I need to get back to playing W3. It seems like a great game by all accounts. But, I will not be purchasing another game from CDPR until at least 6 months post-release given the state of CP2077. Not only was it released in an unacceptable state, it wasn’t the game that was promised. There have been so many good games released between last year and this year, I can wait until ~2030 if they need to take their time polishing it and making it a complete experience.
Not only that, but their PR person gaslighting people with the article claiming that the game wasn't bad, it was just "cool to hate" has left a really bad taste in my mouth. The game could be absolutely amazing now and the expansion pack could be the game that we were always promised, but the experience and the follow-up has been so bad that I'm similarly waiting until post launch (heck, perhaps even until GOTY with included DLC) for any future CDPR games.
I personally couldn’t make it past the “no object permanence” issue, where NPC’s would just spawn into and out of existence depending on where the camera was pointing. It was like a magician brought a clear cloth to the table to perform a trick, and we could see how the trick was performed the entire time. It doesn’t make his performance less impressive, but it sure would make it less immersive.
Not rendering != despawn entities and respawn entirely new entities every time your camera changes direction. They also advertised it as NPC’s each having their own unique routines, etc. Talk about overpromising and underdelivering. This broke immersion too much for me to play the game. The second I hit the city and saw how NPC’s were handled, I was done. It’s unfortunate, because I thought the map design, sound, graphics, and gunplay all seemed really good.
Unpopular opinion: I liked the characters and lore a lot, but I found that the sloppy controls and sluggish movement made the world frustrating to interact with, and most of the encounters were so repetitive that I was bored before long. I ended up switching to easy mode so I could finish the story without having to spend much time on the tedious gameplay.
IMHO, if you were to rush through W3 in story mode and skip the side quests, just to get the background before playing W4, I don’t think you’d be missing much.
I have only played a few hours, but I recall what I thought was a side quest involving pigs, which was a great quest. Are you suggesting that memorable side quests are infrequent and can/should be skipped?
I actually found the side quests’ writing pretty good, and indeed, sometimes even memorable. Unfortunately, most of those quests share a handful of nearly identical tasks, so the good writing started to feel like little more than window dressing before long.
The map encounters were worse, though: Lots of question marks telling me exactly where to go meant there was nearly no real exploration to be had in this open world, and arriving at them led to the same copypasta events over and over again. If you happen to enjoy those events enough that you can’t get enough of them, then that’s great, but I was bored after the first dozen or so. (Skyrim was far better in this department.)
I remember liking a lot of the main quests, and the characters, and the story, and the world building. It’s just that the bulk of the gameplay felt like filler content, with forgettable combat and awkward controls. (I swear, Geralt, if you plod forward one more time when I pull back on the stick, or let one more candle get in the way when I try to interact with something useful, I’m gonna smack you.)
I hope Witcher 4 maintains (or even improves upon) the writing quality of its predecessor, and adds responsive controls and interesting gameplay beyond the main plot points.
You realize cyberpunk wasn’t the only game they’ve made that needed fixed after release right? Both W1 and 2 had enhanced edition patches to fix the broken shit in both games. W1 was a 7/10 game on release by multiple outlets. W3 was the first game they actually took their time with and delayed multiple times to avoid the enhanced edition patches. Anyone who thought cyberpunk was going to be flawless on release was breathing in that hopium.
Bagging seems like it should be a valid strategy, let yourself go to the back of the pack to get better items, but run the risk of not being able to catch up.
Knocking opponents off the stage is close enough to lowering their HP to 0.
Being slower than everyone else is the opposite of being faster than everyone else. It does seem like it’s cheesing the system that’s supposed to balance things out.
Even items in Smash Bros has a skill component in getting to the item first. And “rubber band” mechanics like bonus final smashes (and items in general) can be turned off.
Knocking people off the stage isnt the part that makes smash uncomparable to other fighting games.
Its the fact that its technically a platforming game, and a multiplayer game, which frequently incentivizes running and hiding from opponents, and has a built in random trip mechanic to fuck you over for no reason other than coin flip handicapping you, among a myriad of other examples of how the game can make the weaker player win.
