I think it woks, just not really by itself.

It's basically like any other form of marketing. It's probably not going to be the sole reason why people buy it, but it will shine a spotlight on it and the people running it hope that some people find the game interesting enough to buy it

It does also just straight up work with a lot of kids. My niece and nephew got Smash Bros and now they predictably want to try other games that their favourite Smash Bros characters are from.

Good for TLOU. It's not really trying to be the same thing as a Resident Evil game.

Even if you made fun of the sentiment, the point literally is "you don't have to kill them all". You're supposed to consider if it's worth burning up the ammo to fully clear that hallway or if you can get by just staggering them with 1-2 shots and sprinting past.

Knife durability likely came about as an idea because an infinite knife runs counter to that philosophy. Especially given how powerful the knife in RE2 remake actually is, even the non infinite variant.

Of course, Resident Evil has a history of letting players unlock infinite weapons so they can go nuts on future playthroughs so we get the infinite knife(and infinite ammo weapons) via an unlock.

Resident Evil 2 is survival horror, which is a genre that really only works by making the player have to worry about resources like ammo and meds. Otherwise you have just another zombie shooter which is fine, but not what Resident Evil original set out to be.

At least until you get more practiced at the game, anyway. It's very possible to kill every zombie in RE2 remake and still have tons of ammo left over by the end of it, even without relying on the infinite knife.

It's the nature of technology. It moves ever onward.

It's not an issue that people want to game on an older version of Windows but we do expect Steam to be updated and updating it requires stuff that doesn't work in those versions of Windows.

If Valve wants to make a version of Steam for each OS that their main branch doesn't support, that's mostly a matter that's up to them. I'm not gonna say they shouldn't do it, but neither am I invested enough in old operating systems to care much about trying to get them to do it.

I remember losing it in Fallout 3 because Games for Windows Live might actually be the worst piece of software ever designed by mankind.

On the MMO front there's both Final Fantasy XIV and Star Wars The Old Republic. They're a little more story focused, but you can play a decent chunk of the content without paying anything(though FFXIV is a subscription game like WoW at some point).

You can also get Gamepass for like $1 for the first month and try out a lot of games.

Also, I've been looking for a new MMO after getting tired of WoW: You know how ESO is doing these days, and if it's worth getting into?

Even if you Google RE3 right now you get several mentions that it's a remake/reimagining before you've even clicked on anything.

If somebody in the future refuses to look up any information on a game before they buy it and are unaware that it's a remake as a result, that's not something I really see as a big deal.

It's one of those things that wouldn't hurt, but I'm not terribly bothered by them not being labelled as such. It seems like the kind of thing you should find out about just from hearing about the game online anyway.

It's not as though the originals are gone. If somebody wants to try it they still can.

If somebody decides to not play the original cause a remake exists, that's really up to them.

At some point, Lord of the Rings will probably be remade too.

Really though there's not much need for remakes/remasters to stop. They sell well enough cause people enjoy them. If it seems pointless to you and you feel like you might as well just play the original, that's always an option available to you.

If they figure it's profitable they'll keep remaking/remastering things for the rest of time.

I tried Fire Emblem Heroes for a short time.

Which even if it weren't a gacha game, the novelty of "Fire Emblem lite on my mobile device" is kind of undermined by the existence of the 3DS having full fledged games.

At this point 99% of gaming news that's relevant to my interests I'll hear about from Reddit or my friends, and I don't bother with reviews anymore when I can just watch raw gameplay on YouTube or Twitch.

I guess I still watch Zero Punctuation, but that's more for entertainment.

I feel like Counter-Strike still being popular is evidence to suggest that Half-Life's core gunplay at least holds up today.

Also I think the SNES has a whole has aged wonderfully.

Personally I've just always considered them optional and I largely don't care about them. Especially the ones that are the "collect all the things" busywork almost never get done.

I've never 100%'d a game in terms of achievements.

If you're giving something a 2/10 and calling it garbage, that's not really just acknowledging the flaws anymore. That's just calling it bad.

There's also a difference between "I can see why somebody might not like this" and "this is a flaw of the game".

Sure we can say that RDR objectively has a lot of horse riding in it, but as to it being a flaw? Well, what happens if you think it's a flaw of the game and I think it wasn't merely tolerate but was actively a good part of the game that made it better?

Is one of us wrong? What exactly is the deciding factor in choosing who is wrong? If neither of us is wrong, then "just accept it's a flaw and you like it" feels like it kind of falls apart here.

That's what I'm getting at. Now granted a lot of people struggle to accept "People like different things, and some might think something you like is actually a flaw".

I think it also works both ways, and a lot of people struggle with the reverse: Some people might think something you think is a flaw, is actually a strength.

Ultimately at the end of the day people just ought to not care as much what random people on the internet think of the thing they like.

I never really understood the whole "just admit the thing you like is bad" mentality.

If I thought it was bad, I probably wouldn't like it. Granted I think people have a hard time understanding that even a 5/10 game is average(or supposed to be on a 10 point scale) and can still be enjoyable for what it is.

I'll play a game and think it was flawed but fun and give it a 6 or 7 but I wouldn't look at a game and go "I enjoyed that well enough, 2/10 it's garbage".

That would feel a whole lot like that 2/10 isn't actually based on my opinion of the thing, but rather some other arbitrary standard I've imagined for it.

A few years late to playing it, but I picked up Red Dead Redemption 2 in the Steam sale and beyond looking gorgeous there's a lot of things in the game that add to immersion. Even little things like needing to cock the hammer of my single action revolver between each shot adds to it.

MSFS was also really impressive playing it in VR mode and actually being able to look around the cockpit of the planes. Star Wars Squadrons was also equally as awesome giving you the feeling of actually sitting in the cockpit of an X-Wing.

Well done VR games in general are kind of just next level. Hot Dogs, Horseshoes, & Hand Grenades is a great game for guns and just plinking on a range.

Great story, great atmosphere, and it was a lot of content for nothing more than the price of the game. The last DLC, Blood & Wine, was also enough content it could have almost been its own game. It's like an expansion pack of old.

I guess some people like the combat, but personally I thought it was mediocre. It's not bad, it's just not good.