I wish I could play it, but I don’t think my PC could handle it, being right at the edge of minimum specs. Has anyone played it on a 2060? I can live with 1080p and no Ray Tracing but I’m scared of sub-30 FPS.
Forgot to mention I have a gaming laptop. So not equivalent of the 2060 in performance, although it contains the mesh shader support so it won’t literally refuse to run. But seeing as the desktop variant is minimum spec I’m not optimistic.
it is ok on a 2060. the high minimum spec is not because of performance, but because older GPUs do not support mesh shaders. that is why it runs ok on a 2060 while being unplayable on the much faster 1080 Ti
The unionization drive among testers, developers, and others has been one of the few good trends in the gaming industry this year. Hopefully, we'll see more unions form in 2024 and beyond.
Has anyone actually seen anyone actually complain about having politics in games, and not just obnoxious politics, like Specs Ops where they force you to kill civilians and then act like your the bad guy because you wanted to see the content you paid for? If you dont give us a choice to be good, and if you’re super preachy about it, then its just bad writing.
Look at New Vegas, plenty of politics, but you get to make choices, and its not preachy at all. Then look at the Last of Us 2, where they force you to kill a dog the other character petted, and it comes off as blatant emotional manipulation. Which game is widely considered a masterpeice?
Spec Ops actually did have choices where you could be good (or at least less bad), but ironically people missed them because they didn’t think being good would work.
For example, at one point you’re being harassed by an angry mob of locals. A lot of players simply shot them because a lifetime of experience with shooters told them that no other input would be recognized. But in actuality, if you fired warning shots at the ground or over their heads the civilians would flee without incident.
I didnt know that. After the forced willie pete bit, I thought all the other bits were forced too. Specs op unintentionally set a rule “if theres a choice, youll be forced to take the evil one” which made the entire thing feel obnoxious.
I think you’re actually engaging with it a bit shallowly. You are the one who invented the rule and a different framing is exploring how, if games seem to put us in situations where we must do horrible things to advance even a couple of times, we take that as a rule instead of risking losing to find other ways.
Which is a fairly glaring indictment of the whole military shooter genre which is all about “hard men and hard choices” that completely dehumanise the factions you’re in opposition to.
Military shooter games glorify war and shallowly reward horrible behaviour. Spec ops does it differently.
Majority of people: do horrible thing
Some people: experimental and find heroic thing is rewarded.
Discussion possible, why did the majority do that? could we talk about horrible and uncreative design patterns in the genre of military shooters? How media portrayals of war train us not to look for peaceful solutions? Whether this feeds into how we view American imperial wars?
you: no spec ops bad video game because I didn’t do the good option.
People did experiment, in the first scene with the wp. That experiment told them that the game would force you to make evil decisions to continue playing. I saw that narratively there was a good option, but the game told me that that option wasnt available in the WP scene.
you get that this wouldn’t work as a critique if it was obvious you could make different choices right? Then it wouldn’t make the player complicit. If you’re not complicit it’s just a game saying “military shooters could be different” which is a nothing statement.
Like how games with a “get the information (evil)” and “get the information (good)” button aren’t offering real moral choices. Or how deus ex would lose all impact if the “here’s a gun, go kill these people” starting mission tempting you with a rocket launcher popped up a “you might change sides in the future” warning.
By involving you, leading you just like any other military shooter for a bit then cutting you loose is what creates the critique. You compare notes after playing and someone points out something and you go “huh, why didn’t I try that?”. It’s not condemning you for not trying that, it’s asking you if you’re happy with a genre which trains you to never to try it.
If the player doesnt know the choice exists, and has reason to think the choice doesnt exist, then the choice is kinda moot, isnt it? In any case, my original point was a lot of complaints were really about bad writing.
People play games for escapism, not to be reminded of politics. Not every story needs deep political roots, people just want to have fun and forget about real world bullshit.
I stopped following Kotaku years ago. It was the best news site by a large stretch. At some point it quickly became trash in the lapse of a few months.
