Because video games aren't for recreation, they're there to make them money. Tells you all about what the fuck is wrong with the gaming industry and why so many people stick to indie titles now.
I dunno, I’m someone who was fine with the changes to combat introduced in Doom Eternal, but was honestly really turned off by how much id was kinda huffing their own farts with the story. The first game had Doomguy punch any attempts at exposition. The second turned Hayden into an Angel, the AI friend into God, the demons are extraplanar aliens that are being used for energy by the angels, and now the Doom Slayer is some destined force of cosmic balance. The little bits were of larger lore were kinda funny in the first game, it became flanderized in the second, and now for a prequel I’m worried id’s managed to fit their entire head up their own ass trying to convince everyone how cool their space marine is.
Yeah, the exposition was part of what made DE weaker to me. Too much plot lead to losing the plot. The gameplay was fun enough overall, and I enjoyed a lot of the changes. But it was also too fuckin much keyboard ballet and pattern recognition for my tastes. If I want to kill something in a way that’s not the prescribed way, I want to be able to do that. But it became a formula and that’s not a playstyle I like because it bores me. It becomes math homework. Couple that formulaic approach with the fuckin massive swarms of unrelenting enemies and you end up having to fight like a robot. I preferred the 2016 mantra of fight like hell.
God, yes, I tried to get into the game twice and both times I bounced off right around the part where you go from Hell on Earth to a fucking high fantasy castle on some random planet. I’ll just replay Doom 2016 if I want to shoot some demons.
I have mixed feelings here, because on one hand, I actually do see where this guy is coming from. I’m a game design student on a degree course structured around live client briefs and projects for contests (ie, the stuff we make has to work for people outside the university, not just ourselves), and as design lead for the first project of the course, I was fighting with a member of my own team about design decisions throughout the entire project. Dude with zero capacity for empathy spent a considerable amount of energy arguing about how it was a waste of time developing the relationship between the characters in what was explicitly supposed to be a character-driven story. The words “character-driven” were literally in the brief, and right up until the last day he was insisting it was a waste of time focusing on the characters. So I really, really feel the Starfield design lead’s frustration on the “stop arguing about shit you know nothing about” front.
On the other hand, I don’t feel it’s very professional to air this frustration in public. If people don’t like Starfield, then they don’t like it, and the design lead complaining about it on social media isn’t going to change that, nor does it paint Bethesda in a good light. It just makes him look a bit petty, I guess?
I guess it all comes down to whether the product meets expectations. Players are disappointed in Starfield, and even if they don’t know why design decisions were made, it doesn’t change the fact that the game hasn’t achieved what it was meant to achieve. People that spent a lot of money buying it have a right to feel annoyed, and being told “I’m right, you’re wrong” by the design lead isn’t helpful. And if the project does meet expectations, and it’s only a few assholes complaining, then nobody needs to say “I’m right, you’re wrong” because the end results speak for themselves. If Starfield had been a massive, widely-loved success, a few armchair devs saying “you should have done X, Y and Z instead” wouldn’t be taken seriously.
Just because I don’t know how a turd sandwich was made and because I don’t know all that went into making the turd sandwich doesn’t make the turd sandwich taste any better.
He could have worked his ass off to make the turd sandwich, but it doesn’t mean we can’t criticize it and have to like it.
The difference here is you were having arguments with someone during development. It’s easy to look at a successful final product and say “that guy had no clue what he was talking about about!”
Bethesda is saying the same thing about their fans, but for a final product that’s not very good. It’s one thing to dismiss criticism during your process, but to dismiss criticism after you present your results is basically saying you are never open to it.
Yeah, I agree with you there. Sorry if the point wasn’t clear in my post. Like, I do legitimately understand where his frustration is coming from, because I don’t doubt for a minute that he and the rest of the team worked their asses off, and unfortunately there is a tendency for people who know nothing about game dev to think they’re experts in it (you know, the way there is for every subject.) But just because his emotional reaction to the criticism of Starfield is valid, the way he’s behaving is not okay.
