Good, I hope this means we get even more turn-based RPGs again. I’m 100% fine with people enjoying the new action-oriented RPGs like Final Fantasy has become, but I love turn based so much more. I didn’t like that it felt like there couldn’t be both on the market. There is just something way more enjoyable to me about turn-based as opposed to mashing buttons and twitchy moves like I’m playing God of War.
I agree, I’m glad games like this (and baldur’s gate!) are enjoying so much success and attention right now. It’s better for everyone if we have a variety of polished experiences in different genres.
That being said I don’t often find myself enjoying turn based games lol. Even going back to the super nintendo, I massively preferred Secret of Mana (with it’s real time combat system) to Final Fantasy. There’s just something extremely satisfying to me about a well done action-oriented RPG, where you feel like your skills are improving alongside your character’s.
“Well done” is not to be overlooked, of course. I was quite disappointed with final fantasy 16, as it truly did just feel like mashing buttons
I never really liked turn-based RPGs until I became an adult with a full time job because they’re perfect for when I’m burnt and wanna play video games but I’m also too burnt to play most games.
I imagine there’s a lot of millennials/early gen-Z that feel the same way. A whole market that is just starting to be tapped
Final Fantasy moving away from turn-based because it's "outdated" is peak Square silliness. Have they ever heard of chess, card games, board games, DnD, Civilization, Persona, Dragon Quest, XCOM, Pokemon, Darkest Dungeon? If anything, DMC-style character action games are far more niche.
Funny enough Yoshi P was the one that said turn-based was outdated and he's worked on DQ before but only the MMO, arcade games, Minecraft clone and a Wii FPS thing. I think it's pretty obvious he just doesn't like the genre. DQ11 was the breakthrough hit in the West and he had nothing to do with it.
I seem to remember them being surprised by the success of Bravely Default, not expecting a deliberately old-school RPG to appeal to modern audiences.
The cynical part of me believes this is performative on their part - they know a game like that will be popular, but it won’t be the most popular thing ever and they won’t make all the money. So, they try to push bigger games that are more easily monetized in hopes that people will just forget their own preferences.
Could also just be their own tastes evolving. I used to love turn-based combat RPGs and the RTS genre but I’m kinda over both of them now. If game makers lose passion for those kinds of games, then the “it won’t appeal” might even be more of a “I’m not into it, so if I do make it, it won’t be very appealing” than a “no one wants this kind of game”.
It turned me off the FFVII remake, which is a shame as I really wanted to experience the original but in a modern style. I guess I may actually boot the original up instead; I wonder if there are mods to make it more playable.
I've got the benefit of nostalgia I guess, but I played through the original a few months ago for probably the fifth time in my life and still enjoyed myself. The main things that has aged is the ugly character models, this mod can improve those. Might want to look as some of these as well. You want to play through the original+crisis core first before the remake for... reasons.
Yeah it’s far more relaxing to play a jrpg with good music, nice looking environments when I can actually listen to the music and look at the world instead of focusing on the enemies tells and dodgeroll at the exact perfect moment. Nothing wrong with perfect dodgerolls. But I don’t want them in all my games.
I have the feeling there are like 20 turn-based rpg going out every month, it’s one of the most seeked genre out there. Sure, AAA titles kind of strayed away from it but the AA and indie markets are still very much into them.
Would it be so bad if games didn’t have insane budgets? Most of my favorite games from the past decade are from small studios operating on pizza and hope.
Lower budgets would probably be better. High budgets mean high risk, developers and publishers try to minimize that risk and you get bland games that try to cater to too many tastes. Movies suffer from the same problem. They get budgets in the hundreds of millions and you wonder what they spent it all for.
I can’t remember who it was. A famous actor, anyway. They were talking about what’s happened with movies. There’s nothing in the middle.
It’s either $100m+ or less than $3m. Either it gets a big producer and they pump so much money into it that it must be safe because it can’t lose money. Or is a small producer doing it for the love, but a small budget doesn’t go very far. The risky narratives done well would be funded somewhere between the two extremes but it’s just not how it’s done anymore.
In a strange way, to get more money in for the riskier productions, we need to get the money out of Hollywood. Can’t see it happening, myself.
