remakes were like Lets Go (minus ball throwing minigame)

Nah, that's definitely not what I meant. It's great that we get so many indie games. But if anything I feel like, other than Nintendo, the large studios are not making the most out of each generation before the next console is released.

It absolutely needs backwards compatibility. Throwing away the whole Nintendo Switch library would be a waste, and there are some games that would even benefit from improved performance.

Indie games really skew that count, though to be fair they weren't really a thing back then. But speaking of major triple-A and mid-sized double-A studios, they have released games much more slowly compared to previous generations, and that's even easier to see in more powerful consoles like the PS5.

And yet Sony's Horizon series has been overshadowed by Zelda.

Only hardcore gamers, who make up for a small part of the market, believe that Nintendo somehow doesn't count as far as how this market competes. That somehow it's a separate market because the specs aren't comparable. That's not how it works at all. The entertainment budget being fought over is the same.

In any case, all this is a separate matter. The point is that aside from Microsoft, the other console makers manage to attract buyers through first-party games. Same goes for Sony. A lot of people bought Playstations for God of War and Last of Us.

I agree that exclusives suck, but acquisitions are worse in every way. At least with a deal you can hope that eventually the game will be out for everything, or the next one will. Now if anyone hopes to get a Bethesda game on other consoles again, they are out of luck.

But also, if first-party XBox games were more appealing they wouldn't be in this situation. Sony can't lock Nintendo out of the market because people want Mario and Zelda anyway.

In Facebook, where I'm following family members and news sites, is where I'd want chronological feed the most. I don't want the "best" of my family's posts from one week ago.

No they aren't. First of all, because Sony is not monopolizing the market. Microsoft is there and so is Nintendo. There is a difference between being a market leader and being a monopoly. Sony doesn't actually control SquareEnix, they can release games for different platforms, which they do. Octopath Traveler II is multiplatform, Dragon Quest Treasures is a Switch and PC release.

The horror scenario of Microsoft leaving and Sony dominating everything isn't going to happen. Xbox is just half as popular as Sony, which is still a sizable chunk of the market.

But lets say it goes as you wish, Microsoft bravely acquires most of the market to match Sony... and then they just keep buying. What do you get then? Microsoft will be able to just tell Bethesda and ActiBlizz not to release for any other console, and refuse any deals.

If you are a Linux user you should know that MS doesn't stop at what's reasonable.

Still, that's not saying that Sony is acting fine. Which is why I believe they should be prevented from making exclusivity agreements for games that aren't entirely funded by them.

Acquisitions are what leads to a monopoly.