And honestly, on our course we’ve had the “you’ve got to have a thick skin in this industry, because you will spend ages making something that your boss or the fans will tell you they don’t like, and you’ve just got to deal with it and fix it” talk three times already. Criticism is tough to hear, but unless what you did was so shit that it got you fired, you take the criticism and you do better next time. Seems like Emil Pagliarulo might have skipped those lessons?
I haven’t played this game and I’m not really apprised of what the players’ dissatisfactions are, as I’ve not been paying attention to it.
But as a working game dev, he is 100% right about that. One thing that seems… unique to gamers as hobbyists is how confident they are in their opinions and assumptions about the how and the why. It’s pretty frustrating. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the outcome. But 97% of the rest of what gamers have to say beyond that is toilet paper.
I haven’t played it yet either (waiting for the price to come down, and I’m largely withholding judgement until I’ve played it myself), but my understanding is essentially it’s not a bad game, and if it had been launched 10 years ago, or from a much smaller studio, it wouldn’t have attracted so much criticism. But it’s using what is now a very old engine (and a notoriously buggy one, which I can confirm from having played other games with the same engine) which limited its potential. My feeling is it was a difficult decision either way: do you keep using the engine that the dev team has spent the last decade learning inside and out, or do you switch to something newer with more capabilities but then have the enormous challenge of retraining everyone? I don’t envy that choice.
I’m expecting to enjoy Starfield but not be wowed by it. But that’s fine, because I’m fine with playing games where I go “I enjoyed that” rather than “this changed my life”, and it’s also pretty rare for me to really dislike a game.
But… yeah, definitely sticking with my thinking that I totally understand the guy’s frustration with the way gamers so often think they know more than they do, but I don’t think his public response is very professional.
I waited until it dipped below $50 recently to pick it up. I knew it was not being reviewed well and a couple of my friends were happy with it.
It is a pretty game, but it is not a good game by any reasonable measurement. The story does not pull you in. The main characters are not engaging. The big city you visit feels like its full of paper dolls wearing one of 5 sets of clothing moving around in ways that makes zero sense.
What really drove me crazy was that they pair you up with a bot that walks around with you but it gets in the way all the time. Its walking on top of you most of the time.
The biggest beef I have is that I have played all of the Bethesda games since Morrowind, I even beat that game. I don’t care that Oblivion is silly and full of dumb. Its one of my favorite games because of the story development and the characters and the expansive world that is full of life. The people moving in the towns feel like they are going somewhere. The towns feel like they are put together with meaning. Skyrim is a high water mark in video gaming. We don’t even need to get into that.
Starfield falls flat many times. The enemy AI is stupid as anything I have ever experienced.
Its not a BAD game, its just not a good game. The graphics arn’t even very special.
Consumers don’t need to know how the sausage is made, but they sure as fuck know if it tastes good. Ignoring criticism because consumers don’t know how the sausage machine broke is how you get endless news articles pointing and laughing at Bethesda.
The customer is always right goes beyond the literal words. Perchance it’s a lesson that needs relearned.
I’m a creative and a designer myself. My philosophy is that at the end of the day the products should be judged by its result. It’s unfortunate because consumers often do not truly appreciate the amount of blood and trouble that goes into works when creatives feel they deserve a break sometimes. Again, at the end of the day, providing explanations why the game is shit is not going to make the game less shit.
I completely agree! The guy can totally feel frustrated because he knows how hard his team worked, work that the consumers largely don’t appreciate, but he can’t argue people into liking the game if they don’t like it.
Of course they will. Don’t they deserve to be paid for their work? They’re making a fairly niche product and constantly making improvements to it. What’s to complain about?
$404 divided over 10 years is different than as a lump. But getting the whole bundle for 80% off because it’s been successfully developed for 10 years is value.