I meant sub-optimally in terms of actually racing. Optimal speed would be getting the lowest time in the race. Bagging would be aiming to not get the fastest lap each time. I probably could’ve chosen a better word, my bad.
I’m not upset about anything. But isn’t this post about Nintendo removing/reducing bagging? So maybe some others are upset about that change. But it seems like a good thing to me.
Its also sub optimal speed to lag a bit so a blue shell doesnt blow you up, but since its a mario style cartoonish video game you often find that the optimal play isnt to have the smallest or biggest number at all times.
I would say any change that makes mario cart less like mario cart and more like other racing games is a change that makes a worse game. A racing game that involves more strategy than the rest is more interesting than a racing game thats just more cartoony.
I think lagging behind for OP items is less interesting than a skill-based race.
In a party environment, those OP items are great. Bullet Bills help the new player spice up the friendly environment. But if the pro is lagging behind specifically to get OP items, I think that makes it less fun and less interesting.
Bethesda, simply put, doesn’t know how to react to criticism. Instead of taking this feedback and improving their product they double-down and insist that you should like it because they said so. If it’s boring it’s boring man. They are simply as disconnected as possible. Remember the whole canvas bag fiasco? Then they said “ah, canvas costs too much, we aren’t planning on doing anything with the nylon one”… deal with it in other words. Then they were puzzled why people disliked them to all hell.
I can’t believe how ignorant you are of the worldwide canvas shortage of 2018. Canvas became a global strategic resource. Lack of canvas destabilized numerous nation states.
The idea of frivolously wasting that precious canvas on a video game trinket is frankly offensive.
Yup. And shitty plastic shell for the rum. Then people who requested refund got their info and CC numbers leaked by their system which they took offline immediately.
I’m not 100% sure but I think FO76 is maintained by BGS Austin. They seem to be far more interested in taking feedback and making the game better than the main Bethesda studio. FO76 may be fundamentally flawed but post-launch it’s definitely getting more care than Skyrim, FO4 and Starfield combined.
They also took class action lawsuits for that game as well, so that might be affecting that push to fix the game. But even if they fix it, doesn’t negate the fact they said they don’t plan on fixing canvas issue, or any problem they caused. Only when there was an outrage they reacted. Remember the horse armor for Skyrim or when they tried to sell mods that were included in previous game. I do.
Hah, that first quoted review is like playing Elite Dangerous. Really love that game. However, Starfield doesn’t have VR, so I’m not interested in going down that path. VR in Elite (except for ground ops) is amazing, and a spaceflight/sim absolutely should have a VR option IMO.
Starfield frustrates me, because in many ways its a major step in the right direction. It has much better roleplaying mechanics than Skyrim or Fallout 4, but at the same time the lore is half-baked and the skill system is fairly weak. It has great potential, but a lot of it feels toned down and less “real” because of it. Space exploration has a lot of potential as well, but setting every objective so far apart on planets ruins exploration by filling it with monotonous procgen.
That’s why I’m fairly confident that once properly patched, and mods/DLCs are in full swing, it will probably be remembered very fondly despite the release state. It’ll pull a Cyberpunk.
I think everything you said here is spot on except the idea Starfield will improve pike Cyberpunk at this point because Bethesda’s attitude really doesn’t indicate that they seem to admit anything needs fixing.
With that said I doubt many people expected Cyberpunk to do as well later on so you are probably right and I hope you are for the game and genre. I really like the aesthetic of Starfield and want it to succeed.
I’m just so tired of getting such half baked stuff at release.
One annoying thing about the “make your own stories” concept is that content us going to be recycled. My followers don’t say anything new or have new things to do etc because it’s all baked in but also on this supposedly open RPG landscape.
I would agree with you if Bethesda games haven’t always been saved by modders, rather than Beth themselves. If we had to depend on Beth to fix their own game, Skyrim would’ve been abandoned long, long, long ago, same with Fallout 4.
