Y2Ken

I think about this a lot, and I think you summarised it really well. Ultimately I think it's an impossible problem to solve - I can't play the first Destiny in the way it existed during that first year (heck, I can't do that with Destiny 2, either). But in some ways that's the trade-off of having a live service game, and I wouldn't trade the experiences I had playing them in the moment for something inherently more "preserveable" - some things are very much of the moment, and as such can only truly exist in that moment.

It's a more difficult line to tread with less explicitly "live service" games, as you bring up with your Dirt 5 example. I like the idea of retaining games in their old formats but it certainly becomes a tough ask. Some games offer it in their Steam options, or in-game, which I always appreciate even if I barely use the feature. It's why I like to push for the likes of playthroughs and YouTube walkthroughs of games - it's maybe the best way to preserve experiences that change over time. I can go back and watch videos of Spelunky 2 from before they dramatically changed one of the mid-boss encounters, if I want to reminisce on how that changed over time after release.

I'm almost done with it myself (currently at ~104% I think?) and I'm definitely in the camp that absolutely adored it. I'm glad you were able to come back and see the rest of it and come to love it - I was in the camp of people who fell off on my first playthrough and had to restart it way down the line.

I definitely fall on the pro-map side as @relkin said. I feel like I learned the actual layout of the areas super well because I couldn't always rely on having the map (although I did keep the compass on for most of my general play). Even Deepnest feels fairly comfortably familiar at this point. Personally I enjoy the backtracking aspects too - the map is large, but it feels just small enough and has just enough Stag Stations that it's never more than a couple of minutes to get anywhere. There are a few notable places which are just sliiightly too far from a fast travel point, but that makes them specifically feel remote by design and making the decision to go there feels impactful (and it's still never so long as to be actually frustrating to me).

Overall I love the game. It definitely wears its influences on its sleeve, but I think it might execute on its ideas even better than the peers it's emulating. Despite not being a huge 2D platformer guy, I think I might end up even higher on the overall experience than the Souls trilogy, if not quite as high as Bloodborne & Sekiro. I also love how wildly varied they make the boss fights, the general overall difficulty curve (which feels incredibly smooth to me despite the game allowing you to branch out in some relatively non-linear ways and often not directing your hand too strongly), and the way abilities are meted out slowly and change your capacity for engaging with enemies quite dramatically as you progress. My only real gripe is that the story feels fairly heavily back-loaded, but there is still enough early intrigue that I wanted to push through.

It really depends heavily on the game for me. There are games I've basically bought consoles for (heck, I bought a 360 back in the day just to play Borderlands & Black Ops - games I already owned on PS3 - with my friend group at the time), and there are quite a few games I'd buy at launch even if it's a little over what I'd normally pay because I have a level of trust in the developer. Generally though I rarely buy the majority of games at full price nowadays. Game pass has definitely been a godsend in terms of getting lots of titles (often at release) for an affordable price.

I feel like I'm almost the reverse, haha - every time he decides "I don't need this" (even something relatively pointless or obscure) I'm there thinking, "But that could still be used some time! It's not even broken, surely at least someone could take that even if you don't want it!"

I like that we get multiple things on a Friday because a) it's a Friday so I can usually catch it live anyway without worrying about the time (being in UK means they run fairly late), and b) if I can't watch them live then they're there to watch over the weekend.

It'd be nice to have Monday content but I appreciate that they need a day to do prep & meetings, and I'm okay with that meaning we don't see much one day a week.

@humanity: Yeah I honestly get a bit staggered when people drop huge amounts of money on bits & subs, but with how many people on Twitch it's natural that some of them are big earners who can afford to spend like that without too much worry. I can totally see how it'd seem strange if you weren't used to it, though - and (not to say this is your perspective, I didn't read your post this way) I've seen others say things to the effect of, "Why do people subscribe when they don't get anything for it?" because some people are conditioned to not pay for something if they don't have to, rather than seeing "pay what you want" as an opportunity to give what you're happy to (and can reasonably afford to).

To the comments above - after the original split from JustinTV Twitch has slowly re-incorporated "non-gaming" content. Personally most of the IRL/Just Chatting streams aren't to my interests, though I do like a good cooking or art stream from time to time. But if people are into that, it's fine IMO. Streams can be marked as for adults only if the content is inappropriate for a younger audience (though there's nothing actually explicit) and if that's how people want to spend their time and money then more power to them.

To add to my above post, I'd respond to this directly (as someone who's been watching Twitch since those early JustinTV days) to say I think it's largely a matter of perspective. As a viewer, you really have to think of donating to a streamer as a "tip jar" (something YouTube has also toyed around with) rather than something to benefit you. A lot of people have disposable income - and some people have quite a lot of it - and they're happy to throw a few bucks at someone who keeps them entertained. I've seen so many people say that streams keep them company during work hours, for example.

