All that talk about how Xbox is investing in the Japanese market and then they close the one prominent Japanese studio that they own. The same one that, as the article points out, made Hi-Fi Rush which was “a break out hit”. What the hell, Microsoft.
Morrowind: An oral history on Polygon is a wonderful read.
All the little stories Kirkbride tells are great. My favourite is him designing progressively weird shit to dupe Howard with. He’d be like “Hey Todd, can we put this in the game?” and after he knowingly got knocked back he’d present him something more palatable.
Yeah, I’ve heard of writers on shows like the Animaniacs doing it, insisting heavily on a more outrageous joke having to go in knowing it’ll get knocked back as a Trojan horse to slip the real jokes they want in.
Even Skyrim—certainly a weird, ambitious, and janky RPG in its own right—refined and streamlined the formula set by Morrowind and Oblivion, rather than expanding on their eccentricities, and that trend only continued in the studio’s following games.
I find it bizarre that people think Starfield isn’t “weird and ambitious”. Starfield is absolutely weird and ambitious, that’s why people didn’t like it, it tried to do something new and that something new turned out to not be fun.
I disagree, if anything I think Starfield was Bethesda not going far enough.
They created a new setting and added a couple of new mechanics, but they cradled it in the same tired formula that they have been doing for decades.
I had hoped that since it was a new IP, this would be the moment they would take a chance and try something new. Try a new approach to quest design and world building, don’t just make the game bigger but make the experience in it more varied with more interesting interactions. Instead it felt like new coat of paint on an old house and when they got called out on it, they became defensive.
I broke my heart when they said the lesson they learned was to stick to the same formula and when they tried to do it with Shattered Space, people hated it even more.
I hate to say it but it seems like Bethesda already peaked.
This was inevitable as soon as games started getting the budgets of blockbuster movies. No one wants to invest that much money into a project without getting some oversight and control in return.
Of course, very, very few people who have access to that kind of cash have any design sense whatsoever, and even fewer understand the creative process, or what makes games “good”… so they ask for shit that they think will be “safe” money-makers, and we get what we get: endless, samey, soulless shlock.
It’s set in the Titanfall universe, there’s lots of lore scattered around. People work hard to integrate a narrative into the level and character designs, to imply plot in incidental dialogue or cinematics, or just literally write text entries that the majority of gamers will never read because only shooting and rare skins trigger their dopamine.
Nobody asked to have some pointless story injected into their online shooters. I’m pretty sure the people that want world-building and narrative and lore in their games aren’t playing online shooters. I know I’m not.
Ok, well, I am. It’s not “pointless story” it’s entertainment and I’m struggling to come up with a game that has zero plot or setting or characterization. Rocket League maybe.
Over and over and over and over the gaming community has been screwed over by Publishers so I’ll stop grave dancing when Corpos stop being so horrible
Requiring a third party account to play a game months after it was released and after selling it to customers who can’t legitimately make an account because you don’t feel like their country can make you enough profit. Helldivers 2
Attempting to take away peoples digital “purchases” of media because you can’t be bothered to pay licencing. Sony
Changing the definition of “purchase” an established word in English and not defining your new definition until page 22 of a EULA that you know nobody is going to read. Sony, and everyone else
Shutting down a server and rendering a game with a whole single player aspect completely useless and not telling consumers this at the time of purchase. The Crew (www.stopkillinggames.com)
Selling a terribly incomplete game filled with glitches for the price of a full game. Cyberpunk 2077 and so many others.
Selling Pre-Purchases to let people play the game early but really its just another way to get people to pay to be Guinea pigs in your buggy game. That new Star Wars game and so many others.
Adding so many stupid “micro transactions” to games to milk players as much as possible for useless skins and camos etc. Diablo 4 and so many more.
Adding a “Season Pass”??? I don’t even understand what this is??? Buy a full priced game and then buy a subscription to that game??? But still not have access to all of the content and then be shown a magic glove that costs €500, why is this not part of the subscription or is it??? I hope it is. New COD and probably others
“Making” a game and selling it to people but really its just a scam where they got “volunteers” to work on the game for free. Then shutting the game down instantly. That zombie game with Will Smith.
Something, something Overwatch 2 is a totally brand new game.
Shutting down third party mods for an unsupported and dangerous game just after the sale for that game is over. Fine, they didn’t own all of the assets used but they did fix the issue where people could infect your system with malware. COD
Increasing the prices of all of your subscriptions and making those subscriptions worse by offering less while your parent company is posting ~$20 Billion profits in the most recent quarter, yes quarter, thats like 3 months…
Btw all of these examples have happened within the last 4 years. Its pretty sad that I can list these off the top of my head. I only play single player games and I only got back into gaming a couple of years ago after ~10 years of not really playing anything
Actually "rationalising the pipeline" would be getting rid of all the massively overpaid execs, rather than the people who actually make the Take-Two execs their money
Not defending corporations but these massive conglomerates usually get so intricate, so messy, that there are people who end up getting a paycheck that genuinely do not get assignments. In other words, getting paid to watch paint dry. So sometimes the comments that look terrible are directed at people who were doing nothing or very nearly nothing and still getting paid for it.