You can’t? We just had a summer filled with high-budget flops, and now both the actors and the writers are on strike meaning that the studios won’t be able to recoup their losses any time soon. Add the reduced to non-existent theatre turnout in the first couple of years of the decade due to COVID and there’s been a hell of a lot of money “getting out of Hollywood.”
I disagree that a flop means lost revenue. This is an industry that’s so adept at hiding income to avoid paying taxes, actors, and every other studio worker that dodgy accounting is known as ‘Hollywood Accounting’. Maybe we’re talking about different things. When I say Hollywood, I mean the movie industry as a whole.
Hollywood has failed to capture some income streams. From theatres, for example, as you say. But there’s still too much money to be made (and too much propaganda potential) for enough big money to leave that the problems of monopoly finance capital go away.
High budgets are killing the film industry. In the case of gaming, it plays a factor, but greed is probably the main issue. Most big budget AAA games in the past made large amounts of money even if they didn’t have universal appeal. Because companies realised that they could make large amounts of money off loot boxes, microtransactions, cash shops and battle passes, they started trying to funnel players into games, mainly so that players would buy things. That’s one of the main reasons the AAA industry is getting worse: games need to appeal to as many as possible, while coming out as fast as possible, all so that players will buy the overpriced in-game items endlessly shoved in players’ faces.
I love me some good AAA games and want them to stick around. But I think it would be much better if they were a bit fewer and further between, and the big studios shift to more regular AA games, and give their devs chances to do some more oddball stuff with even lower budgets. More expiremntation and risky projects can only enrich the industry.
You never know what those experiments can lead too. There will be a lot of failures however someone is going to look at the failure and realize what needs to be need to be tweaked.
Good point. And it’s a lot easier to accept ‘failure’ (there could still be something learned in a game that doesn’t quite hit the mark) if the budget isn’t astronomical.
There are games like FFXV that get quite creative on a big budget. (Not sure if it’s AAA.) I enjoyed that game but some of the novel features bugged me a little bit and they skimped on some important features, I thought. Maybe there’s a better formula for trialling novelty than an all or nothing approach.
Yep. The final fantsay series was a bunch of lads in an attic. Now those lads are legends… with a fantasic legacy. Yet I’m still waiting for ES5 and GTA 6…
BG3 did have a pretty huge budget though. I would totally be fine if games took notes from BG3 but reduced scope a lot. Bioware used to make games similar to BG, but they stopped and now make garbage. The idea other studios can’t make similar games is wrong. They can’t make games this big usually though without publishers telling them they need to include microtransactions and other bullshit.
Black Isle was the publisher, Bioware developed the game. Baldurs Gate lead to BG2, which lead to Neverwinter Nights, which lead to Knights of the Old Republic.
Kind of! Though if we are being entirely honest, the real thing to blame is the head writer being replaced and the dev time cut by almost a year.
Personally would have enjoyed it more if they went with the Biotics/Dark Energy that Drew Karpyshyn had put down groundwork for, rather than the AI subplot that Mac Walters hastily slapped together for ME3 that directly contradicted ME1 threads and subplots.
True, but IMO the link wasn’t nearly as strong between KotoR and ME as any of the previous games in the link which were all clearly D&D based systems. ME1 had a lot in common with KotoR but there were some major deviations too as they moved away from the table top standard.
Yep, you’re right. I didn’t realize they were a studio at that point. Yeah, they have no reason to complain about new expectations. They could have created BG3 if they had kept doing what they were known for, but EA and the money were too good…
You could give studios unlimited budgets and they’d still complain they don’t have enough time / money to get things right. The rhetoric is that “games are just so complex nowadays” and that justifies their 4/5/6 year development periods.
I’m not seeing the complexity that warrants that type of long development period. The visual fidelity on some games is impressive, but is it actually worth that 5 year dev time?
Git off discord tho for game development, it ends up causing only the types of people who are really active on discord to interact and give feedback and I have seen that really send some games off the rails as the rest of the playerbase begins to get the vibe the game is being developed for a small sliver of the game’s fans (the ones on discord and really active).
