v2.0 is all well and good, but it's still 3 years after I bought it, not giving them the benefit of the doubt next time.
Games
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
For what it’s worth, it’s almost never worth it to give any company “the benefit of the doubt”. For single player games, there’s pretty much no reason to play it right when it releases unless you’re impatient. I choose to think of the games release date as a beta release. If I’m super excited, I may choose to play a game in beta but usually I’ll wait for the final release. Then when all the initial issues (which all games have, just some way more than others) have been fixed, I’ll consider the game actually released and buy it for a fraction of the initial cost.
I don’t know that I’ve played a single game that’s released this year yet. And those games will still be just as good next year (likely better) for less cost.
It’s 2023, you can just get a refund on steam now.
Only if you played less than 2 hours (or if you're lucky and managed to convince steam support) which isn't really enough to test a bigger game. Hell in some games, that's pretty much only cutscenes and tutorials.
Not buying a game on release wins yet again.
For real. I don't understand why people keep doing that.
Pretty much, they've had one great game, one game they fucked up and few relatively unknown games. And, as the article says, Geralt's story is over, so they have to start from scratch there as well. I wish them luck because I still quite like them, but it's definitely gonna be a tough road.
They also did the closest thing to a Steam competitor and brought a lot of popular-but-unavailable games back to the light of day via doing legwork to track rights down and pick up the right to re-release them.
That may not be game development, other than in putting together compatibility software and some client software, but it was successful. Probably had a bigger impact than The Witcher 3.
If I'm not mistaken, they bought GOG, they didn't make it.
The Witcher 2 was highly praised alone with the Witcher 3.
The preview pic tho
So can anyone spoil it for me? Can V survive?
Frankly I think whether or not V survives is largely a headcanon thing. Maybe you head off into the sunset with the Caldos and find help. Maybe you knock over the space casino and buy yourself something like the Relic with all of your stupid new wealth. Maybe you turn into an AI and become a ghost in the machine.
Or maybe you develop natural charisma and an impressive cock, who knows.
Point is they left it vague and uncertain on purpose in several of the good (ish) endings. I get why, but it always felt kinda cheap to me. But it IS a noir story and those aren't known for fairy tale endings.
SPOILERS BELOW
Yes, if you side against Songbird, NUSA honors the agreement to get you treatment. It leaves V with neural degradation and unable to ever use cyberware again, and in a coma for 2 years but gives you the only ending with a confirmation that V survives
Yes, but you could in the original game too.
Not really. The best outlook V has in the original endings is that they have 6 months left to live, but the ending cuts off just before starting what is likely to be V's final mission.