Yar har fiddle dee, 80 bucks a game just ain’t for me, yar har fiddle and fat, I’ll just fucking sail the high seas numbnuts publishers, good job trading the 60 bucks I was willing to pay for the 0 you’ll be getting from me now.
And remember kids, if buying isn’t owning, pirating isn’t stealing.
You do you, but to me 99% of pirates are just entitled parasites who’ve never created anything in their lives and as such do not understand why content has a price. For me piracy is only justifiable when you have paid for the content but are being barred from accessing it via bullshit like Adobe DRM.
But pirating shit just because you disagree with the pricing is entitled behavior and I cannot condone it, as someone who thinks I have the right to price my property at whatever price I want. It’s not essential to your survival so you can just not consume it and move on.
There are a lot of other reasons to pirate content besides disagreeing with pricing. I get that the price point of this game is the subject here but I doubt 99% of pirates are at a disagreement over pricing.
I gave the only instance in which piracy is permissible in the comment you replied to. When there are arbitrary restrictions on how and where you can consume the content that you purchased. But a purchased must have had happened, because that’s what entitles you to access to the content. That’s literally the only instance in which piracy is valid. I’ve seen all the other arguments and they really don’t hold up to any kind of scrutiny because games, movies and books are not necessities and you are not entitled to access to anyone’s work while everyone is entitled to price their work however they like. If you want access to the content you pay what the gatekeeper is asking for, and if the content is not good enough for you to pay for it then surely it isn’t good enough for you to spend the most valuable resource that you have on it which is time.
Setting aside prices, I’ve seen an unexpected amount of sourness directed at the first game. While the first game wasn’t a greatest of all time RPG and had flaws, I found it overall enjoyable enough and it was clearly a project with some passion that I didn’t regret sinking time into it.
I expect similar of the sequel, with hopefully improvements based on feedback from the first game. I plan to have fun with the game, and it is a bit tiring to see things like the pricing prompting people to badmouth the game itself when they are separate things.
Am I going to pay $80? No. No I’m not. This is a single player RPG though. There’s no FOMO of getting left behind on the multiplayer unlocks or the lore of a new season. It’s a singleplayer game. Put it on the wishlist and buy it on a sale. Simple as.
The expectation that it was an open world modern style Fallout game does seem to be a theme among people who didn’t like it. That wasn’t helped by pre-release marketing that emphasized it came from the studio that made New Vegas (despite the writers and game leads all being different).
I went in to the game without expectations and found the structure of the game closer to a classic BioWare RPG. Rather than a single huge open world it was a series of curated hubs to travel between. At those hubs there was space to explore but it was more limited and curated than a full open world. The more curated approach meant that the game could be designed with certain builds in mind since players would interact with certain areas coming from known directions, allowing alternate routes or quest solutions for different builds to be placed.
Accepting it as a hub based RPG that leaned into a specialized build made the game click for me.
I don’t think it was the lack of open world that put me off from it, as I’ve always preferred hub based games ever since Dragon Age Origins. I think it was just the writing honestly. I don’t like the whole “le soooo epic zany & ttlly rndm” writing that it shares with Borderlands. I don’t find it funny, endearing nor entertaining. It’s just annoying to me and it was everywhere at the time because millennial culture was at its height.
I wouldn’t categorize it that way at all. It extrapolated nationality to one’s employer and religion to the law. It was unsubtle in its views of classism and such, in a way that I appreciated, but it wasn’t just doing zany things “just because”, unless you’ve got a good example that’s slipping my mind.
I can’t say I follow you. I would call it satire rather than “totally random”, but if you didn’t care for the writing, you didn’t care for the writing.
found the structure of the game closer to a classic BioWare RPG.
Yes, exactly. It followed that formula, not Fallout. That probably should have been made more clear so people wouldn’t be making a comparison that didn’t fit at all.
I made it maybe 20 min before I un-installed. I don’t vibe with Fallout in general (but I’ll suffer through them) and with the writing style, just wasn’t my thing. Maybe the 2nd one is a bit more polished and I can get into it cause I heard good things.
Besides that I just kept feeling like it was “been here, done that”. I remember at one point there is a small village and you have to choose to pull their power source or leave it and it felt so damn familiar, I didn’t bother continuing much past that. I felt like if I hadn’t played a bunch of elder scrolls and fallout games it was probably great but for me it was so much retreading old ground I couldn’t stay interested.
…yup. I didn’t get far. I vaguely remember there were a bunch of other little things but that one drove it home. It was literally a tamer version of fallout 3 opening.
I feel like Outer Worlds at least tried to have a message. But they got scared and pulled away and gave up before the end. It starts way stronger than Fallout 3 imo. At least when it comes to writing and story. It’s of course not a SERIOUS game, but it tries to say something even if it does give up. In my experience Bethesda games are allergic to having a message or point.
The first game was like RPG soul food. It didn’t do anything new, the gameplay was fine and the story wasn’t bad. Nothing innovative but nothing poorly executed. I think people should look to the game as explanation for why Nintendo doesn’t make the ‘normal Mario game’ they want. Innovation is the simplest way to dress up a game, even if you like the loop it’s healthier if the sequel is different.
I honestly don’t know why so many game journalists and bloggers are obsessed with innovations, and judge games based on that. A game doesn’t need to reinvent a genre to be good and enjoyable.
They probably meant that it felt like a game that was stripped down and shallow compared to similar AAA “full price” games and I completely agree. After playing the first one, I wouldn’t only consider buying this new game if it was at least 50% off.