Seriously. Definitely gives the loudest a place to control how games should work. And when they don’t get their way, they get loud in other places and make drama.
Any dev worth their salt knows to balance and weigh the feedback across all channels. Discord is easy for quick troubleshooting and frequently asked questions. I see devs have some issues with Steam forums because of the toxicity, but most still take feedback from there too.
Usually Discord is just a funnel to redirect feedback to an internal backlog though. Together with all the other channels, including in-game reporting tools.
Any dev worth their salt knows to balance and weigh the feedback across all channels. Discord is easy for quick troubleshooting and frequently asked questions.
I am sure most devs who primarily interact with their game’s community through discord believe they are listening to feedback from a variety of sources, but it is clear to me in every case I know of where a game has “join our discord!” plastered all over the store page that functionally the only place where your feedback will actually be taken seriously and get to the devs is discord.
That might just be the instant chat nature of Discord and how it’s easier to get a reply on there. I’m sure if you went the classic route of sending email it would be acknowledged as well, generally speaking.
One of the biggest mistakes I keep seeing devs make is listening to the no-lifers who live on social media. Especially the content whiners: fuck content, make the game work right first.
Speaking from experience giving the loudest users real time access to your sanity isn’t great either. Better to corral them into a slower mode of communication, such as an old fashion forum or use githubs “discussions” feature. Then you can spend your weekend on unwinding without a bunch of kids screeching that they’ve been ignored because you missed some message that was checks notes 200 paragraphs of back scrolling.
p.s. its 1000x worse when you inherit this kind of “community” from someone before you who let the monkeys do whatever. All I can say is thank god discord has that slow-mode feature now.
My wife got me a copy of Mass effect Andromeda as a gift once. She bought the physical copy (or so she thought) since that makes a better gift. When I opened the case, there was literally nothing in there but a code for EA Origin on a sticker.
Ea games are awful for this. I bought sims 4 when it first came out and had the same issue. It’s so cool that I can’t own games even if I try to buy the physical copy. I’m just glad that other companies haven’t been doing digital only hard copies.
I mean, do you even have a bluray drive on your PC? That’s why they do it, I remember having the option to buy San Andreas on one dvd or 8 cds or something, precisely because people don’t often replace their drives.
Game preservation is dying because of DRM. You want games you can still play in 10 years, pirate that sht and donate to those keeping up the good art of game cracking. It’s either that or buying remakes a decade later that are just thinly reskinned. I can live with sht like denuvo since newer games just remove it after a year and then I can buy it. Storefronts like uplay or egs that are dependent on a malignant profit only entity are at best mid-term rentals and at worst spyware you have to pay for the privilege to use.
Furthermore, if you don’t want to pirate: Buy your games on GoG. They are DRM free and you don’t need the launcher to play (GoG Galaxy is amazing though btw)
From what I gather, there is a real fear in develper spaces that executives will take the wrong lessons from BG3. They will want the same scope, choice, narrative, & mechanics but through crunch, shutting down smaller projects, & homogenized visual & narrative focus. IE all the shiny bits without the time, work culture, & creativity that came with creating BE3. It isn’t developers just being pissy this is their way of trying to stop their idiot boss from ruining their current project or making massive projects without enough time or staff.
So the answer is for the ones who make nice things because of a nice system they have to just stop because the other crabs can’t get out of the bucket. Maybe their beef should be with their idiot boss, not with the guys who do the work.
Whatever happened to companies learning from other’s successes instead of trying to keep others down?
The above post isn’t saying that Larian or other devs shouldn’t make games like BG3. It’s saying that we shouldn’t expect the massive amount of content and options in BG3 for every game
My bad, I have interpreted it as apologetic for the people yelling at Larian for ‘ruining it’ for everyone.
I agree that we should not expect this sort of quality from everything, after all Gauss’ curve applies universally and this is quite far from the mean as I see it. We would just maybe like… less shite.
But it’s not like Larian are the first to raise the bar. I remember the days when Blizzard was an awesome company. Then I remember Bethesda being awesome. Now it’s Larian on the spotlight. I may not have followed the news back when the others were good, but I don’t remember such attitudes around as mentioned in the original post, to basically discredit instead of leaving it alone.
