The big problem with Cyberpunk is that it was forced out before it was in decent shape, and also forced onto older consoles that couldn't handle it.

But, as someone who played like an hour of 5 and nothing else from the series, it was pretty good. Probably worth about 20 bucks, but not more.

I enjoyed what I've played of 6, but it's also the first Far Cry game I put any real time into. Buy I can absolutely see how you wouldn't be very big on it if you've played 3 and 5, if it's the same basic game.

6 is a lot of a pretty decent game. It's worth 20, especially if you haven't burnt yourself out on other installments.

I think The Calisto Protocol was getting a fair amount of hype. And Forespoken is a different case, in that I don't think it was technically buggy or anything, it just wasn't appealing. All of these games are new IP, which I think is actually relatively risky, as opposed to a safer sequel. Calisto is easily the safest of the 3, because it is so very Dead Space. But these games do continue a trend that has been happening the past couple of years where the larger games are much more disappointing than the smaller ones. Looking at the release period of these games, I can name 5 less big games that I've loved, 2 of which are by Square Enix, the maker of Forspoken.

Cuphead. The game looks gorgeous, I love the 30s animation aesthetic, but it's too damn hard for me.

So many JRPG villains talk about destroying the world, some even get close, but how many of them actually succeed?

Nintendo turned down the opportunity to port SMB3 to the PC even after Id did all the work for them.

Path of Exile and Stellaris are great, and I've enjoyed Destiny 2 on occasion. I've never heard of Tale Spire so it must not be very good /s.

Yeah, you're probably right. I was thinking it was 2003 or 04, but it came out like 6 months after GTA 3, so the timelines don't match up.

This one was a sequel. The original was a not great attempt to cash in on the GTA craze, and was on the original Xbox

A Milhouse Divided. Luanne says the Luanne Van Houten Marge knew is gone, Sweet Fanny Adams Bye Bye!

"Fun" fact. Dre beat the shit out of a reporter who asked him about this after NWA.

The only time I have ever heard it used in the US is on an episode of The Simpsons.

We don't even know if there's going to be another GoW game, let alone where it might be set. Kratos could get dumped into modern day LA for all we know

I'm mostly talking hypothetical, that there probably will be games out that are worth 70. I think most of the ones that are 70 right now are rip-offs, and are ridden with microtransactions like you said. I'm not as against DLC as a lot of people on here, because I think a lot of it is quite good. I'm definitely against things like 20 dollar skins though.

If a game isn't worth 70 dollars to you, no one is making you buy it at 70 dollars. The new CoD isn't worth 70 to me, so I'm not buying it. And why shouldn't free to play games like Destiny 2 charge you for major expansions? They have to make money somehow.

If you factor in inflation, games are actually cheaper than they were in the past.

Pokemon is a kid's game at heart, one that adults happen to enjoy, but Game Freak doesn't necessarily care about the hard-core fans. I grew up with Pokemon, but, as I grew, the series got boring. It was hard for me to let go, but I accepted that Pokemon was no longer for me.

Most people consider Stardew Valley as the peak of the genre.

Well, I really liked the game, and you're certainly getting your money's worth at that price. It's an exceedingly long game, and I did fall off of it partway through, but if you like action RPGs, it's not bad.

Games are getting more expensive to develop. That's what it comes down to. Games have been 60 dollars for 15 years now, while the budgets of AAA games keep increasing. Also, nobody is forcing you to buy these yearly games at 70 dollars right on release. They go on sale for pretty good discounts frequently.

No matter how hard developers may try, multi-player launches will always be terrible, because there will always be hundreds of thousands of people crowding limited servers. That's why you shouldn't necessarily get games like CoD on day one. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by sweaty players, do you mean players who are so much better than everyone else, or who get upset if you aren't perfect? People like that are a good portion of the reason I don't play PVP multi-player, so I hear you there.

I'm sure there are many legitimate reasons to dislike MW2, but am I to understand you hit max level in the multi-player in about 2 days? You must be in an extreme minority of players who voracious consume whatever is given to you at an absurd rate. Activision shouldn't cater to you, because you are a small minority, and I don't know if you could ever be happy.

It seems modern games require more and more time, and, as my life in the real world progresses, I have less and less. Last year, I was unemployed, so I had plenty of time to commit to games. Now I have a full time job, and I'm going to graduate school in January, so that will take even more time, and I don't know how much time I'll have when I get a professional job either.