Also, Oblivion just wasn't amazing. It was fine. More than good enough, even. But it was also just unmitigated and completely ubcofused sidequest sprawl. In my attempts to experience all that it had to offer, I ended up feeling like I experienced nothing of value.
eh, i don’t see any reason why they can’t churn out another TES or FO like they have been for years. my problems with starfield were mostly unique to the galaxy map and space.
Because the MMORPG market is mostly dead, with rare exceptions that still can’t beat WoW and the rest is free2play pay2win gatcha skin fest fomo garbage.
As someone who’s played a lot of GW2 over the past couple of years, I can confirm that it’s still fantastic. It doesn’t get anywhere near the amount of content that WoW gets, but it’s on a good cadance these days and outside of buying expansions, is absolutely playable without spending a penny.
I mean even in the past when WoW didn’t have much competition this never really happened before. It would always go down over the expansion then spike up again with a new expansion. While this is definitely in part due to the fact that WoW has multiple versions now and new ones of those have been coming out helping this is definitely still a good sign that what they’ve been doing recently has been working to keep players around.
Wow, I guess I assumed that I misunderstood something before launch because it was hard to believe they would make a multiplayer game that needed 3 people but wouldnt work with two but here we are. What a move.
you can queue with a single friend, you’ll just get another random player. which is not ideal, but probably not back breaking either, unless there is some stupid way to grief other players.
some of the steam reviews made me think that i literally can’t queue with a friend unless we are three people.
After playing last night, it’s not back breaking to queue up but it’s full body cast inducing getting a “bad” third player because there’s no forfeit method and you can’t even intentionally spike the run until the first boss.
This seems fine. I don’t understand the desire to have an overarching chronology anyway. It’s pretty clear each game is its own world with little connection to the other series beyond recycling some of the same concepts.
It makes more sense lore-wise to just think of them as entirely separate universes with some direct sequels. Majora’s Mask is a direct sequel that takes place in a canonically different dimension anyway so they already introduced the concept.
It’s interesting in the same way people pieced together a story for all of the Pixar movies. But they are just fan theories that are kinda interesting.
The majority if the reason it’s significant is that Nintendo MADE it significant, by releasing that “official” timeline tying all the gamrs together. Then, the made BotW with a whole bunch of direct and indirect references to this timeline, and events in previous games. Then TotK threw pretty much all of that in the garbage.
Honestly, this behavior of responding to player feedback and arguing about how “it’s just because you didn’t play the game right!” is kinda unhinged.
It also, to me, really takes Bethesda’s mask off and reveals what their culture must be as a company. Based on these responses, they seem so convinced that they shit gold that they’ve stopped entertaining feedback or trying to innovate much in their games much at all. Kinda confirms some of the criticism I’ve seen of them since Fallout 4 and 76 came out.
It seems to me like someone in the PR department decided they needed to “try something new,” and then didn’t actually run the idea by anyone who could say this is a stupid plan. Someone on the community management team got a promotion and thought it was time to make a bold move, and they were absolutely wrong.
And development teams are too big. No game should realistically be having 500+ people working on it. That’s too many people, too big a ship to steer fast enough for the changes that happen in game development. Even the biggest games have done very well with teams of 250 or less, including all staff that work on the game, how about development studios pay attention to that?
I’ve heard this often, but most of the games I see people consume live updates for weren’t initially planned to get such constant updates.
Ex: Dead by Daylight. Released as dumb party horror game with low shelf life. Now on its 8th plus year. Fortnite: Epic’s base building game that pivoted to follow the battle royale trend, then ten other trends. DOTA 2: First released as a Warcraft map. GTA V: First released as a singleplayer game before tons of expansion went into online. Same with Minecraft.
It just doesn’t make sense to pour $500M into something before everyone agrees it’s a fun idea. There’s obviously nothing gained in planning out the “constant content cycle” before a game’s first public release.
Drag can think of one counterexample: Warframe. But Warframe is also 100% free to play and free to participate in every content update and event. And Warframe is developed by an indie team from Fake London who started the game with 120 employees.