With subscriptions you do get the benefit of emotes, and particularly with bigger streamers who have access to somewhere in the range of 20-50 unique emotes you will sometimes find that people will happily donate even to channels they don't watch a lot just to have access to those emotes to use elsewhere on Twitch. That said, I would still reiterate my initial point - most people watching Twitch tend to think of donations to a streamer as a way of saying "thanks" for their hard work (for all the goofing, streaming - especially by yourself - is a very demanding and draining job). And as such, outside of the bigger donations, even just a passing, "thanks for the sub, twitchviewer420" is more than enough acknowledgement for most people, because the donation is more intended as the viewer's thanks to the streamer for the entertainment provided.

Again, there certainly are people who donate looking for attention, or thinking that it'll buy them favour with the streamer, but generally speaking most viewers I've encountered are understanding that this isn't how it works and streamers have become increasingly confident at being up-front that you shouldn't expect things in response for your donations unless your stream actively advertises it as such (see Dan's stream where he offers sound alerts for bits, or writes your name on a can in his mini-fridge for a donation). In fact, Twitch actively restricts what you're allowed to offer in response for donations, because they're obviously wary of it being used in an exploitative manner (you can't use it to restrict entry to a giveaway, or to make you drink, or to get into a game lobby to play with you).

Twitch has done an incredible job of creating an environment where giving money to the person you're watching is a commonly accepted practice to show support for their efforts. There's certainly ways it could be looked at as exploitative of viewers, especially those who might feel compelled to give more than they can afford or get some false sense that their donation entitles them to special attention or affection, and both comments above raise good points about how the constant need to respond to chat and to donations can actually be a real pressure on streamers (it's why you'll see some bigger streamers save their subscriber shoutouts for breaks in the stream, or - as many Vtubers have begun to do recently - had specific streams once a week where they read through all the donations and thank people).

However, especially at the smaller scale of stream, it's actually really lovely seeing people support a channel they enjoy watching. It means Twitch can be a viable source of income even for streamers who don't stream every day or pull in hundreds or thousands of viewers. A friend of mine had to take a few weeks off streaming recently and when they returned there was a run early in their first stream back where there were 20-30 subs (between regular and gifts) and multiple $1-10 donations, and it was super lovely seeing them receive so much love & support (especially as they're someone who isn't especially well off financially).

When it works, I think it's actually a really nice model - everyone gets to watch the channel and there's usually no obligation to subscribe, but people who can afford to throw a few bucks (or more) at the streamer can do so and those who are more well-off can even give benefits to other viewers with gift subs so more people can use the channel-specific emotes and join in with that sense of community and its in-jokes.

I've often wondered how GB would do with that brand of business model - it's actually wild that I pay less than $5 a month for GB Premium (who have several people on staff and also host their own videos & maintain their own website) when I'm giving that voluntarily to multiple individual Twitch streamers who I enjoy watching and/or want to support. There's not really a way to give more money to GB (shy of maybe buying merchandise) if you're someone who has more disposable income. That said, I don't know the ins and outs, and as long as their model works for them I'm obviously not going to tell them how to run their business.

@justin258: Obviously quick save is a nice feature (for games that support it, quite a few still don't), but I generally like to do a complete "thing" in a sitting where possible when I play a game. A lot of it is pure personal preference - sure, I could duck out halfway through a Hitman mission or Dishonored level and come back to it later but I personally prefer doing them in one go if possible.

I'd say the other thing is often you can adapt the type of run you're doing to the time you have - if I only have 10 minutes I can try and speedrun Spelunky 2 and win or lose I'll be done in time, which to me feels more satisfying than getting ten minutes into a sidequest in an RPG and then stopping.

That aspect certainly isn't exlusive to roguelikes, though - it's not necessarily why I prefer the genre over another type of game, just why I like the genre in general.

I'm definitely of the mind that a vast majority of RPGs, especially JRPGs, are kinda in this boat if you boil the core story down to its essentials. Usually it's the characters, their individual stories, and the relationships they form over the course that make the games memorable. I think this is true of most Final Fantasies, I'd say it's largely true of Persona although they do come up with interesting concepts for how their dungeons are integrated into the world, it's certainly the case with Dragon Quest and with Fire Emblem.

Honestly it's probably true of most stories in general. It's hard to come up with a truly unique tale, but things such as the specifics of your story, the characters in it, or the way you tell it are what make it distinct from others that have come before. Maybe I'm thinking on too much of a meta-level for the question.