I mean, we didn’t have nearly as much social media back then and a 24/7 news cycle that causes random tweets to be blown up into IGN articles. I think the initial tweet was just a random thought that got spun way out of proportion
It isn’t developers just being pissy this is their way of trying to stop their idiot boss from ruining their current project or making massive projects without enough time or staff.
Yeah, to the OP in the posted tweet... I did put a lot of thought into it. If a game that's just $60 can do this, then all new games are measured against it. Go compete. If your business model is outdated, convince your investors to change or be downgraded to B tier game dev.
Don't come me, the consumer, complaining about your poor ability to hedge business markets. You saw BG3 in early access for 3 years, you knew it was coming.
Nah, I’d rather they keep speaking like this. Makes it really obvious from the get go who I’m dealing with. If they speak normally, they might blend in
Naw it’s more like “we did something we knew would make you incredibly uncomfortable; but now that you’re screaming we’re worried about the neighbors hearing it and we don’t want the cops called on us, so we’ll back off until a more opportune time.”
At least for me, I have a gaming PC. If I need to dock it, I’ll just switch computers. Though if it’s your only gaming PC then it could probably be more powerful.
Yeah, I’m in the same boat personally but there have been occasions where something is being played on the deck and then the TV becomes available, leaving a moment of “is it worth it to quickly switch over and eat the performance hit?”
It’s far from a deal breaker, but something has to be the worst aspect.
The steam deck rode the balance point between cost, heat, and power extremely well, in my opinion. It was cheap enough to justify the cost. Its battery lasts a respectable amount of time, and it’s computing power was enough.
I can see how it could have been improved much, given the tech and use limitations.
Plus I am sure someone will bring up how with x86 you can play some game no one has heard of/extremely old, but realistically switch is the only actual multiplayer console left. I gave away my xbox s because literally the only game that I could multiplayer was an old xbox 360 racing game. Meanwhile I havent met anyone is 30s-40s who does not absolutely love Mario Party and/or Mario Kart
Just wait, Microsoft will release their own version with an Xbox launcher to have a user friendly UI with Windows in the background allowing you to run any Windows compatible games.
Ubisoft launcher: what was your username, again? Microsoft can either use a locked down ecosystem and limit game compatibility or face numerous problems due to problematic 3rd parties, giving up the console experience.
These things are just ultra compact computers, it would be Windows running in the background with a simplified UI when launching it, just like the Deck is plain old Linux in the background with a simplified launcher up front.
Is the Switch doing a good job? Drift issues run rampant and Nintendo never fixed it. For all we know, they might use it on the Switch 2 as well. Between pricey games, drift, and their shitty approach with ROMs and enthusiasts I’ve soured on Nintendo.
Thank god I managed to get an older version of the switch that could be jailbroken by shorting the right joycon slot. Best thing I did to mine. Too bad the drift happens to every fucking left joycon i have.
What really annoys me is that the screws are 3 pronged instead of 4 and they also feel stuck as fuck.
The real irony is that I bought some chinese knockoff that actually lasted longer than the fucking originals. Oh, both originals also stopped registering the tiny L-R buttons. Way to go, Nintendo.
I sometimes play Switch at a friend’s. After a few hours my hands hurt. It seems the controllers were designed for toddler hands. Is a steam deck better?
The LEGO games were better when they didn’t have any dialog. They had to be way more creative in their storytelling. I tried playing some of the newer ones and hearing actual dialog just seemed wrong.
The game is full of npcs that talk. With speech bubbles and all. The entire game design has changed, and mumble mode won’t recover that.
Also the gameplay itself is non-existent. I bought the new game expecting it to be similar to those of my childhood, they have nothing in common, only the name.
Games were definitely buggy and I honestly think people forget how much better the quality is nowadays.
I also think there is something to it just being the 90s or so and not having much choice. If you only have one game to play then of course you’re going to replay it to death. If I have a steam library of 1000 games then I’m much less likely to.
A lot of this is just nostalgia for the past and the environment as opposed to games being any better.