Regarding the writing guides galore, the same has just happened to Destructoid during this very week, suddenly my feed was flooded with dozens of clickbait “how to de X in [trendy game name]”. I just stopped following them right away.
Now I only have Gemstsu to check news and it is not particularly good, guess sooner than later my only source of new game releases will be the from page of Steam:(
It became trash when they had a site redesign that made it more blog post looking than news site. At the same time, they doubled down on filler articles.
After reading the article, it sounds like they’re at it again with a redesign.
I understand both sides. Busy people love to save their game at any point in time, as they might get interrupted. But I also understand the point from the devs and I also like it sometimes when I cannot save constantly. Obviously both sides could now be less stubborn. Busy people can just pause the game and resume later to just exit the junction and the devs could implement a quick save feature.
Dear game designers, how about you let the user decide what they like most, a very easy or hard game? Usually with difficulty settings, only damage/health numbers get modified. But you could also enable quick save in easy mode, and disable it in hard mode. Take a look at the difficulty settings of Grounded. Easy to implement and you automatically reach a bigger user base. And while we are at it, busy people sometimes cannot play games for a longer time, let’s say 4 weeks. After 4 weeks I have forgotten all the controls and game mechanics again. TV shows play a recap if a new season comes out. You should do the same. A super short introduction of what happened story wise and how the controls and game mechanics are working.
There are definitely technical reasons why saving mid-run is a lot more complicated. With Pacific Drive, right now when you save, it'll save:
the state of your car - this will likely be done by looking each individual "equipment slot" the car has, assigning them a number, assigning each possible upgrade for that "slot" a number/letter, and storing its damage state (which is probably just a scale of 1-5 or whatever). So the game will store everything about your car in the format off "slot x, upgrade type y, damage z", which can just be three values.
your quest state. The game won't remember what quests you've done or how you've done them in the way that you remember it - it'll just store that you've completed quest step 14a and that 14b is your active objective.
It makes for a fairly simple, small save file. Being able to save mid-run would add a lot of complexity because it'd need to save a complete map state, including:
the map layout
your position in the map
the enemies and hazards in the map - their positions, states, etc.
what's happened already in the map
the loot in the map, and whether you've collected it or not
And so on. Not only does it massively increase the complexity, it would also increase the size of save files a lot and make saving and loading a lot more cumbersome. And that's just a simplified breakdown; there are definitely other factors that can make it much, much more complicated.
There are definitely some games where "easy mode" save systems could be implemented without much changing on a technical level, but I don't think Pacific Drive is one of them.
Makes a lot of sense, though I'd say that implementing a "save on exit, delete upon resuming" should be a higher priority than it usually is in games that like to restrict saving. Having to stop and do something else might mean a lot of wasted time, and I think that not being able to drop an anchor point to come back to would be a possible dealbreaker for some and really hamper enjoyment of the game for others.
There have been a good few games where I wanted to play them, but didn't because I wasn't sure I had the time to make real progress, or that I'd make real progress, but have to stop just before a save point, and lose it all. It can mean that an otherwise great game gets left on the shelf in favor or something that better respects my time.
Can someone explain to me how we got here? We were the pioneers of video game ratings in this industry. Having a game rated as a “A tier" was the mark of ultimate quality. Then, out of nowhere, someone else introduces a game with a DOUBLE “A” rating. Did that intimidate us? Absolutely not. Because we came back with something even more groundbreaking – a rating system that includes a THREE “A”’s. But what happened next? Just listen—I’ll tell you what happened. The competition jumped straight to four "A"s. Now here we are, looking foolish with our outdated system, no matter how cutting-edge it seemed at the time. Suddenly, we’re the underdogs. Well, no more. We’re jumping to five "A"s. That’s right, four "A"s and an additional level of excellence.
Sure, we could have followed the natural progression and moved to four "A"s, just like our competitors. That would be the logical step, right? After all, three "A"s were quite effective, and four is the next sequential number. So, why not play it safe? Why not just add some minor enhancements and call it a day? Because we’re in the business of innovation, that’s why!
