It’s definitely not a publicity stunt. I don’t know if you’ve ever played the game, but it is soul-crushingly grindy because leveling is the game. It’s been around for almost 20 years and every year they make it more and more pay to win.
So why didn’t he stop playing at level 100 or 200 or whatever but waited with this rant until almost level 300 in a stream with large attention? Pure coincidence? To me it looks like he wanted to go out with a bang and rage bait.
The game has exponential level growth. The amount of time it takes to go from level 1-250 is like the same as the time it takes to go 298-299…everyone has a breaking point.
Edit: The article specified that he was leveling at about .065% per hour at the end. That’s over 1500 hours to go from level 299 to 300.
No, I dont and if you truly need to be pedantic a logarithmic curve makes even less sense. It’s a generally linear experience curve with each level being about 20-30% more than the previous, but the number get exceptionally large after a while. Level requirements aren’t scaled based on time required, they’re scaled on number of experience points required.
Edit: Sorry for the Reddit link but the image is too high res to attach in a comment. Exp Curve Visualization
Seriously. Why do gamers spend thousands of hours on games they hate. Life’s full of shit to do. Go play something else. Or, God forbid, touch some grass. Why waste the little time you have on earth doing something you don’t like.
Why do gamers spend thousands of hours on games they hate.
It's because that "hate" comes from a place of love, and isn't really hate at all. From the outside, it can be hard to understand, but the people who hate certain games the most are usually the biggest fans. They hate seeing squandered potential when something they love gets ruined by updates.
They don't hate the game, itself. They love the game, and they love what it could be under different circumstances. They love the memories they've had with the game, the connections they've made, the experiences they've shared. The "hate" they seem to have isn't really hate at all; it's passion. They love the game and want to see it in a better state. That's why they're so hyper critical, because they care the most.
Yup exactly. They see wasted potential, and that pisses them off. Because there’s something they truly want to enjoy, so watching the devs make seemingly dumb decisions can be incredibly frustrating.
Which is basically the same situation as being in an abusive relationship.
And all the people who keep coming back, knowing it will never actually improve, are ultimately deluding themselves in some kind of way, and are too addicted to want to stop, or too immature or stupid to realize that dedicating a ton of time and energy to something that on net lets you down or harms you is not a healthy way to live.
Try telling that to a Warthunder player, or League of Legends, or anything like that.
They know the games are ruining their lives but uh sunken cost fallacy.
Its always amazed me that people can become addicted to an actual negative experience that has many negative side effects… but half (more?) The games industry is built on that these days.
They’re addicted to the high of winning, which happens at random intervals. That’s the core of gambling addiction and MOBA addiction. They will win again… eventually. So they keep playing even though losing sucks.
“Over here [in Heroic] it’s free-to-play friendly, by a considerable margin,” niru begins, talking over a graphic showing the player distribution between the world types, with Heroic leading in global MapleStory by some margin. “Pay-to-win is accepted here [in Interactive World], but the free-to-play experience is awful and that’s what needs to be improved right now.”
(Edit: it’s not made clear in that quote so I’ll just mention it here, they play in an Interactive world)
I get addiction is real and it’s not easy to quit for some people. What I don’t get is that the game apparently has a different world type that is just better and he’s actively choosing not to play it instead. That’s like picking to play P2W poker where you can buy better hands and then complaining that it’s not fun when you could just go play real poker at the next table instead. At some point I just lose a lot of my sympathy for them.
I play a lot of single player shooters. One thing they all have in common is that I know they exist, which I’m thinking could potentially be part of the problem with this one. Based on reactions in this thread it seems like a lot of people are in the same position I’m in, where the first they hear of the game is when it’s being pronounced a flop. I’m getting big The Producers vibes.
Starfield has it’s negatives for sure, but he has a point about what the communities have been like (including here on Lemmy).
There have been so many armchair gamedevs who overnight know intricacies of engines, how programming works, how 8 year old computers should be able to run brand new AAA titles at 120fps. It’s been just exhausting reading these conversations.