That’s true and what worries me the most after wanting Starfield to do good. I’ve been playing Starfield for a bit only to find myself moving to Cyberpunk sooner than later lately.
I hope it does and I think it will but again with the reliance Bethesda puts on the community I’m nervous.
Anyway I’ve gotten much of the way through at 100 hours and have enjoyed it - definitely got my money’s worth - but I just sort of hit a wall. To be fair you’ll do that with most games but it seems like Stanfield is just bland.
Yeah, Bethesda games have always been… playable, I guess, but hardly any good, without modding, at least as far back as Oblivion. Morrowind was the last game they made that was just good, out of the box, without needing mods.
So I figured in a year or two Starfield will be good, with mods, just like Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout 4 were all bland at best on release, until mods made them good.
100% I actually think Starfield has the best bones, even if it has the worst meat, so to speak, so adding meat gives it a much higher ceiling in a few years time.
The problem is that starfield is modern warfare III of Bethesda but people trying to see it as next skyrim, Bethesda ai generated almost all this game and looped it in roguelite shape, the only things evolved is mechanics as you’ve said yourself, and again as you’ve said yourself, this game will be saved by modders
Oh I’m anti-Bethesda and Bethesda practices, I’m just sure it will eventually be a great game once the community steps in and fixes it. It isn’t an excuse for Bethesda, but rather admiration for the modding community, and an example of why FOSS and a rejection of the profit motive is so good.
i dont know why people shit on bethesda for “letting modders fix the game”
i dont really know any other developer that embraces the modding community as much as bethesda does, and i wish other games had the same amount of modding capability that bethesda games do
I think it’s fully possible to criticize Bethesda’s incomplete and highly flawed game design and praise their willingness to support the modding community with great tools at the same time.
The world is now full of technology that used to have real names, but is now called AI so that investors spunk themselves as they high five each other in shareholder meetings.
Luckily only tried it once on gamepass. For sure has some interesting parts to it (I did like the ship designer) but it hit me on the second location I explored - this is pretty much a Skyrim reskin. The are randomised dungeons everywhere for no goddamn reason whatsoever, my goddamn spaceship can only fit like 5 suits… alright. Been there, done that, I’m out.
Looking for a re-release in 5 yrs with all the add-ons and mods, maybe I will get it then.
Pirated it but it wasnt worth the disk space. Tried it for a couple hours but it was so boring. I have done a quest for a bank where I was supposed to collect money. It went like this: Fast travel to the ship. Fast travel to the planet the person is on Talk with them. Fast travel back to ship Fast travel to bank planet Fast travel to bank. Talk to bank guy to get money. Next bank quest. Rinse and repeat
I guess I’m one of the few people who thought Witcher 3 was a bit bland. I was already getting very bored at Novigrad and at Kaer Morhen I totally lost interest and have been unable to pick the game up since.
What do people like about it so much? I’ve read all the books, and generally speaking thought they were good, so I’m not exactly lacking in lore either.
I liked the alchemy in Witcher 2 more but the game mechanics with 3 and the RPG elements were amazing for me. And on par with Skyrim imo. In some aspects I liked Witcher more like how it affected the world building based on your actions.
I played the full game and the dlcs. Only the 2nd dlc and the baron stories are good. Id suggest people just play the blood and wine dlc, its really great. The game isn’t very fun, but I do love the atmosphere and city design. I was totally sick of looking at wet horse ass. Gwents more fun than monster hunting though sadly
I really liked monster hunting as a potions guy. I felt like a real Witcher. I’d have to track them down, read up on them, then drink potions and apply oils that would be strong against them, then finally take them out. That preparation and build up made me as immersed as a Witcher as I felt as Batman in the Arkham games.
The story telling is what really did it for me. I consider witcher 3 to be the greatest game I’ve ever played. The quality of that game is still extremely high even to today’s standards.
For me it was too long. I finished it with all the DLC for the first time a few days ago. I generally enjoyed it but was also quite happy to be done with it when I finally finished it at around the 110 hour mark. I actually took a break after Hearts of Stone and played a couple of shorter games before I came back to finish off Blood and Wine.
