I get that record sessions are a huge hassle and simply paying VAs per AI-generated voice line is easier for everyone, but it somehow makes Paradox look a little careless to me.
Stories like these also set a precident. This is what voice ‘acting’ will be like for a moment before it becomes effectively eliminated because voice libraries will become diverse enough quickly and there will be no need for a single more voice actor to be included. It seems like VAs are basically forced to sell their voice to AI companies quickly to at least make a quick buck before they never get a job again.
There’s probably no stopping it, but that made this read all the more frustrating to me.
This is what (modern) voice acting has always been.
Actually read a few interviews with professional VAs or watch their streams if they do that. Two VAs actually interacting with each other and reacting is almost unheard of outside of very specific productions (and mostly are done as a stunt for some BTS footage). They read a dozen different takes of every line and go through like five different scripts worth of dialogue. And then they do “efforts” that are just general grunts and emoting that are used for the moment to moment gameplay and to pad out a scene that had heavy rewrites. It is why so many professional VAs can stream “their” games… because they genuinely have no idea what is going to happen.
Paying to train a limited use model off of a specific VA (or even a group of VAs) is the “logical” extension of that. And, arguably, it is a “good” one (with some MASSIVE caveats). Everyone lost their god damned mind over that FPS that came out last year where the announcer was (allegedly?) a model trained off of a VA. But it also meant that you could have stuff you would never have had otherwise. Nolan North isn’t going to get a paycheck to sit in a booth all day commenting on random matches. But a model that can read out a team’s name and string together different reactions? That is actually really cool and WAY better than the traditional sports game approach of “The Champion! just went through… A Table!”*
Like almost everything AI? The key is to focus on creators’ rights and control what can and can’t be used as training data. Because the genie is out of the bottle and ain’t going back in. But if we can protect the rights of what goes into training data? Then people are still paid for their effort/creation.
Do I think this was done “ethically”? I don’t know. But with everything Paradox has done in the past few years? I assume “not in the slightest”. But the concept is sound and one that we need to standardize sooner than later.
Of course, we also need UBI so that people’s lives aren’t tied to their jobs but that is a bigger mess.
*: Also, if you don’t think those aren’t already stitched and blended together with most of the same tech then I have a bridge to sell you
I’ll also add on that there are very good reasons to pay for models based on VAs. Brendan Fraser infamously permanently-ish hurt his vocal cords because of the performance that were expected of him in his prime. Same with a lot of VAs (I think David Hayter is one?) who basically need to smoke a pack a day when they are “in character” to get the right gravely voice. And while Stephanie Beatriz played it smart and made sure her “Rosa” voice was something she could maintain, a lot of actors and actresses basically can’t be the character they are famous for because it is killing them.
And pulling a solution out of my ass that is surely missing important aspects of the industry?
if I just want Nolan North or Felicia Day to voice a character then I buy the use of their model from their agency and am charged based on how much dialogue they have in a given game. If I want to use them as a character going forward (so what ANet tried with Felicia before they realized she was too expensive and decided to give Zojja permanent brain damage so she wouldn’t ever have dialogue again)? I can pay by line at a much cheaper rate.
But if I want Nolan North to do a voice that isn’t just Drake? Then I am paying him to train a new model and it gets a lot more expensive. And I can pay more to “own” that training data with the same caveats regarding future use. The main idea being that I want to make sure my Nolan North performance doesn’t end up in a competitor’s game next week.
This. People paying hundreds for a skin in CS and hundred for a new game mode that they might not even get into are the reason things we get games like Suicide Squad.
You could call ESO pay-to-win to fit this definition, because there is new content added as subscription or paid. There will be new gear sets offering effectively an advantage for many builds and some new skills.
in horizontal progression, changes in things are typically sidegrades in progress, as you trade off one thing for another, compared to having a higher level equipment with higher stats in a vertically progressed MMO. New builds can be created via patches, but they aren’t necessarily straight upgrades from the existing ones.
if that’s your definition of “winning” then you have a different way of playing mmos.The most expensive cosmetics in the game are ridiculously low drop rate infusions that surpass the cost of virtually anything in the shop directly.
Dedicated servers ran by the community with a server browser to find games/servers.
Really the golden age of multiplayer.
Found a nice server that runs well, chill and well moderated? add it to your favorites.
No lobbies, well… technically the whole server was the lobby, kinda.
No progression unlocks bullshit.
No ranking. No waiting on matchmaking. Just play.
No AI spying on every thing you say or do.
Maybe a “SIR this is a Christian server, so swearing will not be tolerated” or other warning of some kind now and then, even on games like Counterstrike.
Eventually, you’d get to know people, kinda like how you might start recognizing names here on lemmy.
You’d make friends, rivals, etc.
I miss those times.
I got into Titanfall 2 pretty late (like last month) and waiting 10 minutes to even get into a lobby is just annoying.
As opposed to joining a server and playing non stop on there.
It’s even less costs to the publisher than to host and scale on their own because the community is running your servers.
But then they can’t pull the plug to force people on a new release.
They can’t spy on as much shit.
They can’t sell as much private data.
It’s probably easier to sell microtransactions this way too.
Yeah but there were admins spying what you did and banning you. Quite frankly i have much greater trust in AI admins than human admins. Not that some human admins aren’t great, but why risk it? Same as self driven cars, as soon as they’re ready im ready to never drive again.
Sure, but the mistakes aren’t the main issue, it’s that AI is just a tool that by extention can be abused by the humans in control. You have no idea what rules they give it and what false positives result from it.