But yes also fuck executives getting x80 the pay of developers.
Let’s not pretend that the vast majority of CP2077’s side quests are not that type of C&P’ed filler crap.
They are.
What is significant about CP2077 is how a dozen or so side quests are incredibly stellar, far outdoing even the main (non-expansion) story quest. They’re incredibly good. That’s just a few ones sadly, but they’re big and have lots of interactions and cool moments though, they almost feel like the main quests in a lot of ways.
I get how people didn’t like them. But I had a ton of fun doing the NCPD busywork. The gameplay was engaging enough to entertain me. If you don’t have a lot of time to play video games ut’s sometimes frustrating to watch an hour of cutscenes and only play for a couple minutes. The story was great but it gave me the option to just play.
tbf that’s a lot easier to say when you’re the president of one of the richest companies in the industry. I don’t disagree, but not everybody has the resources to just keep developing forever, and that’s easy to forget too.
In the documentary this quote is from he said that about thr development of HL1. To be fair the devs themselves said they voluntairily crunched quite a bit and had some time constraints at the end of the game.
But he’s also president of one of the richest companies in the industry because he always said this.
And while your point is valid for smaller studios, it feels like it’s usually used by the big ones that do have the resources, but would rather give more money to investors.
Yeah, no one has a problem with small indie groups doing early access, aka terraria, rimworld, factorio, minecraft. It’s about keeping expectations in check and having a good fun base game.
Rogue Legacy 2 had a great early access in part because it was regular releases with a lot of communication and they set great expectations for it. I knew what I got myself into and had a blast trying each new area as it came out.
The context for this was them deciding to take the time to finish the game properly even if they were no longer going to get paid to do it (the publisher would stop funding).
wizards are turning into Gaben as he echoes across eternity. It seems like he’s turning into a wizard, but that’s because we can only see behind us in time.
Some what of a tangent on Christmas is that there is the “War on Christmas” narrative. I am always curious about what it is supposed to mean. The Christians that are into it often take capitalism to be good as an axiom the way they do their own faith. Which is at odds with their culture war as capitalist firms are what drive the secularization of Christmas. Would a commercial with Jesus on the cross saying he is thirsty and having a Roman Soldier pass him an ice cold Coca Cola be better?
Would a commercial with Jesus on the cross saying he is thirsty and having a Roman Soldier pass him an ice cold Coca Cola be better?
Yes. PLEASE put this on the air. I am begging someone to make this a reality. Also, full disclosure, I do enjoy watching the world burn over stupid shit. Christians losing their shit over THAT commercial would be comically delightful.
Oddly I don’t think Christians would even be upset about that. You could have it directed by Mel Gibson. They would love it. Because it features their guy. Other than that, there’s no real concept of some sacred image or respectfulness.
It would work with Moses too. Replacement his sandals with some Nikes before he goes out for his walk in the desert. He’s still their guy too, since they have the Old Testament.
But try that with Mohammed or Vishnu, and there’s your war on Christmas.
Would a commercial with Jesus on the cross saying he is thirsty and having a Roman Soldier pass him an ice cold Coca Cola be better?
I tried it using Sora, but “This content can’t be shown for now. We’re still developing how we evaluate which content conflicts with our policies. Think we got it wrong? Let us know.”
This was the prompt:
Give me a Coca Cola commercial where Jesus has been nailed to a cross, and says “I’m thirsty”, after which a Roman Soldier passes him an ice cold Coca Cola.
I tried replacing “Jesus” with a man, but no dice :(
Where I am from several years ago the city renamed the Christmas Parade to Holiday Parade in a bid to be inclusive of other winter holidays. A small subset of citizens got butt hurt and have held a competing Christmas Parade several times.
Apparently the war on Christmas is acknowledging that there are other options.
Half agree. Even if many of them are just money-hungry, there is still a ton of non-fiscal value in making it clear that queerness is not a shameful anomaly and can instead be a point of both strength and pride. Lots of kids out there are stuck in families that want them to believe the exact opposite, when they genuinely need to know that the world has more to offer than just that.
I don’t appreciate companies trying to capitalize on this, but as a friend and sibling to many queer folk (and as well as being a bit fruity myself, even if not fully this or that), I think this visibility is currently very necessary and possibly even life saving for some severely stuck folks. Even if the motivation is obviously crook, I can get behind giving those people the inspiration they need to accept and understand themselves in spite of those who would rather see them hating themselves or worse.
I used to believe that too, because it was pointless. But it seems that i was wrong. The fact that it was pointless, means that the corporations felt comfortable with using and abusing that to maximize profit. And the fact that they are afraid to do that, indicates how fucked things are now.
So i am ok with corporations using movements for marketing reasons, because ultimately this is the canary in the mine. If the corporations consider it a brand risk, then society is moving towards the wrong direction.
I’m not comfortable with companies using any kind of marketing tactics. Because 99 times out of a 100 it’s speedy and underhanded.
But since they’re going to be doing it anyways, doing it with pride, or disenfranchised demographics, at least normalizes their humanity. Which, at the end of the day, is the point of pride month et al.