I haven’t yet played a single player game that I thought needed to be more than 60 hours no matter how engaging or well made it was.
Keep in mind that the main comparison point for it was Skyrim, which was pretty much the previous RPG people got sucked into.
The story was pretty good and it had a good number of meaningful side quests. Gwent was also a lot of fun, and the Blood and Wine DLC was another step above to keep the hype alive for longer. The combat can get fairly involved without feeling overly complex. Rather than the blank slate of many games of the era, you play as Geralt, who actually has relationships in the world to draw you in.
Basically, rather than the unfocused sandbox of random stuff in Skyrim, it was a more involved story-rich experience that a lot of people appreciated.
That said, the hype was ridiculous. It’s a very good RPG, not the second coming of Christ. It didn’t really do anything new, it was just a solid experience.
It’s a very good RPG, not the second coming of Christ.
That just shows what people want. Just a solid game, playable from start to finish. Due to time constraints i never finished Witcher 3 and barely made it past the prologue of BG3. But both those games are highly celebrated.
They don’t reinvent the wheel. They are just very solid games and come without predatory pricing.
I remember going into the first sandbox, and then going forward with no xp very fast. Then it was just me being weak as hell and rolling around to dodge and using a cast to make a shield around me to avoid dying. Then I stopped. Load time were horrible. But I want to try the remaster on ps5.
Storytelling/quests that surpassed anything its modern contemporaries had to offer. Add in a beautiful open world with alright combat and it’s a hit in my books. Time also wasn’t an issue back in those days as I were still in high school when it launched.
Skellige Island and the two expansions were actually great. Blood & Wine had an amazing flow. Otherwise I agree. It was a rehash of The Witcher 1, but not as charming.
Unpopular opinion: Many hyped up games fail immensely at some parts. But due to the social group effect criticism gets drowned out. Currently playing Elden Ring and while it makes a massively great impression all around it shows really bad game design cracks after more intense looking, especially in the boss and arena encounter design as if they were inexperienced. Cluttered, glitchy arenas impeding gameplay, just annoyingly specific roll tells, bad hitbox choices and the requirement to memorize full boss combo routes like a multiplayer fighter add to that 1-2 kill combos and it is terrible at times to me not we the effort. I am at Leyndell with almost all available side content/areas done. Waiting for the obligatory git gud chads storming in.
Well, yeah… that is so vague that it cannot help but be true. Almost all games fail in some way (especially more complex ones), they can all be improved by making some changes somewhere especially when everyone has different preferences for how things should work and what annoys them.
And by definition almost any hyped up game is going to fall short of expectations. Hype is born by imagination and has no limits, but games are delivered in reality where compromises need to be made, especially when time pressure is involved. And by nature the more hype a game is the more likely it is going to be over-hyped and fall far shorter of the expectations.
I am wary of any hyped up game. Hell, I would be wary of any AAA game on release day these days. Wait for real reviews to come in and not what the prerelease hype says about it. And even after remember that what games one person enjoys a lot another might absolutely hate.
I would not say it is as broadly self defined and I tried to give specific reasons. Elden Ring itself at its very core is about the core difficulty and yet I had way too many deaths caused by jank (the difference on how much better my experience with the same bosses in a cleaner arena speaks volumes, or the terrible twin fights) , not just some side nitpicking on minor mechanics. And so many reviews giving it excellence and yet there is apparently quite a bunch of people rating it below many of their other titles as at the last part of the game the problems pile up to an even worse degree.
I do enjoy it for most of the other aspects and I understand and agree what it is why people rave about it so much , but I would have loved to see scaled down boss damage, especially combos and twin fights to bridge the fun-defying issues, although a different design philosophy would be the better solution.
Movement and combat in every Witcher game is so unpleasant for me that I find them unplayable. I’ve literally gone through YouTube “Choose Your Own Adventure” style videos of the games because the stories are great but I hate how Geralt moves.
Bethesda games are always boring trash. The real game won't even appear for another year or two at least (after the modders have finished fixing all the bugs, the horrible writing, the design flaws).