Warframe feels just as riddled though with all of its different kinds of currencies and crafting mechanics. It may not have an egregious mtx model but the game loop around it still feels like it’s meant to. I much more enjoyed the game in beta when it was simpler. I go on it now and I haven’t got a fucking clue what to do, fumble around for an hour and just decide to play something else instead.
Warframe is much more fun with friends. Friends will tell you that you don’t have to bother with all the currencies. You can just do the story missions.
Oh, good news for you. They just released an update two days ago that separates the quests in the codex into story, side, and warframe quests. DE listened to player feedback and fixed the problem. Now you go to the codex terminal, you click on story quests, and it tells you what to do next.
Who is these people that want this? And even if they do. Creating a good game does not need 500 people. And if you want to provide content after setup several small parallel teams to make cosmetics and stuff.
But the whole live service is something the companies want. So they can keep monetizing it and turn if off once a new iteration is done.
It’s like they exist in an alternate reality. But then I’m fine with that too. If there is a market for that… just a shame that the hunt for this audience eats up everything else.
Another way to look at it is that the multiplayer market is the only pool of money big enough to support games at that level.
Maybe if single player gamers would be accepting of feature scopes from 10-15 years ago, there’d be a stable niche for single player games.
I’m in my 40s and only get enjoyment from multiplayer games. Single player just dries up for me in terms of dopamine release.
When I was in my 20s I was unsocial, heavily autistic, couldn’t stand multiplayer because I didn’t control the variables.
Basically, my wallet and my brain followed a coupled pair of paths. The version of me with more money has more need for other people in my games.
I have more tolerance for other people. But also I’m more lonely in life. Used to be, games were a refuge from the other people I was constantly surrounded by in school, college, roommate situations. I could just go be alone and have fun, and I needed to be alone.
And that was when I was broke.
Now, I have more money, and I crave social contact. I live alone, don’t have constant social overwhelm any longer. Games aren’t my refuge of solitude any more. Now they’re a way to feel other people without having to go out my front door.
I’m not made of money, but I can afford games now.
Probably a connection there.
My main thesis though is just that maybe the world of multiplayer gaming just has more money in it period. Maybe it’s only the world of multiplayer gaming that can actually support AAA games’ budgets.
15 years ago, no game had a budget with the same orders of magnitude we see these days. Also, 15 years ago the oldest gamer demographics were 15 years younger.
Which brings me back to my original point: maybe it’s not that the multiplayer games are somehow nullifying the market for AAA single player games; maybe it’s just that no such market ever existed. That the multiplayer market is a new market that didn’t exist 15 years ago, not a transformation of an existing market.
For me at least the correlation is that me having this kind of gaming budget is correlated with me having overall social isolation more than overall social overwhelm like I did in my twenties.
I’ve worked on a team of 12 at one point and I remember that being a pain to organize. Not that I was the one doing the organization mind you but it just seemed like it was a nightmare.
Crazy stuff… Ads everywhere. Makes my choice to not buy any console this generation seem a lot better. It saved me money and I don’t get ads forced on me. I call that a win win.
At this point, the distinction between console and PC comes down to the corporate side. The PS4 and PS5 operating systems are based on a BSD (probably FreeBSD but not sure), and are capable of running a desktop OS (as long as hackers find a way to bypass Sony’s locked-down firmware). XBox One and Series use a Windows-based OS, also locked down by Microsoft to only run the applications they want.
Everything about the Steam Deck is designed with gaming in mind, but in terms of capabilities, it’s no different from a PC. You could hook it up to a USB-C dock and use it for work. I’d sooner call it a handheld PC than a console.
I would argue that it’s a handheld PC since it’s not locked down to heck and back. It would also be the one thing I would buy but I have no use case for it so I don’t.
Yeah, same. If I were going to get a handheld console, it’s pretty much exactly what I’d want, but…I really don’t need another portable computing device.
ign.com
Ważne