For example, one thing I read again and again was “Starfield just wasn’t optimized, they easily could have reduced memory and bumped framerates”. Which any actual programmer will immediately feel a pit of dread in their stomach because we’ve been asked to reduce ram usage or speed something up, and that is a daunting task in our simple little apps - let alone a major AAA game.
Again I’m not saying Starfield was perfect. It has a lot of flaws, biggest one for me is that it felt like a game that came out 10 years ago in terms of how it played. But it didn’t deserve the overall destruction it received online. Any developer knows that the only people who can say “how” their game could have been done better were the ones who actually wrote it.
For example, one thing I read again and again was “Starfield just wasn’t optimized, they easily could have reduced memory and bumped framerates”. Which any actual programmer will immediately feel a pit of dread in their stomach because we’ve been asked to reduce ram usage or speed something up, and that is a daunting task in our simple little apps - let alone a major AAA game.
This thing in particular was picked apart by actual devs in news articles and editorials that showed that Bethesda really didn’t optimize the game at all along with all the technical reasoning and proof showing how it could have been improved.
It’s not just the players, who for the most part, have been citing those articles when they make that particular critique. I mean, shit, they haven’t even used their own texture compression system for the last few games they made, and that’s so easy even someone with minimal modding knowledge can fix because the game already has the tools to make it work better.
Please share these articles you speak of. From developers with real world game dev experience. Without pointing me to some 2 hour rambling YouTube video.
And do you seriously think that someone with minimal modding knowledge can “fix” texture compression and the actual devs of the game hadn’t known or thought of doing so too? Say what you will about the Starfield producers and management but I absolutely 100% guarantee you if they chose not to use that feature, it was for very good reasons.
Say what you will about the Starfield producers and management but I absolutely 100% guarantee you if they chose not to use that feature, it was for very good reasons.
Not the original commenter, but this whole argument you put here falls completely on it’s face since we know that modders HAVE done this and haven’t had any issues (or at the very least have been able to solve said issues), if compressing the textures and whatnot actually broke the game then the modders wouldn’t have been able to do it without breaking the game
Even if they supposedly had a reason, then it was a bad one
When some rando with a mod package plugging into an undocumented ABI can dramatically improve the performance... Yeah, it's not optimized at all. Don't let them excuse themselves from due diligence.
To be fair, this is an old, old engine with several generation defining blockbusters making use of it. Not to mention the massive modding communities who’ve probably spent more collective hours fighting with the engine over the past few years than Bethesda has.
It’s honestly a really well polished game and I’ve only had a very small handful of bug encounters. Its less buggy than curent patches of FO4 and Skyrim
My biggest common Bethesda glitches so far was ONCE, one of the NPCs had the white squares attached to her hair and played miss sparkle for our conversation and then the occasional alien getting caught on geometry and then vibrating because the engine didn’t know what to do. Outside of that it’s been remarkably bug-free so far. Oh, I’m 30 hours in too!
Yeah, i found a couple of crates that decided to co exist in the same location as my most bethesda bug so far. I have had 1 quest fail to progress at one point but a quit out and load an earlier autosave fixed that.
Ironically I think BG3 is buggier than Starfield on release.
I’ve experienced a few instances of bethesda jank, but nothing game breaking or even requiring a reload in ~55 hours of play. Just silly things like bodies getting stuck in a ceiling after an explosion. My SO is playing BG3 and has been getting CTD’s and other more egrigious bugs since hitting act 3.
What game did Blizzard try this with? I’m just too ignorant about their games beyond Warcraft and Diablo, or was it that WoW add-on that killed WoW popularity back in the days?
