I mean, it definitely helps. The production quality is insane. But the fact that the choices (or mistakes) have actual real impacts on the game going forward are as big as far as I'm concerned. I ended up with my hand being forced into combat early that made an encounter with a potential party member immediately hostile. That sucks, especially since I wasn't trying to do what happened in the earlier encounter. But in terms of a world feeling alive, having it actually react to what you do is pretty damn significant (unless "you're small and irrelevant" is intentional).
It's time developers come to grips with the fact that making choices matter is what makes it a successful game. I'm tired of storylines that don't make any sense except to give you a world to kill people in. Sorry folks, lore is important and that takes writers.
It definitely depends on the game, I’m perfectly happy with a game that has a story to tell, and tells it well. Not everything needs to have branching options and 50+ hour playtime. Some of the best stories I’ve played are short and railroady, WaW and BO1 campaing’s are fantastically interesting and you don’t make a single choice in them.
I don’t think the lack of choices is necessarily a bad thing. The original Doom had no story choices (it barely even had a story) and it’s still pretty good even by today’s standards. Half-Life 1 and 2 pretty much had no story choices as well (there was 1 at the end of the first game) and the first one in particular is considered revolutionizing how stories are presented in games.
What I do think is an issue is when the game presents you with a choice that doesn’t matter. Bioshock Infinite is the first that comes to mind as the game puts quite a few options front and center, but really none of them matter (except the very last one) and the game even implies that the choices deliberately don’t matter because “constants and variables”. Thus those choices, at least for me, detracted from the story because there was never no need to make me make a choice.
In that sense I agree that choices should matter, but I think a better wording is that if you’re going to have choices make them matter or don’t have choices in the first place.
Remnant 2 is brilliant at this and bad at this at the same time! The in-world stories that are told along with the environments are absolutely STUNNING! Everything clicks together so well and a slightly different story is told when re-rolling the map!
Main story cutscenes tell the worst story I’ve ever seen executed. (Worse than Monster Hunter World’s Handler story stuff) I’m glad they’re skippable on another run. Because literally everything is is some of the most classic gaming experience one could have.
There was so much promise in their lore!! I liked N'Erud the best but the rest didn't really lead anywhere other than that you visited, you did something notable, and then you left. Nothing really changed.
I would say if it is all about the gameplay, like Serious Sam or Doom, then the story doesn't need to be that important and dexisions don't need to matter. But if the story is front and center, like Baldur's Gate and most similar RPGs, the story and how choices impact the story need to be well done so it doesn't feel on rails and replaying it is enjoyable.
It gets super confusing when you do stuff in the wrong order though. Missing a clue because you didn’t read the right book or something but then randomly finding the end of the quest and everyone is talking like we know all about it.
Usually it recognizes it. Sometimes it doesn’t though. I’d hope those instances get patches eventually. Even worse though is when something triggers for something you didn’t even do. I’ve had a party member get angry at me for something that I did the opposite of. It’s a pretty solid game, but it’s not totally bug free, which is expected with so much complexity. Who knows, it could have just been a cosmic ray that flipped a bit and not even their fault (though I doubt it).
I doubt that they’re referring to Minthara; you have to make an intentional series of decisions to >!murder a bunch of people!< in order to get her in your party. It’s relatively easy to miss several origin companions if you’re not the type that explores the whole map. And one of the origin characters starts with >!a quest to kill one of the others!<.
A lot of games do mocap on the face but what strikes me most about BG3 is how much body language the characters use. They aren’t an emotive head on a stiff body switching between obvious static poses. Dame Aylin isn’t just shouting at me she’s leaning into it, arms up, fists clenched and shaking. It really adds a lot to the character performances.
Astarion's mocap in particular is just excellent. He's so deeply weird and it's completely appropriate. I love how during most normal gameplay, his whole body is constantly on the edge between breaking into raucous laughter or total exasperation. Kudos to the actor(s) and techs that put the whole package together.
I knew having a Lucifer type character would be one of the more entertaining features of having a vampire as a party member before I even knew he was a vampire
Similarly, I feel like they did a great job in Horizon: Forbidden West. A lot of the animations are rote, sure, but then there’s facial expressions, like Kotallo thinking about Zo’s abilities, that are just amazingly human.
Gaming has stepped up the production in recent years, and the standouts are obvious.
Saying “gaming has stepped up” while praising the most over-hyped, bland-ass open-world action series in recent history doesn’t lend much credibility to your comment.
Horizon hit a niche that hasn’t been beaten into the ground? An Ubisoft style open world game with far too many collectables and garbage to waste time?
It’s not treading new ground from a genre standpoint.
