It isn't in the fact that it's not unbelievable. But there's clearly a lot of effort put into the game and it's fun with some enjoyable characters and allows you to be stupid. The Presentation has also made a CRPG that seems to look accessible to a larger fanbase so experiencing this choice is fresh to many people.
Seems to me like FerryStones just fall to the old too-good-to use system. By the time I started running around vermund I quickly got to double digits quantities of FerryStones and never fell to single digits comfortably using them.
Not sure I totally agree. The idea of researching and applying addictive traits to anything feels like something to be regulated. It's not literally brainwashing but applying pressure to these topic can make anything positive into a negative. Even something like getting people to exercise could turn into someone collapsing if addictive qualities were applied.
So reading this, the patent isn't for an accessibility option to reduce the amount of dialogue by somethin like a necessity level but by in dialogue allowing you to pick an arbitrary option of say "get to the point" which is a lot worse than I was hoping
Additionally, don't copy and paste anything until you understand it. If you don't understand what code golf is being spewed, don't take the top answer. If you don't understand any answer, you probably don't understand the underlying systems well enough and need to re-evaluate what your asking for.
Part of me thinks this should be way easier to get right then Crash 4 but then part of me thinks the lack of hard restrictions probably makes this way more difficult
No one was saying "no one would buy a game with these kinds of MTX" Skyrim was already out and wildly successful at that point and secondly the Skyrim horse Armor criticisms were amount Bethesda adding paid mods to get cuts of all mods which is a hugely different situation. When Diablo IV and Street Fighter created extremely overpriced costumes we laugh at them because it's stupid to assume anyone is going to buy them
This is a slippery slope fallacy. Adding paid for cheats in single player games doesn't make pay to win more normalised if you have a sense of a moral limit. My limit is when game design is changed to account for microtransations. Shadow of Morder was horrible because the game was almost unplayable without it's boosters. Dragons Dogma is the same game.
If Elden Ring came out and had boosters I'd feel the same way. I'd ignore them and feel weird about people who used them. But it literally doesn't effect the game for me or my experience if they existed or didn't
Yep. I could say it was autocorrect but more likely my brain was just not working .