So, they were right about knowing better, after all 😉
I actually think that this is a marketing fallacy some (?) big corporations use to create a self fulfilling prophecy of what people want. Wery rarely is it really a novel thing that just requires users to understand how good it is, very often it’s just gaslighting
This is the classic problem with all paradox games that I don’t really have a solution for. Like as players we want them to support the game for a long time and keep updating it, but unless that’s through dlcs then they can’t really do that without getting paid somehow. The other alternatives are just not doing any updates and releasing a full new game every couple years which would probably have less features added compared to doing dlcs. Or having a subscription that you pay to get new updates which while I’m personally fine with I know a lot of people aren’t. So that just leaves the current strategy of constantly doing dlcs and every once in a while releasing a new game and bringing over as many dlc features as they can to the new one while not making the development time unreasonable.
They could make games outside newer versions of the same game. Game studios used to (and many still do) make a game, put it out, then get started making a whole different game. Even with the modern ability to update games,
Put game out
Update game to deal with unforeseen bugs found once the masses have access
But they point the comment above is making is that the years of support add a bunch of features that wouldn’t exist otherwise. Sure, they could just not. Why would they do that though if they have a team who knows how to work on a thing and people willing to pay for it.
For example, BG3 exists because the studio continued to make games in the same style in the same engine for a very long time. They became absolute experts in it, and continuously improved their tools and techniques. You don’t get that by constantly making new different games.
To be honest, I’d prefer for them to keep expanding a game I like. That’s what kept me playing SC1 for the past 65 years (or however long it has been since the game has been released).
That’s the FIFA, Madden model… release a game, fix a couple things, improve a thing here and there, pull a new roster in and voilà! This year’s new sports game.
Yeah people don’t seem to be understanding that this is a technical and pragmatic issue, not a business decision.
It’s the “new and improved” problem. If it’s new, it’s not improved. And if it’s improved, it’s not new.
If you want a new, cutting edge game, you aren’t just improving the old game. So the old stuff likely won’t be compatible.
If you want an improvement/extension of the old game, you won’t be getting a shiny new game.
They made the choice to make a shiny new game but they need to try to prevent the inevitable backlash from people being upset that they’re favorite X/Y/Z is missing.
Yeah it’s very different these days. In the past DLC was just content (like extra levels) and people don’t expect that in the new game (maybe more levels than when the first game came out), but now DLC usually adds features as well as levels and people want all the features in the new game too.
You’re saying remake all the DLCs and not have people pay for it I assume. How the hell are they going to afford that? That’s not mentioning they might not want to make identical DLCs, and many of the features from them are included in vanilla now.
When did I say that? I just let you know Paradox aren’t the developers like you seem to think. They still need to keep the lights on though. Honestly, tiny indie devs can afford to do crazy things because there are a lot fewer people on the line who need to get paid. The larger the studio, the more careful they have to be. An indie game can run on passion alone.
I have access too and it looks like online matchmaking is not optional in this one. It’s going to be a hard pass from me especially when randos can’t get past the first mission on the easiest difficulty.
Also the gunplay is not great, the iron sights feel awful to use especially.
You can ready up the second you get into an empty lobby, but I don't see any way to just simply choose single player.
That means that if their matchmaking system is down, you don't get to play. And funny enough, their matchmaking system was down all night last night.
My overall largest gripe though is that in PD2, I love how if you are accurate with headshots, helmets pop with a single tap and you can just mow through 30 cops in seconds. In PD3, its taking me 2 to 5 headshots after the first wave. On the easiest setting.
Not surprising given Take-Two's history when it comes to trademark disputes. I'm pretty sure they went after the developers of It Takes Two because of the name, plus any random business that has Rockstar in the name.
It’s already kinda annoying not to have all the old content but I can see the reasons behind that. But a new game starting from scratch of a genre they are experienced with should have much better performance now that there aren’t all those additional mechanics. Failing at both of these is just an utter disregard to their customers.
Well the game is out and luckily the rumors weren’t true.
With a medium-density city, I get about 40 FPS @ 4K in the sequel. With the same-sized city, I used to get 20 FPS in the original, so twice the FPS is a massive improvement IMO. But people are still salty cause we live in a world where anything less than 60 FPS @ 1440p is unacceptable. Which is stupid as fuck cause you don’t need 240+ FPS in a city-building game with next to no action in it that would require such a high framerate.
gamesradar.com
Ważne