You think adding a fifth “A” is madness? It might well be. But I couldn’t care less. From this moment on, we’re the trailblazers in the video game rating game. Are four "A"s the peak of gaming excellence? Not by a long shot. A game with five "A"s is the new pinnacle.
What’s not clicking here? If two "A"s are good and three "A"s are better, it’s obvious that five "A"s would set a new standard for gaming excellence. You get me? We didn’t climb to the top of this industry by sticking to the status quo. We got here by daring to be different. And this, my friends, is our biggest gamble yet.
Here’s the memo from the Development team. Someone put it in the break room: I want to use it as a coaster. They don’t tell us what to innovate—we tell them. And I’m telling them to push beyond the four “A” boundary. I don’t care how they do it. Make the criteria for the fifth “A” so stringent it’s almost unattainable. Let’s redefine what it means to achieve gaming excellence. I don’t care if they have to overhaul the entire rating system, just make it happen!
You’re thinking too small, stuck in the “safe zone” of video game ratings. Break free. Let’s do this. This is our chance to redefine what gaming excellence means. Let’s dream bigger. All we need to do is believe that a five “A” rating is possible, and it will become a reality. If you’re not with us, you’re against us. And if you’re part of this decision-making process, then you’re either with us, or you’re holding us back. If taking risks means I stand alone, then I’m more than happy to bask in the glory when our five “A” rating system becomes the new gold standard in gaming.
People doubted the feasibility of moving beyond three "A"s. “It’s too complex,” they argued. “It’ll be too difficult to implement,” they said. Well, we proved them wrong. And now, someone out there is saying, “Five 'A’s? That’s lunacy!” Perhaps they’d be more comfortable in a less ambitious setting, fussing over trivial updates. Not us, though!
Maybe I’m out of line. Maybe we should just coast along, content with being followers. Not a chance! The day we settle for mediocrity is the day I leave this industry, and that’s not happening on my watch!
The market? We define the market. All it takes is to introduce our new system with a bit of flair. It’s as simple as saying, “Playing a game rated with anything less than five 'A’s is like accepting mediocrity.” Or, “Experience unparalleled excellence with our five ‘A’ rated games.” Imagine the buzz it’ll create.
I know what you’re thinking: “What will people say?” Forget about them. When you’re leading the pack, you’re bound to be a topic of conversation. That’s the price of innovation. And we will continue to lead, now and always, amen—five "A"s, by all that’s holy in gaming.
Hold on. I’ve just had a groundbreaking idea. Get ready for this: Add an exclusive recommendation alongside the fifth “A”. That’s right. Five "A"s, plus an endorsement that sets it apart. You heard me—an added layer of distinction. It’s a whole new era in video game ratings. Don’t question it. Just get on board, because we’re pushing the boundaries like never before, and I’m ready to lead the charge.
This seems like something Kojima would say haha !! But it applies to every new “next-gen” game/console convention/livestream with big publishers/editors.
Tired of those fumbling buzz words that doesn’t reflect the actual real gaming experience anymore, but rather the investors deep pockets.
Thankfully we have indie games and they mostly have way better time/investement/amusement ratio !
This game is absolutely marvellous. The only problem I’ve had with it personally is the apartments system is a bit annoying since I’ve never been able to find a high tier apartment that is furnished, and rarely one with a good view of the city. I understand some of the fun for some is decorating your own apartment but that’s just not my jam and any attempt of mine to decorate is lackluster at best. I’d be fine if it cost extra, just let me choose if the place comes furnished or not at purchase.
Games companies expanded like crazy due to low interest rates and high demand for games during the pandemic. Now interest rates are going up and people go outside again.
In this case, and for a lot of other studios, Embracer went on a buying spree some time ago, betting that a deal worth $2 billion with Saudis would go through. It didn’t, and now they are forcing cost cuts across all studios they own.
