The tale of producers dumbing down plot and dialogue for greater main stream appeal is as old as show business. And from my experience said producers are almost always wrong. Sorry pal, but you can’t blame social media for something your peers have always been doing.
This is just damage control, there doesn’t have to be meaning to these words other than a try of appeasing the fans. That said though, it’s ironic how the Witcher games at least (haven’t read the books yet) have quite mature and well-written content compared to most other games, so they’re like the opposite of what he’s trying to say here and people LOVE the games for that. So it’s literally the opposite that’s true. If you put out over-simplified garbage, you will not create anything good with that kind of ingredients.
Game of Thrones was the most popular show in the world not too long ago and is more complicated. House of the Dragon is also complicated and did well just last year. There have been tons of complicated dramas that have been popular. This is just a dumb excuse
He's really blaming the execs and showrunner between the lines I think. Saying she had to "make tough decisions" means "she fucked up". It's Netflix and the showrunner who think they need to go to the lowest common denominator with scripts to appeal to Americans, especially hard fantasy/sci-fi. So he's kinda pissed at both groups really not just audiences.
It's a shame because other works like GOT 1-5 show the opposite. Go for complex, go for the source material, and audiences will be patient for it.
Then blame execs and showrunners, not the audience. American audiences are savvier than he thinks, just because he had one pitch that didn't fare well with American audiences doesn't mean that they won't embrace more complicated elements of The Witcher.
Plus it just sounds sad; blame audiences for something you, as a producer, can't effectively produce.
I think too many people have tricked themselves/each other into thinking long games are bad because they are long. No, it’s because 95% of the time (moreso today than in the past), a high hour-to-complete time signals a game with 10 hours or content stretched out to an absurd extreme, often in support of MTX/live service type features available ay launch.
An 80 hour game can be good if it has 80 hours of actual content. A 25 hour game can be bad if it’s still just 3-4 hours of real game stretched out to 25-30.
As someone that trudged through Odyssey and has been really enjoying Valhalla despite its immense size, I welcome this change. Good Lord these games are huge.
I enjoy the scale of large games, but Odyssey and Valhalla was too much even for me. I’d like maybe half that (which would still be at least 50 hours I suspect).
I want a dark souls anime in an older style animation (think berserk) and directed by Lynch. I want to walk out of every episode feeling confused, exhausted, and vaguely depressed.
After 30 minutes, you will be given a trivia test. You have to tick the right box with your remote. If you fail, you get a “You died” screen and have to watch the episode again until you succeed and can watch the next episode. There are no help pages on the internet. If you google for help, all you get is "GIT GUD! People who ask for a story mode are shouted at.
Let me arbitrarily change the difficulty whenever I want. I hate games that don’t let you do this. The worst offender was Resident Evil Village. It let me lower it but wouldn’t let me increase it back without starting over.
Are we really calling tweaking a config file a “remaster” now? This is the bare minimum for a new console, IMO, and it is absurdly disgusting they thought some of these “upgrade packs” should cost money.
They're not charging for performance upgrades. The only paid DLC packs are the ones that are, well, actual DLC. What makes that more "disgusting" than any other DLC?
Yes, they are. If you want 60 FPS and a higher resolution in the two open-world Zelda games, you either need to pay more or have NSO + Expansion Pack. There is no justifiable reason for these to be bundled in with the “Zelda Notes” shit (that’s a smartphone app and not even part of the game).
Sure, but I think that the type of game is a pretty big input. Existing generative AI isn’t great at portraying a consistent figure in multiple poses and from multiple angles, which is something that many games are going to want to do.
On the other hand, I’ve also played text-oriented interactive fiction where there’s a single illustration for each character. For that, it’d be a good match.
AI-based speech synth isn’t as good as human voice acting, but it’s gotten pretty decent if you don’t need to be able to put lots of emotion into things. It’s not capable of, say, doing Transistor, which relied a lot on the voice acting. But it could be a very good choice to add new material for a character in an old game where the actor may not be around or who may have had their voice change.
I’ve been very impressed with AI upscaling. I think that upscaling textures and other assets probably has a lot of potential to take advantage of higher resolution screens. Maybe one might need a bit of human intervention, but a factor of 2 increase is something that I’ve found that the software can do pretty well without much involvement.
Except for the fact that the CEO wasn’t fired even though he made a comically lazy and incompetent mistake (going on a buying spree before confirming that the investment would go through).
Buddy, this isn’t the navy. The captain isn’t going down with the ship. As much as we would all want or hope for them to. If anything, them chopping their workforce down will be seen as them improving the value of the company. The investors are who they actually answer to. And they are going to want them to make them money before they pull out all their investments and crater all those studios.
eurogamer.net
Ważne