Take it easy there, Chicken Little. “I’m uncomfortable with any kind of marketing” is so hyperbolic, it’s almost parody. Putting the name of your business above the door? Thats marketing. Creating a website where customers can find and engage your services? That’s marketing. A minority-owned business proudly owning that status? That’s marketing. A friend telling you about the great meal they had the other day from a local restaurant? Believe it or not, that’s marketing.
Marketing is not evil in and of itself. Unless humanity returns to a tribal social structure where you can count the number of non-related acquaintances you know on your fingers, it is a necessary component of operating a business. Of course, you’re 100% right that there have been dubious applications of the principle, but again, you’re throwing the baby out with the bath water, and it hampers the salient point that you’re trying to make.
Sure, if you only take it at it’s most extreme and dont use a little bit of critical thinking. I specifically referenced companies in a thread about large corporations manipulating social issues for their own gain. I also gave wiggle room with the 99 out of a 100 reference.
I think you also cast far too wide a net with your definitions of marketing, especially in the context of the conversation happening.
I’d check your own sky to be absolutely sure it’s falling before throwing aspersions like that around. You may have a hysterical over-exaggeration of your own there.
I’m not comfortable with companies using any kind of marketing tactics.
Now, I felt like I was fairly gentle in pointing out the absurd nature of that statement. I even readily acknowledged what I assumed to be your intent, i.e. there are absolutely marketing tactics which go beyond the pale. But, as I, and others, have pointed out, you’re the one operating on your own personal definition of marketing here, which is in contradiction to what that concept actually is. Any intro to business class will tell you that marketing is, essentially, ANYTHING an entity does to inform people of its services. It’s an enormous umbrella, which includes tactics both odious and innocuous. It is as readily applicable to the gal who posts on Facebook that she’ll do your hair for $20 as it is Facebook selling that information to a third party so she can be served targeted salon equipment advertisements.
All I’m saying is, if you say “all marketing is bad”, you need to be prepared for people to call you out on the hyperbole of that statement. Therefore, you might consider arguing the point you actually intend to make (which is good and I agree with you about!), instead of leading with a statement which you don’t actually believe.
Calling you Chicken Little was facetious, but meant to be a gentle dig at the hyperbole. Still, I shouldn’t have said it, and I apologize.
Seems a little overboard for some kind of friendly conversation, especially when it had nothing to do with my general point. I was just stating that I wasn’t comfortable with marketing in general. The implication being from large corporations.
As I’ve never taken an intro to business course, as I’m not interested in that aspect of hyper-capitalism that entails, I just go on the general context of the thread and general sentiment. Not a super-literal definition given in your community college.
The hyperbole seems to be all yours, you’ve taken a statement I used to lead into the general topic of my comment and somehow built an entire personality out of to assign to me.
I’m not comfortable with marketing. That is my personal opinion. I know lots of other people have other opinions. Some people are neutral, they don’t give a shit. Others seem to think of it as completely and utterly necessary in every degree of society. They’re allowed that, I have no power nor will to take that from them.
I’m trying to understand your point, but I’m a little lost here.
Do you mean the way the public reacted to their ad?
Or the way they capitulated to that reaction?
I mean: Yes racism and sexism are pervasive in our society, but using Ben and Jerry’s (operating under the same racism/sexism) as an example; they do heavy marketing tactics toward LGBTQ but they are also an ally.
Well, the example of bud light is they made their can rainbow color, while the LGBT community was like “hell yeah!” They lost almost all their hillbilly south customer base.
Never be fooled into believing that corporations are your friend. They are always just looking to chase profits.
But if corporations believe that Pride is profitable, that is a sign that society is headed in the right direction. Whereas if they turn around because Pride is no longer profitable, that is a cause for worry.
Its a tradeoff, we know they only do things for the bottom line but having pridr celebrations did reinforce exactly what the pride movement wanted to push. My work isnt that bad tbh they have a committee that runs talks and discussions on equity and exclusion and the likes. The committee likely doesnt cost much, but they get to champion it and the people in that community feel welcomed and it does help breakdown barriers.
RuneScape regularly does holiday events. Theyve done it for Christmas and Halloween as far back as RS1 - like, the Christmas hats are the iconic RuneScape thing. People have paid obscene amounts of real money for them.
The Pride event was no different. You get fun little items for completing a silly little quest. It’s not even like mega “gay”, it’s just cute and inclusive.
Reviews are one of the only weapons and Outlets that consumers have anymore. Especially a dire need because game journalism is so incredibly incredibly corrupt and inept. So the bitchy tone of this article certainly does track.
If Amazon has shown us anything though, its that reviews can be bought and sold en masse. I’m not sure how Steam reviews are mitigating this, but I fear that it will be undermined soon
Do you actually look at Amazon reviews and trust them now though? They may have proven they can pay to put them there, doesn’t mean anyone cares about what they have to say… Though I’m probably overestimating the general population of Amazon shoppers
You have to have a copy of the game on Steam to review it. It will automatically say you got it for free if it’s a key from Steamworks (given to the press usually). This means the costs of faking reviews would outpace the volume really early.
pcgamer.com
Ważne