I always find this discussion interesting. I don't personally tend to play Paradox games at all so I've no real horse in the race, but I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the model. It's designed around people being able to buy the specific parts they want, and those specific things having a good level of quality / depth to them.
Like, if you're really into early 20th century Japanese architecture, would you rather have a single house thrown into a "kitchen sink" DLC pack that you can copy-paste over and over into your city with no options to customise or expand on that, or would you prefer an entire DLC dedicated to that style so you can build a full district or city in that style?
And conversely, if you're not into early 20th century Japanese architecture, would you rather have a single house in that style thrown into your DLC pack that you don't care about and won't ever use, or would you prefer your DLC pack to contain things you are interested in?
Maybe the average consumer does look and think "wow, I really need to spend $404.40 to be able to play the game" and decide against it, I don't know. But personally, if I see a game has DLCs like "specific niche cosmetic option pack #2" then I see them as not at all necessary, and figure I can play the base game first and just buy any additional packs I want later.
C:S1 is basically designed around most players not buying every DLC. You only buy the ones you want. Also, wait for a sale. $404 over the entire time the game has been out is also not that bad. Sure, buying it all at once it’s a lot, but the player buying every DLC has probably been playing since launch. Think of it as a subscription for new content. You can not subscribe and still get plenty of content (every DLC added stuff to vanilla for free), or you can pay the fee to get everything. If this is your genre, you want to give then money to keep making improvements. If they don’t make money you don’t get anything new.
I picked up I think literally every DLC for CK2 a few months before CK3 was announced. It’s was maybe $50. I think much less (although I already owned the base game and maybe a few DLCs). No one is expecting new players to purchase that at retail price. The sale price is the actual price for a new player. I don’t think it actually really scares anyone off. If you want a city builder, there’s only one option. You stick it on your wishlist for a sale and buy what you want.
The weird loot range issue, where if you’re not standing in juuuuust the right angle, you won’t be able to loot certain corpses or containers.
The fact that, outside of combat, controlling Geralt feels like driving a boat. Weird large turn radiuses, slow start and stop, etc… The devs did this to make his movement look more natural, but it feels like the game is constantly fighting against or trying to correct your inputs.
Combine those two things together, and you get a consistently frustrating experience outside of combat. Installing a ranged loot mod was one of the biggest quality of life upgrades. You walk near a corpse or container, and it automatically gets looted.
The combat can also get repetitive at times, and the difficulty scaling is weird too. But as long as those two things and still deliver a good story, I think players will ultimately walk away happy.
I feel like the repetitive combat is more a result of combat that actually encourages dodging and using signs rather than just standing still and slicing while the enemy either hits or not based on RNG, and the fact that in combat you truly are jumping around, dodging, parrying, etc. makes it more true to the source material.
The style of combat in The Witcher 3 also makes it so that if you do find yourself in a much higher level fight than you should be you can with enough tries manage to beat it. I had one playthrough where I took on the werewolf quest while too low level for it, didn’t preserve any saves before the no turning back point for the battle. In order to save my save file I had to keep trying and failing to defeat the werewolf until I finally got the hits and dodges just perfectly enough to defeat the werewolf. It sucked but ultimately it was possible to complete and not just by an attempt with golden RNG rolls results
Morrowind is the best. Oblivion remaster is better than skyrim (in my Morrowboomer opinion) and that was just refreshing a 20 year old game. I feel like there is a lot of hype for TES6 that it may not live up to, but surpassing skyrim is definitely doable.
Honestly TES6 has one thing going for it and that’s that Skyrim is over a decade old now so matching the scale and scope of Skyrim is much more achievable.
In my opinion when a sequel falls flat or is outshined by an earlier entry in the series, it’s usually because the studio messed with the formula for the gameplay, not because of a change in characters
Oblivion and Skyrim were both massive disappointments to me.
If ES 6 comes out, it’ll have maybe three skills - magic/combat/sneak. Any interesting/complicated lore will be retconned and shoved aside. (Why wasn’t Cyrodil a jungle? Where are my river drakes? What happened to Sutch? Where is my Colovian armor set?)