You've got some good answers already, but I can expand on it a little: businesses in most sectors are feeling the impact of increased interest rates - both because they can't borrow as much themselves any more, and because there is less money coming in from investors because they can't borrow as much either - but tech (including games) is doubly impacted because there was such a surge in demand during lockdowns. While other businesses tended to struggle during lockdowns, and have simply had that struggle replaced with a different struggle due to the interest rates, the tech sector grew massively during the pandemic.
People working at home, or furloughed, had more personal time and more disposable income because they weren't spending money on travelling to work, on overpriced lunches, on dining out with friends, going to concerts, etc. It all added up, and they spent that money on streaming subscriptions, video games and just generally on recreational, home-based activities, many of which revolve around tech these days. So the tech sector grew a lot because of the low interest rates, and it grew a lot because more people were buying its products/services. And now, rather than having more disposable income, a lot of people are facing a cost of living crisis, meaning not only have they reduced their spending because they're back in the office and dining out and going to concerts again (and all those other things people spend money on when they're not confined to their house), but many people have less money to spend on gaming, subscriptions, etc, than pre-pandemic.
Also, because the tech sector was doing so well during the pandemic, it was an attractive prospect for investors (who themselves had increased money, as well as great interest rates), meaning it grew even more. Everything kind of fed into each other and the tech sector grew exponentially as a result. Whereas right now, not only does the increased interest rate for borrowing mean investors are throwing their cash around less in general, but the fact that the tech sector is struggling makes it a less attractive prospect for investors, meaning the whole sector kind of doubly loses out on that front.
So these tech companies invested their money into growing their companies and expanding their businesses' scopes like good capitalists. Which does generally make sense - if you find yourself sat on a huge pile of money, it's generally better to find a way to invest it into something useful (or to invest it into something makes you an even bigger pile of money if you see the Monopoly Man as aspirational). The issue is, most of them were somewhat short-sighted (plus global economics is a tricky thing to predict); they spent money as if it was always going to be coming in at the same rate. And now that they're being impacted by increased interest rates on their own borrowing, the loss of investors, and the reduced spending power of consumers and they're very suddenly having to make massive cuts to stay afloat.
I think the other thing you need to highlight is that during that rapid growth phase 2 years ago it meant building up teams. In tech it really became an job market where employees had lot of the power in negotiation which drove up the cost of labor to fill this surplus of openings. I worked at a company where team members were being offered 10k to 25k annual retention bonuses to not quit (if you want quit within a certain time you pay it back, but if you quit hopefully your new employer spots you a signing bonus to cover it). But with all of the factors you mentioned in this cool down, you end up with a problem that you now have too much staff, but also too expensive staff that you can’t afford. Employees are definitely losing now with the layoffs, but for the ones that were able to make job moves and survive the layoffs, they’re probably are doing much better because of it (at least from a compensation POV, not sure about anxiety worrying about being laid off next).
That is all that has ever existed in the genre and is all anyone wants from it.
I don’t remember you appointing you as the sole representative for all gamers.
Personally, I think games can be written about beyond “game good” and “game bad”. Or maybe it comes down to whether you find gaming something important, or just a silly way to waste time.
“Ethics in games journalism” was a phrase invented to make gamergate’s sexist attacks on women in gaming sound legitimate and I cringe every time people use the term now. Nobody used the term “games journalism” before then.
No one used the specific sentence “ethics in gaming journalism,” is what you meant to say.
The concept of gaming journalism wasnt invented by kiwi farm and 4chan chuds. Because “gaming journalism” is literally that. Journalism. About the industry and artwork involved in video games.
You sound like you bought into their gamergate bullshit.
“Hurrrr, no one writes about games unless its an ad!!” Do you get how stupid this makes you sound? The woman targeted by gamergate is literally a games journalist.
This is pedantic, but journalism is a specific thing and it is not generally considered to be what we see in writing about games.
As an oversimplification: Opinion pieces and reviews aren’t journalism. Reporting on facts and information with research and sources is.