To be clear, I find this rhetoric pretty silly given that price has no influence over a game’s intrinsic qualities and vice versa.
I’m not arguing for games to be priced higher either, because a lot of that money likely wouldn’t end up going to the devs, but I think the price argument doesn’t stand either way.
Pricetag sets expectations, simple as that. It is documented that no matter the product, people have more trust in a more expensive product than a cheaper one, even if they are actually identical. And thus, people also rightfully expect more of a more expensive product. Let’s talk about cars for example : if I buy an old overused small one just to get from point A to point B, I’ll be absolutely satisfied if I paid a few hundred bucks, and absolutely not if I paid a few thousands.
Same with games, if I have a small indie game entertain me somewhat for a few hours, I’ll be super okay if it cost me a few bucks, and super not ok if it cost me 60 or 80 euros. The intrinsic quality may not change, but that was never what was discussed in the first place.
I think the equivalence doesn’t apply, because a car is a functional product and you should expect price to correlate with added features.
Indie games, as well as AAA, can offer similar quality levels at wildly different prices, so price doesn’t (shouldn’t) enter the equation imo.
Quality, possible enjoyment and my tastes are what I take into account when buying a game or not, not its price point, so that might be the difference.
That’s not what I’m saying.
What I find silly is to expect price to correlate with quality in the video game space, because you have Indies as well as AAA, with wildly different prices, ultimately offering similar qualities. Price shouldn’t come into the equation when talking about a game’s quality or “value” imo.
I guess this is just a difference in how we look at it. I have for decades now used what I perceive as quality/value to decide whether I should buy a game or whether it may be worth if later if it goes on a steep sale. For example, some AAA game that get polarizing reviews or is known to be very short might be an instance where I’d be not be inclined to pay full price because to me, it wasn’t worth the price. Raising the price of a game to $80 means that I personally will want more value out of it. I just bought a game on Steam yesterday for $20 on sale, which was to me worthwhile. If it had been $80, there is no way I would have bought it.
I’ve always maintained that the first was a fine game that was tanked by the price. It was priced to drive gamepass subs, not sell the game. At $35-40, it would have been received much better, imo. Years later, now that it’s more appropriately priced, it seems to be more well-reviewed.
Unfortunately the second is going down the same path. It may take 5+ years for the game to be appreciated to its fullest (assuming no glaring issues), through no fault of the devs.
It was a fine game that was tanked by the massive inconsistency of its quality as you progressed. The game starts out absolutely fantastic, but the quality takes a very sharp and sudden fall after a few hours, and then it just sorta ends not long after. It was a very weird experience. Definitely felt like something went very wrong during development and they had to make big changes.
I got it for cheap layer (I almost never buy new games) and found it kinda shallow and boring. I wanted to like it, I love the theme and settings but ehhhhhhhhh
It was hyped up to be Space Fallout and I did not get Space Fallout out of it. Even like… Space Bad Fallout. I just got mediocre space game.
It also wasn’t up to the obsidian standards we come to expect.
But then again i understand not being able to realise it was not a well written or designed game as a large chunk of people think starfield wasn’t that bad.
I know a lot of people hyped up Outer Worlds as a spiritual successor to New Vegas and were disappointed when it didn’t reach the same heights of writing. Obsidian not being given any time to make New Vegas and then missing their contracted bonus payout by a single Metacritic point was brought up a lot before release, and gamers trumpeted this new game as what Obsidian could have made without Bethesda mismanagement. Then it came out and had the temerity to be average, leaving fans acting like they’d somehow been betrayed by Obsidian.
It wasn’t Obsidian’s or the game’s fault that people decided it had to be a 10/10 masterpiece, it just got caught up in a stupid fanbase war against Bethesda and its reputation suffered when it couldn’t meet people’s sky-high expectations.
it’s incredible that pitchford is still allowed to talk. there should be a bot that auto-responds “shut the fuck up” to everything he says, tweets, or even thinks.
hey I’ll let you price this 80 bucks if you fully refund me for the scam that was borderlands 1. fucking unfinished piece of shit, i can’t believe i played that game for multiple hours hoping it would improve beyond the first.
and later i learned that i was completely right to quit that shit because the bullshit throwaway story of this “rpg” doesn’t even conclude properly. it literally ends like Geraldo Rivera’s fucking Al Capone vault.
fuck you pitchford. shut the fuck up and go back to “storing porn for the purposes of researching magic tricks” or whatever. literally never speak again.
Because just having two characters with the exact same lines is boring, Gerry has had 3 games now, I want to explore someone else as a character, with new motivations, character flaws etc
Let’s be honest, he’s only got 1 game. I tried going back to Witcher 1 and 2 after playing 3 and it’s impossible to adjust to the older game UI. Modding or tweaking it is also not worth it imo so I wouldn’t mind another Geralt game.
Snowflake energy? Na man I’m just realistic. I have never met anyone who recommended Witcher 1/2 online or irl. It’s always about Witcher 3, and that’s because it’s still very playable and one of the best games ever.
It’s the less extreme version of Baldur’s Gate 3. Technically, there are two other games, but you won’t seriously recommend games 1 and 2 to anyone.
I know you understand my point, and it’s easier to say I’m a snowflake rather than actually say anything useful.
I can’t play games anymore because of nonsense like this. I changed hobbies to writing Chinese poetry and watching ballet. The last Ballet I saw was Swan Lake in China. Absolutely beautiful.
gamesradar.com
Gorące