He apparently worked on Oblivion (and Skyrim), so there’s a chance. He took a chance on Starfield and failed, so hopefully he learns from that instead of doubling down.
I thought the same thing about Cyberpunk, they couldn’t make lightning strike twice. But in the end, once the issues were fixed, it’s also one of my favorite modern games.
PS5 game on sale did cost 2 EUR less than the regular price on Steam. I don’t think Steam overcharges me. It’s not like the game is cheaper somewhere else on PC either: …epicgames.com/…/banishers-ghosts-of-new-eden-f9e… (50 EUR)
Yes, but they sue Steam that has competitors selling games for the same price instead of literal monopolies. Even Apple was forced to open up to other app stores.
I’ll go counter-current here and say that it was a fun game. IGN review sells it really well, and I had fun while playing it. I’d say the main problem of the game was releasing in a year already full of big-name releases, and a marketing campaign that was too quiet - I’m honestly surprised it cost $40 million, because I only heard of the game by pure chance.
Yeah I will say, it’s painfully generic and I hate the MCU-style humor, but it’s not a bad game per se. It’s just in no way shape or form triple-A, except for looking rather snazzy.
The worst offense to me though is how there’s no magic in the game. Just guns with weird graphics. They managed to not make the magic feel like, well, magic. That’s the big flaw of it to me. Everything else is minor by comparison. Still, not a bad game, just not a good one either. At least for me.
The terms have changed a bit over time, but generally “AAA” now means (in the industry) a large studio makes a game with a large marketing budget. If you think of those games that are published by EA, but made by one of their smaller studios and has a smaller marketing budget, that’s “AA”.
Much like “alpha” and “beta”, the meanings are changing so quickly it’s hard to keep up with what the industry means and what players mean.
I’m so old when I started in games “alpha” meant a feature complete game with a few crash bugs, and beta meant no (25% repro, or whatever the studio chose) crash bugs and all assets added and working.
Now it’s basically “alpha” means a demo, and “beta” means they’re buying time for GM release.
Regarding the alpha/beta point, increase in internet availability and rolling updates probably made all the work in that shift. In the old days if you published a raw product it would take a hell of an effort to amend it. Now it’s just a matter of a user not plugging the internet off for some time ¯_(ツ)_/¯
This started happening when studios got bigger and marketing controlled release dates. By the 2010s or so, the actual devs had zero say. So some idiot owner would promise a game in 18 months, half the ideas would be removed due to time, and a rushed product went out.
“Games as a service” was just corporate speak for how to streamline putting out a game with less components and then adding them over time.
Coming from bg3, I had the opposite opinion. BG3 loading screens take a while but it doesnt load very much unless your loading saves a lot. With Starfield you get hit with a small loading screen constantly like when transitioning in/out of ships, buildings, planets, etc.
For me it’s not the speed, but the quantity. Docking? Loading screen. Launching off planet? Loading screen. Changing planet? Loading screen. Landing on the same planet? Loading screen. The only solution is to fast travel everywhere in an “immersive” space sim RPG. NMS and Elite:Dangerous have solved this issue. Bethesda needs to get with the times already.
This, I think, is the big open secret about the push for consoles to move towards pure digital distribution.
It’s easier to not have to compete against your back catalog for gamer attention, if you cut off end-users ability to access it!
Rockstar already tried something like this, when they released the Definitive Defective Edition.
It failed successfully, in no small part to the remaster being absolute garbage, but for the AAA publishers, it’s merely a small setback that they will try again in the near future.
Nah, I played it 2-3 years ago and it was totally fine. The only bug I recall was at the end with the helicopter sequence, and it was really frustrating. Basically, I had to set a framerate cap to 30 FPS to progress the game (60 might work too, but I needed a cap).
There’s one impactful decision soon after and then a cutscene that’s based on that decision, but otherwise that’s the end. So if you run into the bug and don’t want to fix it, just watch the ending on YouTube or something.