Compared to the average game? I don’t agree. Compared to entirely exceptional games like Fallout: NV, yeah. But you don’t have many options if you enjoy open world fps RPGs, and Bethesda games are sometimes the only passable option. I mean, I’d take Starfield over Elden Ring any day, because of personal preference, not because it’s a better game- but my own preference means I also couldn’t say it’s a worse game.
But you don’t have many options if you enjoy open world fps RPGs, and Bethesda games are sometimes the only passable option.
This is only true if it’s literally true that it has to be “first person”. There are, in my opinion, way too many 3rd person semi-RPGs with a vast, open world that are very similar to Bethesda games. It has gotten to the point with me where there are only so many games like this I’ll even play, because they’re huge time drains and they come across as basically the same game with a different skin or setting.
3rd person semi-RPGs with a vast, open world that are very similar to Bethesda games
With the “charm” of Bethesda game(that I don’t really know how exactly to describe) the only other recent games I can think of are Outer Worlds and Cyberpunk.
I think that may be right for first person only, but many games that are largely played in third person fit the bill to me: Witcher 3, Elden Ring, Horizon, and even the latest Zelda games to an extent.
I know I’m leaving many other titles out here too, I’m just listing ones I’ve personally played.
No Man’s Sky is even close to being on the list IMO but it’s not quite RPG enough to fit in the same category.
Players are really kinda spoiled for choice when it comes to large, open world games with quasi RPG elements.
I’ve personally grown kinda sick of the genre.
There’s standouts of course (I actually think all the ones I listed are pretty excellent), but all of them require hundreds of hours to complete and I’m just sick of the same game type after a while.
It’s not so much about the first personness of it. It is just that the only examples of games I can think of that meet what I’m talking about are first person. I never played Horizon or Zelda games(past the OG), but for the Witcher 3 and Elden Ring I personally never enjoyed them- despite genuinely trying, mainly because of the style of combat(an actually Bethesda games give you much more choice, but also more clunkiness in that) but also because of imo a lack of engaging freedom(or psuedochoice) in dialogue. Although, Witcher is definitely closer, but Elden Ring felt like an RPG only in that you had stats. Fallout: NV was not fun because of the stats, Fallout: NV was fun because it felt like you could immerse yourself and engage with a living world in a way that actually felt somewhat free. There’s a reason there are so many Youtube videos with premises like “playing Skyrim as chef” or whatever, it is fun to build your own stories, with your own character, in a world that it feels like they can genuinely interact with. FROM Soft games I think intentionally make you feel detached from the world, and the Witcher has you following the story of an existing character. The interaction and choice in Bethesda games is definitely often shallow, but at least it exists.
I haven’t played it but if that stuff is what you’re looking for I think baldurs gate 3 might be for you.
I’ve never really felt like the dialogue choices in any Bethesda game save maybe new vegas (which I don’t even think was technically a Bethesda game) had a lot of real impact on the game. In Skyrim I think there were maybe a handful of times that it mattered. Most times in those types of games I wind up exercising the entire dialogue tree because usually it lets you, and sometimes that’s the only way to get some side quest or whatever.
The combat in Bethesda games save some of the Fallout series is actually pretty bad IMO. In Skyrim, the combat doesn’t feel like combat at all and feels more like two characters swiping air near each other.
The thing that’s the most disappointing about most of these games to me is the squandered potential. At first there feels like there’s depth there, and if you try to get there it is shown to be a facade.
They have a lot of breadth to their games but IMO they’re as deep as a puddle.
I disagree purely on the point that what Starfield is, more than anything else, an amazing platform to make a mod on. Not a great game per se, but the setting and overall theme leave a lot of room for Bethesda to cash in on the work of others as is tradition.
I love that steam reviews can make companies take notice and is harder to shove away compared to other types of reviews with how it’s always there on the store page.
Hot take: Alan Wake 2 would have a lot of explaining to do if EPIC had a review system. My disappointment with that game was immeasurable and my weekend was ruined.
