Because many of us remember before that, when Valve revolutionized the single player first person genre again and again with the Portal and mainline Half-Life games.
Any other dev would have capitalized on the massive interest in a sequel or at least sold off the property so someone else could have continued those franchises.
Man, I’m glad that people are enjoying the game as much as they say they are but I tried my first play through earlier this year and it was terrible. I saw almost no difference in the amount/type of glitches between what I experienced back in January and what I saw online when the game first released a few years ago.
I played on launch month and only encountered one bug that was game breaking and it was only a loading point glitch where I had to load to a previous save point. Played just a month ago and the whole game was super smooth.
I have 50+ hours and only minor graphic glitches. A couple dead bodies standing up, the odd piece of floating loot. Nothing that seriously detracts from the experience.
I said this at launch, you cannot do early access with an established IP. The agreement is a reduced price because you’re paying to get in on the ground floor before it actually gets good. But for an established IP you’ve already built your audience, so most people are going to buy on day 1 at the reduced price, so the “reduced price” has to basically be full price. Now you’re paying full price for an unfinished game because Take Two pushed them to release an unfinished game that had been delayed by years.
Maybe it was the botched launch. Baldur’s Gate 3 was an early access title made by a known developer (at least in crpg spaces) of an existing IP, though BG 1 and 2 are old as hell and I imagine most of the player base didn’t play them, myself included.
I played KSP and was waiting for performance to get better before buying KSP 2. Oh well.
IMO the user interface/controls/gameplay of BG1 just feels so dated compared to modern games. If you didn’t play it back in the day and have that extra nostalgia bonus when you go to play it now, you may just find yourself thinking the game is super clunky and wondering what all the hype was about.
That being said, the story is second to none, and the story of BG2 is arguably as good or better. So if you don’t mind the somewhat-dated play style and want a good story, they could be right up your alley.
Hmm I used to play old point and click Sierra games, so the interface can’t be worse than those I’m assuming. The question is do I have the patience now to figure it out lol
Some parts of the interface are actually pretty similar to the old Kings Quest/Quest for Glory games lol. For instance you still cycle through the cursor with a right click to look, talk, walk, and left left click to use the action shown by the cursor etc. The combat is substantially different, and sort of like KoTOR you can pause during combat and plan the next moves for all your party members. It also helps to have at least some understanding of AD&D’s combat system, THAC0 in particular, as that is what the combat is based on.
But yeah if you’ve been gaming long enough that you remember the golden age of Sierra games then you will probably be able to appreciate BG1 and 2
I haven’t played BG1 or 2. As I understand it, the only connection between the games is a couple of cameo characters. The main plot and characters of BG3 are completely original and independent.
However, it would be helpful to have some experience playing DnD and/or some vague knowledge of DnD lore.
As someone currently working in QA, they might have a bunch of high priority tasks related to monetization or partnerships with legal obligations. QA for things the consumer sees only needs to be prioritized enough to keep the profits vs. outrage ratio in the green
Comments section is pretty clear who read the article and who is only reacting to the title.
Helldivers 2 has weeks long campaigns where the entire playerbase has to defend certain planets. The "GM" keeps a close eye on progress of this event and manually adjusts it to make sure the campaign doesn't complete too soon.
There isn't some poor motherfucker staring at a screen watching the progress of each individual match spawning more bad guys whenever they feel like it.
This continuous evolution has actually seen Joel getting up at unsociable hours to sort out situations when the Helldivers 2 team realised the game wasn’t as balanced as it could be. “There have been some sudden moments where maybe one planet was too easy or one was too hard and [Joel] had to get up in the middle of the night to give the Automatons a bit of reinforcement so the players don’t take [the planet] too quickly,” Pilestedt said.
I don’t like when they remake a game I loved but they add a bunch to it like new gameplay mechanics, or make changes to stories or characters. That being said not all remakes are bad, probably most are just fine, but really not my cup of tea.
I greatly prefer a straight remaster. Just update the graphics, remaster the sound, maybe add a little more details to the game world, and I’m a happy dude.
I doubt a patch nor mod support will motivate me to play this game. This is the most empty Bethesda game they've released when they could've had something special if they had any ambition.
Haha, o god, no. Bit a guy like him would probably not even for a second think about working for them even of they would give him 100% of the funding they receive now (50k?)
It's in the top ten most played games on Steam and had sold at least 5 million; even that number is two months old and doesn't include PlayStation. If I were to wager a guess, which you can often extrapolate from the number of reviews on Steam, it's much closer to 10 million, which is how many copies a typical Assassin's Creed or FIFA game will sell. Baldur's Gate 3 is mainstream.
Agreed. It is though an example of a game breaking out into the mainstream from a normally more niche genre (this particular type of dense, top-down, turn-based RPG). I’m curious to see if its subgenre will grow more popular in its wake, too, and by how much.
I find it particularly interesting that it became such a hit because its systems can be rather overwhelming for people who aren’t already familiar with 5e/tabletop rules. The sheer amount of rules to learn, the volume of specific items and text bubbles to read, the fact that some aspects of the interface aren’t really tutorialized well, etc.
I had no understanding of 5e, and there were a couple of things I didn't understand, but so much of that game, especially at the beginning, is choosing an option with a high chance of success and shoving or throwing things that most games wouldn't let you shove or throw. The way the game lets you verb any feasible noun, coupled with higher production value, is probably why this one hit. It's going to continue to make other RPGs with even higher budgets stand out as dinosaurs; not just Starfield but especially BioWare's next couple of efforts, given their Baldur's Gate lineage.
It's because people aren't idiots like developers have thought for years. People don't mind a game where you need to read and learn as long as there is a payoff for reading and learning. We have been paying the price for devs thinking everyone is braindead for over a decade now as more and more mechanics and features are removed to please people who were never going to give the genre a chance anyway. By way of example, Dragon Age II didn't get the Call of Duty audience to play Dragon Age, it just convinced most who liked Dragon Age that EA only accidentally published one of the best RPGs of its decade.
Depends on how far ahead he planned the sale. It does sound like he’s getting ready to deploy a golden parachute while the company burns. Clean out his own stock while the price is still high enough and then say, “well shucks, who’d have thought that developers would leave in droves when we instituted micro-transactions for using our engine?” And walk on to overseeing his next disaster.
Seems like it’s planned enshitification. Use lower costs and even free for individuals to get market share, then crank up the price once you have a large audience. It’ll be interesting to see if and where indie developers jump to.
It was a scheduled sale. There's a term for it, but it's a fairly normal thing to have set up.
What it really sounds like is they looked to see that they had a scheduled sale, and then delayed the announcement of the new fees (and the planning of how they'd work) so that the sale price would be higher.
Or, another alternative here. They looked at the sale price, and thought "gee whiz this is low, how do I boost the stock price higher?" and since this idiot worked on microtransactions for EA, he thought that adding those to Unity made some sort of sense.
eurogamer.net
Ważne