Rockstar patched out a bunch of radio music they had time-limited licenses for. I don’t think you would notice that, though there are mods to bring them back. Performance-wise it only had problems with integrated graphic cards under Windows in my expirience. Haven’t tried it on Linux.
The Assassin’s Creed franchise nowadays seems more like one of those slushy machines at the mall that perpetually move the same ingredients around in a neverending cycle of despair and stagnation.
I haven’t bought full price games in ages. Games are always released half finished now. Wait six months to a year until it goes on sale and they actually finish the game.
I honestly can’t remember the last time I paid full price for a game. Between free amazon prime games, epic games, gog, and steam demos/freebies: I hardly have time to invest in new games.
I used to buy Madden/NBA2k every year up until 2008 or so, now I grab one every five years at $10. Includes all the bugs from the previous version.
I have 1000s of games now and don’t have any time to play them. BG3 is the only game I’m considering spending $40 for.
I’ll gladly buy indies, breakout titles with huge reception (BG3, E33 etc), or games from well renowned studios that have yet to let me down. Anything else I’m fine waiting for a sale. With these $80 price tags I don’t see myself buying a AAA title again for a LONG time.
CDPR hadn’t let me down. Yet. Ultimately, they redeemed themselves, sure, but at launch… whew, there were issues.
Game companies CAN redeem themselves. Business wise though? Its hard to recoup that kind of shaken faith in investors, board members, etc; let alone the people you’re actually trying to sell to.
There are so MANY fucking games out there these days, that I’ll look at something new, and decide I don’t like certain elements of the gameplay, and just move on.
If a feature looks more frustrating than fun? I’m good, thanks.
I’ve played hard games on the hardest setting for the challenge. I’ve also played “easy” just to get drunk and enjoy a story.
If it isn’t fun though? Then what am I doing here?
I already spend 8+ hours a day on the computer and hate it, but at least they pay me.
yea, but BG3 didn’t release in a complete state. With that said, Larian has delivered on their promise and that’s really a good example of how a AA/AAA title can do early access in a good and healthy way.
servers ain’t free. I know ubisofts are a bunch of pricks but if you run servers indefinitely without generating income you’ll eventually run out of money.
Not every game is an MMO requiring vast server farms. A game like the crew 1 that is past it’s prime is not expensive to keep a few servers running for. It’s a negligible cost.
They could also put in the time to give players the tools to host their own servers, or simply allow offline play. This used to be standard for all PC games. They chose to do neither of these things in an obvious effort to force players towards the sequel or their other games. They should not be permitted to do anti-consumer things like this.
Depends on the game for what point scaling further gets difficult. I think Factorio can do near infinite with the clusterio mod and from a server host perspective it’s very easy to setup. You just need enough servers, the mod allows cross server interaction.
that’s a good point too. however it’s very possible they’re using proprietary code that’s used in other IP. Especially the core game engine, which you’d have to open source too.
It could be but it wouldn’t take long before it’s replicated in a way thats not propriety or just stolen by devs in countries where that means nothing.
They are a giant shitty conglomerate they will find 10,000 reasons
I agree with this, however, I also don’t think they should be allowed to call it purchasing. If you don’t own something, then you didn’t purchase it. The button for games like these should be “long-term rental” or something to that effect.
I’m okay with servers being shut down eventually, my issue is we don’t know when. If they want to call it a license and that it will be revoked later, well fucking plan it out and tell people. Did the game get cheaper as the clock ran down? Did the people buying 10 years of access pay more than people that only got to play it once? I’m pissed for the people like me that sometimes take a few years to get to playing their games only to find the servers are gone and they thought they were buying something (or at least licensing something) they would get to use.
Of course they would probably find that if they told people how long they could use it, a lot of people wouldn’t pay them for it (i.e. their business would fail without intentionally deceiving their customers).
gamesradar.com
Ważne