Hmm, I haven’t played it. I avoid everything epic store stuff (even though I would have gotten it for free, since I’m childhood friends with one of the devs). So I’m curious, what’s the problem? I’ve heard like three people say that it’s their game of the year already, so I’m curious what’s the issue for you?
I’d love to hear why, personally. Wasn’t a huge fan of Alan Wake 1, so the huge outcry for the sequel has been a bit odd for me, and would like to hear the other side of the coin.
It was a heart warming situation when I saw Blizzard’s game get mixed reviews. They didn’t release games anywhere else until now and getting a reality check was a much needed thing for them.
Maybe we should have two ratings? Saying its a flop is vague, yes it mostly means it didn’t sell, but why? In this case, I didn’t even hear about it there are so many millions of games. But is it a good game regardless? Is it fun to play? These types of headlines don’t really answer that and just push negative press.
It reviewed pretty poorly, but that's no guarantee.
I have to say, even with a good game it would suck to release something kinda niche this year, and the Warhammer brand means so little these days, games under that release through a firehose at this point, it's hard to know what's coming up, let alone if it's any good.
Well with Warhammer games, its 90% RTS, 8% one-offs like Boltgun, and the other 2% is the Tide games. They don’t like to take risks or move to far away from the table top and mostly leave that up to brave studios who get a license. The market is prime for a WH40K soulslike right now.
There's a bunch more than that, and many just... come and go and often people don't even notice.
I mean, come on, how many people on this thread wouldn't even have known this game existed if Frontier wasn't slightly higher profile than most devs working on these?
The 40K soulslike idea is... probably gonna happen eventually, I dunno. I'm not a big soulslike guy. Hey, maybe Space Marine 2 is good. Looks nice, anyway.
For what it's worth, what I really would like to see is a 40K game that is not about the space theocratic fascists for once. I should go back to play the Dawn of War sequel that nobody remembers happened, either, since that was the last time you got Eldar as a faction. And even then only because it was a throwback game to the first Dawn of War.
An open-world game where you are the target of the Imperium’s xenophobia and hatred would probably be pretty hot right now considering world events. But GW would be way too scared to make the Imperium the actual antagonists of a piece of media because space marines are their cash cow.
If that entire franchise's fanbase needs a sanity check for a reason, it's for that.
I know they look cool and they're easy to paint because of all the flat surfaces, but come on.
It's fine for your dark fantasy setting to have no good guys. It's EXTREMELY not fine for your dark fantasy theocratic racists to become the good guys and for you to do nothing to stop it from happening.
Honestly, the Orks may be the most intellectually honest faction in that whole mess. They mostly just like to fight and think everybody else is a dick. And they're right.
But nah, when teenage me came to the idea of haughty, elitist space elves in hoverbikes there was never any other option. But they're not the good guys. Nobody should be the good guys in that. ESPECIALLY not the human factions.
That might be where most people have a problem. This may be completely anecdotal, but it seems a majority of people want things to be black and white. They want their villians easily identifiable, they want their heroes as pure as the first oxygen molecule. That may be why a lot of fans seem to choose the Space Marines as the “good guys” in a galaxy where there are none. I’ll never understand it cause its boring, put that yin in my yang and vice versa. I want stained heroes and misguided antagonists. I want a pain in my heart as it tries to decide who to root for.
Those are even after my time. From the outside it looked like them starting to step away from "fantasy races in space", but it didn't intrigue me enough to pay attention and they never really became the core of the videogames because space marines everywhere, so...
I miss Games like Starbound. So much to see and do. Unbelievable good atmospheric Music under a Sky full of Stars while building you first Base. This was one, if not the, first game to give me a feeling of smallness in comparison to the Universe.
I also loved starbound. My problem was the late game became very gamey, with the linear planet tier progression to get better materials. Once I got past the progression and beat the final boss there was nothing fun left to do, even with all the base building stuff they put in.
I really enjoyed these “Space-Dungeons” where you could Upgrade your Weapons at the End or get a Terraforming Device for an Emerald-Forrest Biome or something like that.
ign.com
Aktywne