But BioWare games used to be the top tier gaming company standard for excellence. Bethesda used to release amazingly ambitious titles that were unmatched (albeit buggy!).
There’s a lot of love for Skyrim, but I feel like there was already deterioration in the side quest writing, even strictly looking at Oblivion/FO3, not Morrowind.
As for BioWare, even ME3 was starting to show some cracks, even if you set the ending aside. And I loved Mass Effect to death. Heck, I’m even a bigger Andromeda fan than most.
…Point being I think we clung to BioWare/Bethesda a little too hard even when the signs of deoxygenation were there.
Completely agree. BioWare started it’s downward trend when it thought it could cash in on MMORPG billions by creating Star Wars: The Old Republic. Don’t get me wrong, Bioware made awesome games until ~2010. They were bought out by EA in 2007, and that is where we can clearly see that passion was lost. Good games still came out, but they weren’t great.
I will always hold a special spot in my heart for the Elder Scrolls. I’ve played since Daggerfall in the late 90s. I got into Fallout later, but went back and played the originals (except for tactics). A lot of people hate on Skyrim as being janky, but I was there for the original release. Did it have issues? Of course, and it still does. But this was 11 / 11 / 2011 we are talking about. Skyrim was doing things that no one in gaming was doing well, and they told a good story to boot.
The issue that I have with most studios is that they step away from the ideas of furthering or completing a story just because they can’t think of a new gimmic or mechanic to make it hugely profitable. They need those profits to justify the staggering wages paid to the CEO’s. Not to the writers, programmers, or artists.
So Bethesda lost a lot of love when they (like BioWare) attempted to cash in on MMORPGs with Fallout 76.
Funny thing is SWTOR has some great art, heartfelt voice acting and quests, great soundtrack and such, but at the end of the day it’s buried in a grindy.
On the other hand, I tried Fallout 76 (after it was patched up) drunk with friends, and it was boring as heck. The quests were so dull, gameplay so arbitrarily janky and grindy. Drunk! With friends! Do you know how low a bar that is :/
Yeah, and they often launch with loads of systems where future content could be plugged in, but the actual content itself is typically bad or at the very least incomplete. The publishers try too hard to build a platform rather than a good game…
Yeah, theoretically the exact model for monetization isn’t as important, but many publishers are hoping to get players to pay subscriptions indefinitely.
no it’s like fortnite or cod. They’re usually quickplay multiplayer games with a low cost to entry, infinite grinding potential, and microtransaction hell
Its the definition of “you dont own the game”. You pay to get access to the service of playing the game and it wants to keep you playing as long as possible so you spend more money on micro transactions. They are constantly updated, usually as some form of “season”, have daily login streak bonuses, etc. And after 2 years the game shuts down and you have nothing and can’t play anything you paid for anymore.
Every live service game that fails or gets cancled is a good thing.
Basically a game that is continuously updated with new content. Lots of different models of it from MMOs to Fortnite to Diablo IV. Many of them are free to play with lots of microtransactions. They usually feature things like seasons and battle passes and loot boxes. They’re almost always heavily monetized. The competition in the “genre” is incredibly fierce since most people probably only play a handful of them and friend groups usually all want to be on the same game. It’s very hard to break into. Sony announced that they were making a big investment into the area a few years ago and news has been trickling out since that most of them have been canceled.
The worst thing about a live service game to me is that they only work when you can connect to the official servers. Many live service games have shut down and there is no offline mode to continue playing. Sometimes you still pay full price for these games. Sometimes games like The Crew, shut down after you spent money to play it and then The Crew 2 comes out so you pay full price for essentially the same game and the first one doesn’t work anymore.
I’m not sure why there hasn’t been a business simulator where you could live up the glamorous, extremely vicious, exploitative, and horrible life of a movie studio owner in Old Hollywood.
The Movies, 2005.
Technically not just old Hollywood, it goes through the 20th century with technological advances and world events that change movie trends.
Since it’s a business management game from Bullfrog Lionhead, it did have some grit to it, though mostly sarcastic rather than very dark.
I welcome new takes on this though, the movies didn’t age well in some aspects (aspect ratio most notably, ah ah ). I know of Blockbuster Inc that tried to remake that already but the reviews are not great. I’ll try this one.
I played it (almost done) with a friend, had it wishlisted since the IronPineapple video. But on god, finding normal players to do content as a group is nigh impossible, this thing is full of gooners and chat is full of uwu RP, I just left at some point and did the bosses solo.
I don’t know about the game, but the book is good.
The devs are working on the game and recently they released a book from the game’s world.
I really thought it would be shit, but then I saw that it was written by a known scifi author, so I thought it would be at least readable. I was pleasantly surprised and the book is actually really good.
The book in question is:
Exodus: The Archimedes Engine by Peter F. Hamilton
To be fair, Discord has been feeling the heat for a while, on multiple fronts and for multiple reasons. Not the least of which was a dumbass leaking classified information to his teenage buddies.
What if I told you I find Valheim to be just fine, so I am surprised it is on this list? The subjectiveness of enjoying a game is a very large spectrum
Honestly, there were a TON of games I was surprised to find on this list, but Valheim was not one of them.
Multiplayer games are especially vulnerable to the subjectiveness of enjoyment because not everybody has the same set of friends or experiences with their friends in the game, assuming they played with friends at all.
That said, I’ve been playing games for decades and I would put forth that even single player Valheim with no access to multiplayer would deserve to be much higher than the 100 placement on this terrible list.
I would say that it’s offensive to put Early Access games on those lists. It clouds people’s judgment as they are valued with different standards and are expected to get better (especially if more people support the game). Any game that’s not fully released is a 0/10 in my book even if they were my favorite games.
Valheim was a better game in it’s first version than a lot of the games that are “complete” on this list.
I get where you’re coming from, and certainly some games don’t deserve to even be sold in their “early access” state. However, I think saying none of them should count at all is a bit ridiculous.
Valheim offered hundreds of hours worth of entertainment even in the early versions and has only improved since then. It only takes up 1gb of data through some miracle, and runs fairly well even on the steam deck.
Honestly it puts many of the other titles on the list to shame. Ignoring it because the dev wants to continue providing MORE free updates instead of calling the game finished and then charging for “DLC” is not a reason to punish the studio, if anything they should be looked to as an example of what other devs should do.
pcgamer.com
Ważne