Honestly, at this point, they should really just save whatever for a sequel. It’s been two years. As a reminder (though there are extenuating circumstances here), Dark Souls 2 was 2014, and Dark Souls 3 was 2016.
I guess the new reality is that it takes six years to make a game and three years between expansions. I think I’d just prefer smaller games and smaller dev cycles.
Armored Core is one of their oldest running IPs and a series I have been playing since 2nd installment. AC6 was without a doubt the best one. Highly recommend.
Why? With a DLC they can expand on weaker areas and introduce interesting advanced mechanics, whereas a sequel needs a lot more groundwork and can’t expand on existing story threads as easily without some repetition.
It’s such a good game that I’d prefer more of it to a sequel, at least right now. Make the sequel it’s own thing that’s not burdened by having to finish all the unfinished stories.
I think it’d be really cool, and they could always make it so that the data never leaves your computer looks at the title and realising it’s EA we’re talking about Oh wait…
And honestly the example you gave is rather a good example of a remake. The PS2 is 20 years old at this point. If the game was well made and the remake/ remaster is well-executed? Why would anyone object to this?
New and exciting games exist. This isn’t an issue. In most cases I’d even say that while money surely is important, in most cases it’s not a lack of money preventing a good game, but rather another issue that might lead to funds running out. If that makes sense.
The current situation is way better than say 25-30 years ago, and those games weren’t exactly trash.
Would be a good one, yes. But currently the trend is getting closer from 1.5 to 1 generation ago
Worst offenders to me are cod, despite a bigger time gap. Force bundling a remake into another live service game that STILL GETS SHUT DOWN AFTER A FEW YEARS FOR THE NEXT LIVE SERVICE.
Yeah, they could’ve done better with the New Game+ for sure, which to me isn’t exactly surprising since it’s their first main line game to have it.
I do appreciate that there are considerable differences to the story on certain replays, but it’s a slog doing basically the same thing every time. I wish there was a bit more variance.
The flying between or into planets/loading screen issue, I think, is entirely due to the pressure from management announcing early, and then a rush to meet the original deadline, and then another rush to meet the Microsoft mandated delay. Fixing it could’ve been worth it, but it would’ve certainly taken an uncertain number of months, which wasn’t worth it to management or microsoft.
I do think it will be remembered fondly eventually just like every other mainline Bethesda game has been, though.
Funnily enough, this is the first time a game’s NG+ actual felt compelling to me with how it’s actually part of the story and the workings of the universe.
Did you try to play stealth my guy. And how much god damn work do I have to put in, how much useless crafting do I have to do so I can just put a silencer on my gun come on man if this doesn’t mean broken what does.
Yeah, my first build was a stealth character, I did it just fine. You’re mostly likely specing your builds wrong for stealth or wearing a million pounds of armor clanking around thinking you’re being stealthy. There’s specific armor pieces meant for stealth, which also help a ton.
The weapon modding isn’t broken. If you find a gun with a suppressor, you can take that off and put it on the same model as yours. I don’t think needing a skill/crafting to make a whole suppressor warrants the game being called broken.
It’s funny how it’s “the game’s are not expensive enough” and not “we don’t know how to manage our or money” or “our profit are too high”. Fuck those capitalists.
Oh the stupid shit head “games are 100 times more expensive to make now” but you sell thousands times more and there no physical media anymore is irrelevant I guess… Assholes…
Whose fault is that, guys? Were those numbers placed on you by a witch’s curse? No. You spent $100M on one game, it made $300M, so you spend $200M on the next game. Games didn’t get twice as hard to make, between those decisions. They didn’t require twice as many people or twice as much time. You’re just treating them like a factory where more capital in means more revenue out.
The original Doom was made in nine months by a team that fits in an elevator. Yeah, it’s simpler than modern games, but they had to make the nearly-unprecedented engine and all their own tools as they went. It’s not like anything’s harder, now. People have basically recreated that seminal title as solo one-week game jam projects. A modern handful of professional computer nerds can pick from a handful of modern high-end toolchains and start banging out content, today.