I mean technical wise, games are better now and could easily be patched, but I think that’s why games had better gameplay in the past to make up for the lack of gamer accessibility to patching.
You’re saying that because games couldn’t be patched, they had better gameplay? That makes no sense at all.
Lots of games had crap gameplay. There are more junk vintage games than good ones. The gameplay was simple because it had to be. The consoles didn’t have the power to do more. Chips were expensive. So they had to invent simple gameplay that could fit in 4k of ROM. If dirt simple gameplay is your thing, great. The Atari joystick had one stinking button for crying out loud.
You think Space Invaders has better gameplay than Sky Force Reloaded? Or Strider has better gameplay than Hollow Knight? You’re insane.
E.T. for the 2600 had gameplay so bad it crashed the entire video game industry.
Double Dragon on NES had a jump that was impossible to make forcing the company to make a new cart and give refunds.
I might be misremembering what game it was. I was just a kid when I learned about it. I can’t seem to find anything about it other than an impossible jump in the PC port of TMNT.
It’s a nostalgia thing - I don’t remember the games where I got stuck on the first level and could never finish the game (which happened). Or were just boring so I quit after a half hour.
I do remember donkey Kong country, super Mario bros, sonic Etc. Which all worked well and were fun.
Yeah quality has improved massively, maybe not the initial release but 90% of games i recently played were regarded as buggy messes on release. After years of updates they mostly work.
I’m unfamiliar with that game. Was World Games buggy or just bad? The quality the OP referred to was bugs, not gameplay.
Even the worst AAA game today has better game play than anything from 30 years ago. It’s the nature of extreme complexity that allowing players freedom makes complete debugging impossible.
Actually, OP very explicitly said to ignore bugs and was only talking about gameplay. Which is why they talk about extreme replayability being the requirement on old games.
I just realized you were talking about who i responded to, not OP. But still, they weren’t only talking about bugginess.
The basic mechanics of a game (eg. Mario) better be fun, and those first couple of levels better be fun, because that’s what you’ll be doing a lot. It’s similar to how the swinging in Spider-Man better be fun because you’ll be doing it a lot. But the it also has more complex fighting, side content, and a story. You can mess up a lot more while there’s still enough to keep it entertaining.
But people don’t remember the majority of games that were not very good. World Games was just a game that came to mind on the NES as being not very fun, but more importantly forgotten.
Hehe. World Games was an Olympic event type of game for the NES and other systems back in the late 80’s.
It was actually a well reviewed and enjoyed game, so I’m not sure why he decided to use it as an example when there were so many other actually bad games back then. It also caused a “spoof” game to be made on the NES called “Caveman games”, which did a similar game style, but set in caveman times with caveman events. I preferred caveman games as a kid, and still do. Racing against a friend on who can rub sticks together and blow on the smoke to make fire first is still a blast. So is beating the other guy with a caveman club. Good times.
World Games was so good they made a spoof sequel of sorts called caveman games. A lot of people remember world games, it was a well received game. You had so many actually forgettable garbage games to choose from…
I have never heard anyone talk about that game, ever. But I remembered hating it as a kid. But social media wasn’t a thing back then. So I don’t know if it was talked about elsewhere.
If that was a well received game, I guess it speaks volumes about the rest of the NES library.
It’s because it wasn’t really a young kids game. It was aimed at a bit older of a crowd. They made a later version of it called caveman games that was geared more towards kids and it was a lot of fun, with mostly the same game mechanics.
What games were buggy for you? I’ve been replaying a lot of older games I used to play from my childhood (SNES to Xbox 360/PS3/Wii era) and not coming up with a lot of bugs except from emulation.
They weren’t as buggy. People making excuses classify exploits as bugs ignoring that modern games have more bugs and exploits.
I played Atari 2600 games like space invaders, adventure, and pitfall for thousands of hours without ever running into a bug. The only game with an exploit was Combat where you could put your tank muzzle into a corner and make it loop across the map. But both players could do it.
I’ve grown up with a PS1 and a handful of pc games, and I don’t remember any of them being any more bugged than modern gaming. The only exception being Digimon World 1, a notoriously buggy game (but to be fair, half of those bugs were introduced by the inept translation’s team).
