I think it is impossible to properly state how damaging his existence was to gaming as a whole.
I would gladly say good fucking riddance, as if it was a victory, if it weren’t for the fact that he is going away with a fuck ton of money. He didn’t lose anything, he just won. And the whole gaming industry, hell, the whlole world suffers because of it. Because this isn’t just about video gamse. The man is a vile piece of shit. And he just gets to walk away and get away with it. Because money is power. The whole thing is just sickening.
Wild card. Paizo. He’ll come in like “while pathfinder has been successful I see a lot of room for growth and restructuring”. 5 years later, there are now 28 low quality books, all of which are on a subscription model, half the staff are fired, and the company is owned by Amazon… Oh and a crossover with Jack Reacher.
Just like Cyberpunk 2077, I will wait for this game to be worked on and get it for a discount later. I learned my lesson long time ago, not to buy big AAA games at launch.
Same. I think cyberpunk is almost done, so I’ll probably grab it when it gets down to half off. We’ll see if Starfield is any good after they finish it in 5 years or so.
Of course, it’s not just like cyberpunk. Cyberpunk had excellent writing, good pacing, and an overall fascinating story with technically good writing. It just was immersed in a game that had many issues for many people.
Star field is almost the exact opposite, it’s technically functional, with a hollowed out uncooked unseasoned potato for a story.
I wasn't saying both games are similar, but more comparing the situation both games not worth buying day 1. Developers adding new functionality, features and iron out bugs and performance issues. If I like the core gameplay and story, that's another story. But just like with Cyberpunk, I will wait for the game being worked on and buy it later for a cheaper price.
I thought it was fun, despite some clunkiness. I also played it on gamepass and clocked in 100-200 hours. I intend to pick it up again once the game matures a bit more and receives additional expansions.
Agreed, I'd much rather have no Blizzard than the toxic swamp that it was/is(?). I do wish we could have a Blizzard that designed games more like they used to, but minus the toxic culture though, which is what I'm guessing the above comment was meaning as well.
Blizzard North was separate from the Irvine studio, I believe. Their Diablo 3 was in development for a while too.
But yeah, I guess that’s what people mean, the old design philosophy. But I can’t help it now. Old Blizzard seems tainted to me. At least starting from the WC3+WoW era.
And while it’s a good thing that this asshat is gone, I’m sure he’ll be running another company soon enough and spreading his cancer and bad practices elsewhere very soon as a CEO at some other company.
Plus you know that he’s not the only cause of this at the company and his underlings that are just as cancerous with their bullshit are still there.
eurogamer.net
Najnowsze