I watched it.

Support doesn’t have to be based on a specific distro. It isn’t for any of the other ports that support us.

The way I see it, native support means our platform is actually being supported.

Though it seems I may have celebrated too soon here…

Now that there is a Steam Deck Native build, is Baldur’s Gate 3 supported on Linux?

Larian does not provide support for the Linux platform. The Steam Deck Native build is only supported on Steam Deck.

This is huge. I was beginning to lose hope we’d ever see a big budget high-profile non-indie get a Linux port ever again.

Edit: Maybe not that huge…

Now that there is a Steam Deck Native build, is Baldur’s Gate 3 supported on Linux?

Larian does not provide support for the Linux platform. The Steam Deck Native build is only supported on Steam Deck.

The technical merits were why FF7 was so impactful as a cultural landmark of video game history.

Is Trails a good game? Sure.

Is FF7 the right comparison to invoke? Not even close.

The big thing about FF7 was that it came out during a critical transition period for the industry, and Squaresoft put the highest budget of any video game to date into making sure FF’s jump to 3D graphics was as explosive as possible. The game was heavily marketed on its technical merits, boasting about how everything this game does could only be possible on PS1. It’s full of setpiece moments that are literally just Squaresoft trying to show off their VFX budget (this is why summon cutscenes are so absurdly long). And it blew audiences away because no one had never seen anything like it before. FF7 was a revolution.

Trails certainly has good reason to be beloved by its niche fanbase, but by 2004, it really wasn’t doing anything super unique compared to its contemporaries from the same time period. It’s a polished game, but I can’t describe it as anything more than an evolution.

What part of this is comparable to FF7?

This comparison really feels strained. FF7 was the PS1’s biggest game, and by far. It was a revolution that shook the entire industry.

Trails is a cult classic that’s beloved by a niche fanbase, and I’m happy to see this kind of game get a shot at wider recognition here, but its impact was in no way even remotely comparable to FF7.

The original was part of a trilogy, this is a remake of that same first game in the trilogy.

Trump certainly isn’t helping, but it’s a number of factors put together. Moore’s Law is slowing, and one effect of that is that manufacturing existing tech isn’t getting cheaper either.

All of the band homage artwork is manga-only. I’m not sure how they even would’ve gone about working those into the anime since they’re just bonus panels at the end of each chapter.

This is a complete fucking nonissue that’s being ran with by the Chicken Littles who want to call anything and everything “censorship” until they’ve eroded all meaning from the word. No adaptation is ever 1:1 with source material, and what few fanservicey moments the manga had were not so essential that they absolutely need to be reproduced exactly.

The fact that no one complained about season 1 up until now is proof enough that none of this mattered.

Very few things are ever perfect on the first try. It takes a lot of experimentation to learn what works and what doesn’t.

I still buy physical whenever possible. But I’ve also come to accept that I’m a dinosaur for doing so. PC ditched physical a very long time ago, mobile never knew it to begin with, it’s a matter of time before consoles drop it someday too. It’s inevitable.

I think a lot of people still see physical as the most secure form of preservation, that in 50 years when download servers are gone we’ll still have our discs. But in an era of patches, updates, and DLC, how often is that 1.0 on the disc actually going to be the version you want preserved in the future?

Asking myself that question sort of forced me to acknowledge that my preference for physical media may just be more sentimental than practical.

It’s not at all uncommon for games with an online component to have elements you need to play online to access. That’s been a part of Pokemon since the series first added online play. Hell, even before that, Pokemon was conceived from the beginning to be a social game, built around the Game Boy’s Link Cable if you want to see and do everything. It’s never been exclusively singleplayer.

All I’m saying is that if you count online play as though it was part of a game’s cost, you should be doing the same thing for games on other platforms too. You can’t selectively pretend it only counts here.

Why do you only single out Nintendo for something that Sony and Microsoft charge even more for?

It seems a little disingenuous to single them out this way, especially when the competitors you’re strangely silent on are more expensive.

Then you should be consistent and count the cost of PSN and XBL the same way.

Well, if you’re specifically looking to play DS/3DS games, original hardware is the best way to do so. There are a few dual screen devices that hit the market recently, but IMO I don’t think it’s worth being an early adopter of any of those just yet.

For every other single screen platform though? Really depends on what you’re looking for in terms of form factor, price, feature set, and what games you want to play. There are so many good options on the market that you’re probably better off looking into them and deciding what looks like the best fit for you. Retro Game Corps is an excellent source for reviews.

Personally, I bought a Miyoo Mini Plus two years ago, and I liked it so much I wish I’d bought a more expensive model with analog sticks. But I also like it just enough that I haven’t been able to justify spending money on an upgrade right now, because whenever I do there’ll still be something better right around the corner…

I feel like we’ve long reached the point where the benefit of top-of-the-line hardware just isn’t worth it. IMO, Switch 2 ought to be enough to target, and any game that can’t fit on that can probably stand to be scaled back.