was with this threat looming that Bungie leadership - not Sony, according to Parsons - made the choice to lay off roughly 100 employees last month.
But the cost-cutting at Bungie isn’t limited to just personnel. Multiple current employees confirmed to IGN that the company has implemented numerous other cost-cutting measures recently, including a studio-wide hiring freeze, reduced travel budgets, elimination of holiday bonuses, keeping its annual Bungie Day virtual, delaying its weeklong company “Pentathalon” event to next December, and reducing numerous morale events such as cooking and knitting classes from monthly to quarterly. Bungie is also pausing or fully ending benefits like annual employee compensation adjustments to meet market rates, its new hire lunch program, employee donation matching, its peer recognition program, and gift cards for employees birthdays.
The WiiU was it’s own console that actually had interesting integrations with the tablet. The Portal can’t do anything like that since there is no second screen.
The CEO has to go because they failed to deliver? Right? I mean that’s why they get paid so much, to take responsibility. Now they will face the consequences of their failure! No?
In their defense, Destiny 2 did morph into a vast turd over its lifetime. Terrible story, terrible characters, repetitive gameplay, zero innovation. Gog is full of 15$ games with much more to offer than Destiny 2 ever had. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I mean nobody wanted this game in the first place, couple that with this sewage outlet and there ya go. They really had a follow-up game planned for this? Like it was gonna be a hit?
And thats a movie based on a legendary book. Hell yeah it made that much. Now turn around and say, “hey, bud. You know the split-personality leper following the protagonist? Ever wanted to be him?” Fuck, no. And it was never advertised as anything more than that. You have to relate a little to who you are controlling in a game, otherwise it doesn’t sell. Who relates to smeagol? People who wish they sold knives that don’t whisper to you?
Well, Smeagol is an interesting character because he is tragically relatable underneath it all. He was consumed by his greed, and completely lost his mind to it. His flashes of innocence and weakness make him at times sympathetic. But, then he reverts to Gollum and you see the consequences of his weakness, again and again.
That being said, being at times partially relatable does not make me want to be him, even in a video game. I think an interesting game where you play as Smeagol is absolutely possible, but that's an unnecessary uphill battle if I've ever seen one.
I mean, I get it from one angle - Gollum is one of the longest lived characters in LOTR. The issue is that even being 500 years old, he doesn’t really witness or interact with it all that much. Someone like Galadriel or Aragorn or Gandalf would be far more interesting.
Tsujimoto also went on to claim that a slow economy wouldn’t have a big impact on video game prices either: “Just because there’s a recession doesn’t mean you won’t go to the movie theater or go to your favorite artist’s concert. High-quality games will continue to sell,” he said.
Yes it does. “Recession” means you have less disposable income to waste on poor quality entertainment.
Most cinemas in my region charge $12 to $20 per ticket. But, there was one I found in Brisbane with tickets as low as $4. My wife and I would literally go watch movies just to sit in their air con.
Why not. 3 dollars for a couple of hours of entertainment is poor cost efficiency compared with what I’ve got out of some games. Don’t get me wrong, capcom don’t need to raise prices as I’m pretty sure they make plenty of money already, but cinema is not cost effective entertainment compared with a video game.
Maybe you should stop spending millions on overblown graphics, motion capture, voice acting, pointless story/cutscenes, and other bullshit and just make a game like you did in the old days then, Crapcom.
Come on. I don’t expect the average person to be an expert at this, but a professional animator should understand that the human face is a bit more complex than Mr. Potato Head. You don’t just slap a grin on there and call it a day. It’s not like this is some groundbreaking experiment, and nobody has ever tried to animate a face before.
I don’t mind encumbrance in Baldur’s Gate. I think people are only thinking of I got all this cool stuff why should I have to choose between it all. I see it as limiting cheese mechanics. It could limit infinite money by not letting people pick up every single item to sell. Or if there was no encumbrance why would I use tactics when I can just use barrelmancy? I have to fight these powerful opponents? Nah I’m just gonna hit em with x amount of exploding barrels till they die since I can carry every barrel ever.
I don’t like encumbrance, but I’ve never felt it negatively impact my enjoyment of a game. I didn’t even know encumbrance was this much of an issue honestly. It just makes sense in certain games, imo.
Edit: Could also be made a toggle-able feature or unlock?
“Would I like this game more if I didnt have my cool item right now?”
Hard to say yes… But in practice the answer might very well be yes. Challenge in games is rarely something you directly ask for, you want the reward after all, but often the fun is in exactly overcoming those obstacles, and not actually the reward. In that sense encumbrance might feel bad… but being able to grab every single item always could very well ruin part of the fun.
In the end games are sets of challenges presented in certain ways, and its just whether those challenges work well from a game design perspective.
Has anyone here ever thought “I would like this game more if it had encumbrance in it”?
Yes, I totally have. In fact even in starfield, I found pretty quickly that I was wishing the game would arbitrarily restrict my ammunition and medpack supplies, because the combat was more fun when I could run out of shots and healing in the early game. It’s not even the kind of thing I can easily do as a challenge myself because it’s so easy to pick them up and go “over”. I legit think starfield’s encumbrance system would be much better if it was more restrictive, so that I had to carefully choose my equipment and things, than the current “I can carry so much that gameplay is not meaningfully restricted, but not nearly enough to collect and sell all the loot I find”.
I posted upstream about the problem with encumbrance in this style of game. It’s not that encumbrance is inherently bad, but that most of the time in crpgs, it just seems to be ‘there’, it’s not in the service of any part of the gameplay.
I think encumbrance adds something really important to the game but it’s really delicate. Namely, I think the pacing of games is better when encumbrance exists compared to not.
What encumbrance does is force you to make some decisions about loot right now as opposed to later at the merchant. I have to decide to pick something up intentionally because I don’t want to have to deal with all this junk later. When I later go to a merchant, I only now have stuff in my inventory that either (a) I want to have on hand to use or (b) I think will be valuable to sell.
A game with no encumbrance does not enforce this part of the decision making on you. You no longer are required at pick-up time to make any part of that decision. As a result, players are less likely to interact with loot at all until they get to the merchant. At which point they now need to spend much more time sorting through their stuff to figure out what to sell or keep. In other words, the optimal way to play becomes simply clicking the take all button on every container you find and dealing with it later. I personally would find this interact worse as the chore of dealing with it becomes bigger and bigger and harder to manage with no in game penalty for doing this to yourself. Basically, players have to choose to play the game in a way that’s fun rather than being forced to play the game in a way that’s fun.
There’s also a second important thing that encumbrance adds to games like this: scarcity of resources. Not scarcity in a sense that resources of any kind are hard to come by, but in the sense that the player has to purposefully make decisions in order to amass things like gold or camp supplies. With encumbrance, I could still just take all every container until I fill up, but then I would have an inventory filled with worthless junk which might sell for much less. Or I might have less room for camp supplies. What I think most players will end up doing, though, is being more selective about what they pick up, enabling them to be more efficient with their sold goods and inventory space to prioritize things that help them succeed. Without encumbrance, this entire aspect of gameplay is removed.
Sure, it might feel bad in the moment to have to make a decision between two items for the sake of encumbrance, but I think the value it adds to the game is generally more than it takes away.
ign.com
Ważne