If the market for video games only supported six-digit budgets - there would still be video games. Big ones, fancy ones, creative ones, whatever. Would they be the spectacles that currently get advertised to death? Nope. But they also wouldn’t produce as many unstable bug-fests as those sprawling mega-projects. Nor would they be announced in 1999, previewed in 2006, delayed in 2017, and launched to middling reviews in 2025.
Studios that aren’t injected with obscene capital and forced to deliver “AAA” money-trees tend to shoot their shot and move on to the next game. That’s how they survived and grew as plucky little private affairs, before some publishers swallowed them whole and turned them into a sequel factory for their breakout hit.
If your games cost too much money to fail, stop giving them more money.
Good, tbh, I think we’ve had to back off Open World RPGs for years now. Smaller scale RPGs can tell a story with far more focus. I think something like Witcher 2 or Baldurs Gate 3 are good examples of balancing exploration and story telling.
Yeah I’ve loved open world games since I first played oblivion as a teenager but being open world isn’t necessarily a good thing in and of itself and being too big often makes you spoiled for choice. Plus I just don’t have time anymore to explore the whole world. For me as long as the story is interesting and it has good systems and mechanics along with new game plus of some kind I can get into a game and play it over and over
I think at a certain point we need to accept that this isn’t sustainable.
And by “this” I mean money flowing directly into the pockets of the rich. People would very much hedge £30 on a game if they didn’t need to budget so much of that money to pay off megacorps. And devs could easily live of £20 per sale if they didn’t need to pay part of their profits to those megacorps.
Sorry for going all Redditlemmy “grr capitalism”, but that’s the issue here and all this Silksong “drama” is just a smokescreen.
You’re 100% right, but it’s also a problem of devs underpricing themselves. They’ll work for 2 years on a game and then set its regular price at $5, which actually limits its reach (shoppers see the price and skip over it, thinking it’s low quality) and helps make a race to the bottom that’s already destroyed the mobile market.
Silksong isn’t going to upend the market, some of the quotes are silly, and it’s not underpriced since they were going to sell millions upon millions of copies anyway. But the wider discussion of pricing is important since lots of developers don’t seem to understand the larger picture.
I think you got the most level-headed take here. It really is about capitalism and the fact that gaming is now a mature market, which means it is now sufficiently saturated in the stink of capitalism and megacorps, just like other media industries. In a world where we weren’t all being squeezed from every direction, games would probably cost less and Silksong’s price wouldn’t seem like an outlier.
I find the switch to hosting communities on proprietary closed platforms kind of bad in terms of access to the vast knowledge and archiving it for future generations. When discord will go full enshittified, it will just charge a subscription fee to access the “servers”. Also they will sure as hell comply with anything if it threatens the bottom line.
It’s god awful for any development discussion too. Used to be you could at least find someone taking about something on Stack Overflow even if it wasn’t solved, now it’s buried in Discord and you have no way of even searching it out to see if anyone has even had that problem before.
I can actually see Horizon working really well as an MMO. It’s already open world, fetch quest-centered with city quest hubs and such. Yeah, you won’t be that one main character, but you could be out there killing robot dinosaurs with friends.
At least two major MMOs have the player being the “main” character, FF14 and WoW both treat the player character (and their friends) as the “hero” (and their party). I’m sure others do the same, but honestly I never get far enough into them to find out.
You’d almost certainly not be Aloy, but that doesn’t mean you’re not the main protagonist of the story in the game.
Another runner played a Mario game on switch using motion controls strapped to his head and feel and then played the in game music on a keyboard at the same time. GDQ was wild this year.
I suppose they wrote battlefield in the headline since it’s an EA franchise, but I totally see where you’re coming from. At least they mention halo directly after.
eurogamer.net
Ważne