While there may have been a few pieces here and there that qualify, the industry around writing about games has never been heavy on facts and research, and it doesn’t need to be. It’s like any other entertainment section writing.
Inventing the phrase “games journalism” was done to try to legitimise a movement that was about sexism. We just didn’t use that term before and nobody was bothered by that, because it doesn’t really apply.
Its not what you see. Because you are only reading paid for review work. There is no we here. You are in a bubble.
Have you ever even seen anitas work? She was harassed, specifically, for starting a running series of deep analysis pieces about how women are portrayed, discussed, and interpreted within gaming culture from both its players and the games they play.
Just because you never bothered to read her work until someone on an xbox mic screeched about it doesnt magically make her work vanish.
I dont overly care that you only read the paper scraps that flitter past the rock you live under. But the rest of the world isnt your rock. Quit lying about something so easily and obviously disproven.
Anita Sarkeesian’s amazing work as an academic theorist is not journalism just because it involves words. Not all writing is journalism. This isn’t a value judgment of her incredible work that I am fully aware of and found very educational.
Maybe take a step back and realize you’re being incredibly rude to a random internet stranger who has a different opinion than you on what constitutes the term “journalism.”
If after you take that break you can come back without hurling insults at me, then we can have a conversation about it?
So thats a yes, you have literally never actually read her work. You could have at least come out and said so from the beginning. “Just words” what a spit in the face of her work.
Is there any point in discussing a topic with someone who apparently learned of its existence about 20 minutes ago? Go shit talk some other professional bud, youve made enough of an ass of yourself here.
Insane to see someone try and neg anita by pretending to be offended about gamergate
I don’t see how you got “negging anita” out of me complementing her incredible academic work. I was a huge fan of her Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series, as well as the content she was writing at the time. I am sure she’s done other work that I’m not familiar with, too. I am not claiming to be an expert on her entire body of work, but I definitely have seen and read her academic-oriented work.
It’s not journalism, but one could argue it’s more important because it has a thesis and provides evidence through careful academic arguments and research.
None of what I’ve said has warranted how you’re treating me, so I have to ask, what’s going on? are you OK? Why does my definition of journalism threaten you this much?
Why are you still here? Did you not say I hurt your feelings too much to continue?
We already established you do not understand what you are talking about and that you have no interest in changing that. Did you want to insult a different journalist real quick? Do you need an audience for that?
Youre the guy who refuses to call non medical phD holders doctors, and then acts like the indignant victim when people rightly call you out for insulting people by refusing to use their earned title.
You dump tons of praise on a journalists work to deflect from the fact that you dont actually respect the work. Its not of a high enough standard for her to have earned her title to you.
Youre a dick here just like I am sure youre a dick to any doctorate in chemistry. And yet, you pretend so vehemently that your insults cant possibly be rude, so surely its everyone else who is wrong.
Its pathetic, bud. As is the disengenuous well wishing. That kinda cements my point
I think I'll still have to check out Bombrush Cyberfunk -- most other people seem to have liked it. And it's not like anything else is filling that niche right now.
Hadn't heard of Cyber Knights Flashpoint, that one looks fun.
Don’t let the two-sentence review in the article fool you. It’s basically exactly like JSRF (which was also a huge game in my childhood), and then some. The music has all the same vibes, the movesets and tricks are awesome, the vibrant colorful world reminds me of Tokyo-to to a T.
Do you and your childhood self a favor and check it out!
Now I’m itching to play JSRF again. Next time Bombshell Cyberfunk goes on sale I’ll pick it up. Seems like it’ll be a great game to play on a steam deck.
Yeah that’s the thing for me too, I’ll just buy it on sale in a few years, trying to not watch gameplays of games I’m interested in to not break it for me, made that mistake before with Horizon Zero Dawn, watched gameplays, read whole wiki of lore being sure it won’t be available in PC, few months later PC version was announced, bought it on a sale about year later, still had a lot of fun though
aftermath.site
Ważne