But the combat is a style that isn’t really very common in open world games, and the commenter you are replying to specifically was talking about the story, characters, and world building…all three of which set Horizon apart from other games, IMO.
Calling DnD bland always strikes me as funny. It's bland compared to most modern fantasy for the same reason Seinfeld is bland compared to most modern sitcoms: it's one of the the foundations upon which most of the rest of what we've consumed since its inception is built. We've seen all the innovations upon its formula, so going back to the original can feel lacking if you don't bother to think critically about why it feels that way.
The important thing is that even without all those innovations, they nailed the source material and created the richest experience they could within its boundaries. If it's not for you, it's not for you, and that's fine - no game is for everyone. But it's a pity you dismiss it so flippantly, and I hope one day you can grow to see what's executed well in a project even when its end goal isn't to your tastes. Or just grow out of trolling, whichever applies. I'm not going to pick that apart.
Oh, you might be right. That's even odder to me then; I haven't played any of the Horizon games myself, but I find their setting premise fascinating. Is it so poorly executed?
If I misunderstood, my bad, but I'll leave it since there are people who rant about BG3 in a similar direction.
I have to say that I played Horizon: Zero Dawn, and after the first couple hours it felt very samey. Basically a Ubisoft open-world game with slightly better movement and combat. Haven’t tried the new one, but I don’t think any open-world will ever really catch me again like Elden Ring did.
That's a pity. Still, the setting (time period/tech levels/world population composition etc) is worth taking away as something good that people can learn from, I hope, even if they messed it up so badly.
It took me several hours to get into HZD, but once it hit its stride it really hooked me. The opening few hours are quite weak, IMO. It takes that time for the story to start to reveal, and for the more deliberate pace of combat to make itself apparent.
I personally haven’t played Horizon myself; but from what I saw if it, it doesn’t look poorly made; it just looks by the numbers. Over the shoulder “cinematic” open world game with that Sony trope of the protagonist telling you the solution to a puzzle upon seeing it.
If my impression is accurate I would compare it to Quake II or Blue Beetle, if you are already a fan of Sony’s style of games you’ll most likely love Horizon, if you don’t like that kind of game then there isn’t much Horizon can offer you.
“Why do we need writers on staff all the time? They can just write the story and then we can fire them! What’s the worst that could happen? We have to do millions of dollars worth of rework because we didn’t pay someone five figures to stick around 24/7 and modify the story to fit the efforts we’ve already put in? Pshh…”
You could. But that's also if it's the only game you play and you don't boot up Sea of Stars, Quake, Halo, Goldeneye, Yakuza, Unraveled, or what have you. I don't have a Game Pass subscription, but the math on it makes a lot of sense for a lot of people.
Yeah. If you play a lot of little indie games, and tend to only play through them once, it’s an absurd bargain.
It’s also great in that you can try a lot of stuff without having to research it at all first, so you get really nice surprises sometimes. And you can try things risk-free, so sometimes I’ll try something I wouldn’t have expected to like and wouldn’t have bought and be pleasantly surprised. It can open up entire genres to people this way, as an intro to different types of games.
I do tend to buy a month or two, drop out, then buy another month when the catalogue is different though.
In this scenario above, playing Starfield and it being too enormous to finish in a month or two, you'd hardly have any time to enjoy these other games either.
You could spend all of your free time for one month playing Starfield and have finished it for $17. You could functionally "rent" 17 games for $1 each to get a feel for each of them, one of them being Starfield, to decide which ones you want to stick with. You could beat two smaller games each month and spend the rest of your time playing Starfield, and four months later still come out ahead of the $70 Starfield would have cost you. There are lots of ways that math works out for you to come out ahead.
Baldur's Gate 3 came out less than a month ago, and I already know at least two people on my friends list who've beaten it, plus several others who put over 60 hours into it in the past two weeks, according to Steam. There are plenty of people who could get through Starfield in one month for $17.
Looking at my game purchases a year and as a pretty heavy gamer, I come out just over the cost of game pass. Big thing is that I get to keep my games without needing to re-up the subscription.
Yeah right now when there’s a lot of games coming out it seems great, but middle of COVID I remember nothing was coming out, and I would have had to keep paying for the games I had already played.
$9.99 for a month of gamepass PC, or $10.99 for console (ultimate you’re paying for cloud access or online play, so it’s a disingenuous comparison) You can play starfield for a month, then buy it for 20% off through gamepass, so $55.99. $55.99+10.99 = $66.98.
So you basically get a $11 month-long trial, then $2 off the full price if you decide you like it enough to keep.
eurogamer.net
Gorące