They did. It was based on the PC version that Gearbox fucked up and it took ten years for the classic mode graphics to be fixed. The remastered graphics were a lazy mishmash of Halo 3 and Reach models haphazardly thrown together. The remastered level geometry also didn’t match the actual geometry, which resulted in things like invisible trees blocking your bullets.
When reading opinion pieces, especially ones on topics that I am passionate about, I try and keep a level head and not let the fact that it’s written in a publication I enjoy inform my opinion too much. That being said, I thought this was a well done look back at so many of the things the Xbox brand has gotten wrong over the years.
In today’s fast paced world I think it can be easy to forget stuff like lionhead’s closure and especially the PR releases that were said at that time. The similarities in the pr releases to the recent closures and lionhead’s closure were interesting to see.
I find myself overall agreeing with this piece and it’s conclusions. I do feel the author’s idea of why entertainment companies exist to perhaps be a little idealistic (although I am admittedly pretty jaded on the industry and capitalism as a whole at this point in my life). They claim that entertainment companies exist “to provide that entertainment.” Sure I think creative leads and the devs (especially in the games industry) are there to provide entertainment that they are passionate about. But idk if I can ever see a period where the publisher was in it for the art, despite what they may say. My jaded view is it’s always been for profits. That being said, while reading this and having that view in the back of my head, I did start to question myself a bit. Why is Xbox struggling so hard? I mean if every publisher is in it for the same reason, (profit in my mind) why is Xbox struggling so much with having a clear path. Sure the industry as a whole has been struggling this past year or so, but Xbox seemingly has been struggling for a lot longer. While not a huge Sony fan, they have provided a large list of really excellent games. Sony is of course in it for profits, but they seem to have had more success in getting quality games out the door.
Idk the piece made me think about the whole thing more and I’m not really sure where my thoughts are going to settle. I do know that I really think this shouldn’t have happened. Despite the state of the industry, Microsoft had $20 billion in profit last quarter. I see no reason why this needed to happen.
They claim that entertainment companies exist “to provide that entertainment.” Sure I think creative leads and the devs (especially in the games industry) are there to provide entertainment that they are passionate about. But idk if I can ever see a period where the publisher was in it for the art, despite what they may say.
I agree with you, except that up until the early-to-mid aughts, before Fortnight, and skinner box mobile games, and the promise of persistent revenue capitalizing on addictive tendencies and FOMO, publishers believed that the best path to profit was good games. Konami, to pick the (previously) worst example, published one of the weirdest, most cinematic, ambitious, influential games of all time with Metal Gear Solid. And then, eventually, they saw a straighter, shorter path to profit.
I am…way more personally upset about the Arkane closure than I usually get about these things. I have so much respect for what that studio created. This article is great though and gives the holistic perspective I’ve been looking for the past few days:
The point here, ultimately, is that this cycle has been repeating, and repeating, and repeating, and it does not show any sign of coming to an end. Xbox buys talent, mismanages it in search of impossible scale, and cuts it loose - be that the 20-year experts of Fable, or the battle-scarred makers of Dishonored, or the invigorating new generation behind Hi-Fi Rush. Xbox’s leadership clearly knows it’s a problem…they have to step behind this first, surface-level layer of justification for closing studios, and get to the real cause - not the decisions themselves, but the principles that inform them. The principles that say expertise, creativity and talent are less valuable than the cost to let them flourish.
They are both irrelevant. They don’t sell bespoke hardware, they don’t sell bespoke software, they just sell you locked down schlock. The era of consoles is over. With the ubiquitous nature of HDMI, 4K huge format TVs, and universal peripherals, there only thing consoles offer you is LESS choice.
You have to be in charge to be a fascist you dumb motherfucker.
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
I fucking WISH we had ecofascism. Maybe then I’d get a winter again.
No you don’t, what kind of alternative facts shit is this? It’s absurd to suggest one can only be a supporter of an ideology if said ideology is in power for any ideology.
I fucking wish we had fascism. Maybe then I’d get a winter again.
The only winter you need is a Siberian one, with a paid-for stay at a Gulag :)
This doesn’t strike me as a bad move on their part. From the way the responses are worded, this feels very much like it’s intended to counterbalance negative impressions specifically for potential buyers who might otherwise be swayed by negative comments.
If I’m on the fence about something, I can be pretty easily swayed by a negative review that enumerates things that I’m specifically on the lookout for. Like if I saw one of those reviews that said bad story and boring gameplay, I would find myself think “sounds like the Bethesda formula hasn’t updated enough for me,” but I could be swayed back then other way by a dev response that enthusiastically mentions the exploration and crafting. “Maybe there’s enough here for me that I don’t need to bother with the story.”
Is it underhanded? Maybe. But it seems like a no-lose scenario either way for Bethesda.
I would agreeish, but from a different perspective. However,
“consider the amount of data needed to load procedural assets in under 3 seconds” is a laughable response considering the very real criticism of having so many god damn menus, all of which revolve around picking things on a map.
They have the tools to make the game however they want. I find it pretty insane that there’s no consistency in how the game allows you to fast travel in space - sometimes you can select a solar system/planet and travel right from there, no map required. Other times you get to a planet and then you can’t land on the planet until you open the map and “fast travel” to it, even though you’re right there.
And the response says “consider” no, no I won’t consider something you should have optimized before release lmao. It is how it is now and that’s what I’m considering, and I’ve decided that it’s got potential and in it’s current state it sucks.
And I actually liked the game. I did not like NG+ whatsoever though. Disappointing
eurogamer.net
Ważne