I know people nowadays know and use a bunch of glitches for speedruns and challenge runs (out-of-bounds glitches being the norm for such runs), but rarely, if ever, those glitches could be accessed by playing through the game normally, to the point that I don’t remember finding any game breaking bug in any of the games I played in my infancy (barring the aforementioned Digimon World).
A couple years back I found my old Gameboy advanced. I tried to play Kirby on it and I was taken back by how much it sucked. The screen was way smaller than I remember it being and there was no backlight which meant I had to play the game in a well lit room. I don’t think I could ever go back to those days.
Nah, in the 80s we had hundreds probably thousands of games for the commodore 64 and later the amiga 500, all of them pirated. The piracy scene was huge, and often the games were free as we just copied them from friends
I think it’s because people only remember the good games and not the stinkers.
I played a lot of shit games I can’t recall because I played for 30 minutes max. There was one game I never passed the first level as I couldn’t figure out what to do, I think something to do with jelly beans and a blob. How is that good gameplay lol?
But of course myself and others can tell you about the games we played for hours like Super Mario Bros which didn’t really have bugs and were good.
A boy and his blob! That was a great game! But it did not hold your hand at all, you had to figure out what every different jerky bean did to your blob. It was a good enough game that there was a modern remake I think it’s on Nintendo virtual console.
But yeah, that was a legitimately hard game for a kid. And with nothing, it wasn’t buggy, the gameplay was just different from anything else people were familiar with and it didn’t explain itself.
The difference is back in the day the great games were the highly advertised “big ones” and the “stinkers” usually fell flat. Now you have a mountain of AAA stinkers and have to go scavenging for indie gems.
Not sure that’s right - before the internet I had no clue what was supposedly good or not. I’d rent games from blockbuster and just try them one by one. Lots of shitty games and I had no idea that Mario or sonic or anything was meant to be good.
Now it’s a lot easier just based on metacritic or steam reviews to figure out if something is good or not.
Well yes, maybe going that far back it was kind of a shot in the dark, but the late ‘90 to early ‘10 period was a time where you had internet (or at least tv/magazines) to know which games were “popular”, most of those were actually well done, and you’d rarely have an AAA title launch as a bugridden mess.
Reviews are also a hit-or-miss because they’re highly subjective. The Steam review system sucks as well, being only positive/negative and with troll reviews always at the top.
I also think there is something to it just being the 90s or so and not having much choice.
Absolutely. I enjoyed and played a lot out of King of Dragon Pass back in the day. Yesterday I sat down to finally play its spiritual successor Six Ages: Ride Like the Wind. From what I remember from KoDP it plays exactly the same (at least during the first hour). Yet I couldn’t force myself to keep playing it. Same way nowadays I can’t seem to get hooked with genres I used to play a ton as a kid: RTS games like Age of Empires II and Warcraft 3, life sims like The Sims, point & click graphic adventures like Monkey Island, traditional roguelikes, city builders, etc. Other genres I try to get back into and I do manage to play a ton of hours of but I’m never able to finish like when I was young (e.g. JRPGs)
When I try to play many of those games I tend to feel kinda impatient and wanting to use my limited time to play something else that I feel I might enjoy better. A good modern 4X game with lots of mod support like Stellaris or Civ6 instead of RTS games which have always felt a bit clunky to me. Short narrative games like Citizen Sleeper or Roadwarden instead of longer ones I’m not able to finish. Any addictive modern roguelite, especially if it features mechanics I particularly like (like deckbuilding and turn-based combat). If I ever feel interested to play a life sim or a city builder nowadays it has to feature more RPG elements and/or iterative elements and/or deckbuilding and a very compelling setting to me. And so on.
It feels like many of the newer genres (or the updated versions of old genres) are just more polished and fine-tuned than genres that used to be popular in the 90s and the 2000s. They just feel better to play. And to be fair in some cases they might be engineered to be more addicting, too. Like, I did finish Thimbleweed Park some years ago but I feel like nowadays no one is going to play witty point & click graphic adventure games with obscure puzzles if they can play a nice-looking adventure game filled with gacha waifus.
lemmy.world
Ważne