This is me. I don’t give a single fuck about achievements, unless ive really enjoyed myself and (usually) only if I’m most of the way via my regular playthrough. Requiring multiple playthroughs is an immediate turn off, too many other games to get to lol.
Well that explains something, but honestly it has nothing to do with the actual game itself. Would be kinda weird if reviewers focused on that instead of the game.
Yes, you are right. Everyone had to draw the line themselves. And if you only stop buying a game if it is from Putin, that is indeed your decision. But it obviously also means, that you do made your decision not only on the game itself. So I am not sure what your argument is here.
I am using Putin as an extreme example to discuss the broader question of whether the ethics and actions of creators should influence consumer decisions, and not because Putin is directly related to the situation being discussed. Even if a notorious figure like Putin were to release a game, some people, like you in this case, might argue that the game’s quality alone should be the deciding factor in whether to support it, while others might refuse to support it based on the creator’s actions or background. I was just trying to find out if there is a line you are not going to cross or if you will play it no matter the circumstances as long as you think the game is good. And as it turns out, based on this conversation, there is a line for you and it’s literally “the game was created by Putin”
That’s an extremely oversimplified and overexaggerated comparison of someone comitting war crimes versus misogyny.
Supporting the game has nothing to do with it, just because people enjoy the game because it’s a good game doesn’t mean they support misogyny, same goes for the many developers that worked on the game.
It also doesn’t explain the other stuff they requested to not mention in game coverage, all of which seem to have nothing to do with the actual game.
You are judging the entire team of probably 100+ developers by one man’s actions and act like everyone that supports the game supports war crimes. That’s a batshit insane take.
Of course it is exaggerated. That is the point of a hyperbolic arguments.
Examining hypothetical edge cases in more detail is a useful tool for defining where the issues lie in a debate.
Would you support/play a game of 100+ devs if key management DID commit war crimes? I’d like to think probably not.
It’s though it is clear from your response that misogyny isn’t a deal-breaker for you for this case, so the question then becomes; how shitty does a single person need to be before it becomes an issue for you then?
Other people drew a line in the sand at misogyny and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact I’d say it is a respectable opinion.
You probably would prefer to just ignore any controversy and just judge the game on its merits alone, and that is fine in its own way too. It is exhausting keeping up with the news and you would be happier and find it easier to just blindly enjoy a game.
But don’t pretend that just because you are ignoring it, doesn’t mean that you aren’t supporting bad practices like misogyny when you do so.
It’s a difficult issue. If Putin did release a game, did we know beforehand? How widespread was the knowledge? How did this info come to light?
I guess it’s similar to reports about crunch culture in many game studios. Do we want to support that and buy the game?
Or sexual harassment by C-level, same question.
Many people might not care, but some do and it’s still information to consider.
I will use this opportunity to sing the praises of HiFi Rush, because that original game deserved so much better than it got. Probably would have gotten it as an indie game too.
Big companies avoid risk too much, they want to make revenue, not games. I haven’t been interested in any AAA game in some 10 years. They’re all just the same open-world, microtransaction-DLC, soon-to-be advertisement platform with uninspired gameplay features.
Independent developers on the other hand are innovating and making cool and fun games.
In the few games that I played that had both, FSR 3 ran much better than XeSS. XeSS was a little better than FSR 2 (granted, not hard because FSR 2 often runs worse than native for me) but FSR 3 typically had 20+ more FPS than XeSS. Maybe they run better on Intel gpus but those are still too experimental and too low performance for me to even consider at this stage.
Beyond Good and Evil 2 was announced in 2008 and now they’re doing a “remaster” of the first one? Not having high confidence in what they’re delivering tbh.
It might make Valve unlikely to make another game and a lot of people, including myself, would be hugely disappointed but I don’t think it would have any major negative effects beyond those two.
You also can’t MTX a Half Life 3 game to hell and back. Years ago, I knew the next Half Life game would be VR. They’ve always used the Half Life games to showcase new tech or models(the Episodes). Didn’t realize it would be VR Exclusive or a prequel.
At least the community has given up and is producing their own sequels and spinoffs.
ShadowZone on youtube has a pretty good analysis of what we know, what we don’t know, and lays out some possible (and realistic) scenarios as to what’s going on.
My personal (un)educated guess regarding the lack of official news is due to the fact that T2 will be releasing an earnings report shortly, and needs to keep things quiet. I hope the release more detailed statements once the quarterly is done.
It is! You can go to the Steam store > New & Noteworthy > Most Played to see current player counts for the top 100 games. Hades II is currently #6, ahead of Helldivers even!
I am actually ok with micro transactions in multiplayer competitive games for cosmetic skins.
I am not saying that most games that do this aren’t extremely toxic in their design but the idea of players of a popular competitive game continually paying small amounts of money to artists to create new riffs on the same player models and weapons that those players can use to express themselves is potentially a wonderful direct connection between 3D modeling artists and players that continually values those 3D modeling artists far after the initial game development is over (and a game company could potentially have no work for a 3D modeler when just maintaining a multiplayer game with small updates).
The problem is that the type of people who are most likely to spend money on loot boxes are exploited heavily, and then shamed by everyone around them into not revealing how much they spent on video game call of duty mobile skins.
None of this even remotely works when you talk about singleplayer games though, basically nobody dresses to the nines to just go for a walk in the woods where nobody can see them… the direct link between 3D modeling artists and players expressing themselves in view of other players is gone. Players may spend hours dressing their singleplayer character and enjoy that part of the game but it just isn’t the same thing as your multiplayer competitive game character you have spent countless hours playing in multiplayer matches interacting with countless people with. It is the difference between taking a freeing walk in the woods and taking a walk in a city in view of a crowd of other artists.
I guess what I am trying to say is that micro transactions are really only okay when they are “micro” because they are a direct interaction between a player and an artist in the way buying a single song from an album might be.
Of course, my entire point is subsumed by the fact that most of the big companies probably treat the 3D modelers making their skins like trash and are probably going to replace literally all of them with AI as quietly but as quickly as possible in the next couple of months.
If they want to sell skins that are purely cosmetic I don’t have an issue with that. Some people have money to drop on stuff like that and it helps fund the game.
Loot boxes on the other hand can absolutely get fucked. It’s gambling, plain and simple. It has no place in games.
Except Bethesda is also one of the few companies that releases full on expansions to their games. Horse armour was the worst (and thus cheapest) of Oblivions addons, but Shivering Isles was an entire new full area and plotline.
Nuance exists. And ignoring it allows a lot of good to get caught in the crossfire
Real good take, I couldn’t agree more. I also sold a dota2 skin that I got randomly for a couple hundred dollars like 8 years ago and it funded my PC purchases for a couple years so I might be biased 😉
In my comment I attempted to point out that yes the profit from micro transactions never really goes to the artists and developers, but if it did in theory I would actually be really supportive of artist run cosmetic stores for multiplayer competitive games.
I want 3D modeling artists to be valued, and competitive multiplayer games providing a canvas in which artists can continually express themselves and create outfits/skins for players and items in game is an incredible opportunity to reaffirm the value of the labor of 3D modeling artists.
The opportunity is currently totally captured and subverted by shitty corporate control, but in theory it is still there.
For singleplayer games, no horse armor crap is lame, I just want developers working on expansion content.
eurogamer.net
Ważne