My primary concern here is that it’s Blizzard, whom love to gargle honey for China and is all for banning players that speak against them, is in charge of this AI.
Blizzard’s previously talked about using AI to verify reports of disruptive voice chat, which is now running in most regions, though not globally. The developer says it has seen this technology “correct negative behavior immediately, with many players improving their disruptive behavior after their first warning.”
Great, they can auto-ban players like Ng Wai Chung, I guess. For whatever they subjectively deem ‘harmful’. There’s also the looming idea that a friend can wander in my room, say something dumb, and now I’m closer to a ban because of an unrelated choice I made outside the game.
And we definitely trust Blizard to be good with all the audio data they get to harvest. That won’t be abused later, right?
I mean that’s a general argument against technology. Yes, more technology means more ruthlessly efficient abuse, but ultimately you think technology is better in the long run or not. Either way it is inevitable. Maybe in the EU they will ban those abuses, in China they won’t, and US will find some weird compromise between the two.
You trust a billion dollar company with no morals with your data? Isn’t that the whole point we are on this site? Community servers are like lemmy instances.
Sure, and they can have AI moderators in lemmy instances. Whatever problems are concerning about corporate AI admins also apply to corporate human admins.
They already have your data without the AI. Most games have had wide rangeing telemetry sent to the dev for over a decade now. This includes the text chat logs.
Unrelated to the topic, but wasn’t Titanfall 2 plagued by this one hacker that basically filled every lobby with bots to make the servers crash? I think I very recently heard about them resolving the issue and the player count surpassed the numbers at launch even.
Active moderation isn’t spying but using an AI is? The only reason those self-hosted community servers didn’t have problems was because they (usually) had active admins to see bad behavior and take action. This is merely automating that so a real human being doesn’t have to be there watching.
This is automating something based on blizzard rules not community rules. What if people want even stricter rules or looser or none at all or completely different rules? Also how many times have billion dollar companies been caught selling customers private info? Too many to count.
One of the few games I don't regret buying before release was Baldur's Gate 3 but that's an anomaly. Most games I'm happy to wait a year or more when it's in better shape.
Even with BG3, act 3 of the game is in much better shape than it launched with.
And their history of making "definitive" editions is looming a year or two down the road.
Oddly, as is their gameplay style of act 3 being the buggiest and least directed along with artificial difficulty of grouping the party in a tight clump via cutscene before the hard fights.
Still an utterly fantastic game despite those minor gripes.
Any game that has to release endings in patches means it wasn’t released as a complete product. BG3 is great, but it is so hypocritical that other games get dragged through mud for bad launches, but BG3 is getting nothing but praise despite releasing incomplete and full of bugs. I can forgive some stuff, but this hypocrisy and inconsistentcy in the gaming community bothers me to no end.
It’s funny that you mention Baldur’s Gate 3 because the game is blatantly unfinished. Act 1&2 are pretty much 9-10/10 but Act 3 is like a 6/10 at best. I’m surprised it gets a pass where Cyberpunk didn’t because in my experience they are equally as buggy. Because of my beefy PC and the scope of the games I think Cyberpunk may have even had less bugs than I’ve had in BG3. And I played it on release.
In BG3 I have quests breaking, characters not showing up where they should, continuity issues, obvious cut content, etc. I just gave up halfway through Act 3 and started a new playthrough instead because I adore the first half of the game and it makes the latter half that much more disappointing by contrast.
I agree. I have had major show-stopping bugs with main story quests in Act 3 and more crashes on the PS5 than I have experienced in any game by a huge margin. I love the game but it has been buggier than CP2077 for me as well.
You get "Larianed" a lot in BG3 just like you did in DOS2, plenty of inconsistencies, annoying pathing and quirks that make you wonder if they even played their own game before releasing it. But to put it in the same vein as cyberpunk 2077 is kind of disgusting. CDPR completely lied about the product, it barely ran on most PCs and didn't even function on consoles.
BG3 while far from perfect, is much more of a game than cp2077 will probably ever be and Larian are firing out patches left and right at the moment while CDPR are still forbidding reviewers to even use their own game footage.
Baldurs Gate 3 will go down as one of the greats. Cyberpunk 2077 will be forgotton about.
I am talking strictly on the basis of bugs/incompleteness not the overall quality/scope of the games. But also “it barely ran on PCs” neither did Act 3. I have a 7950X and I still drop down to 40fps in some places even after the patches. People with say a 3600X were barely scraping 30. If we’re talking about the trend of games being unfinished or buggy on launch then BG3 deserves to be called out for the same.
On just bugs I still disagree that it's anywhere near cp2077, but yeah there is a trend of games being buggy on launch and that defo has to be called out, especially when it's bugs that most people come across that are not even niche or very specific. Performance in act 3 still has a long way to go yeah, luckily it's not a fast paced game or a... shooter, so it's not the end of the world, but not very pleasant either.
I'm surprised I don't hear more people talk about this, maybe because they seemed to strategically handle bugs and content more thoroughly in the early game so that a lot of players would gush about that and be more forgiving by the time they got to act 3, along with everyone who didn't even make it that far and only praised it online instead.
Starfield gets dragged through the mud for both deserved and undeserved reasons, almost universally without nuance, and BG3 gets blanket praise and acclaim, almost universally without nuance, and then I see this comment thread where there are apparently some serious issues grouped within a specific portion of the game and I'm not sure if that's better or not.
Part of it is the game just being so huge. Most people aren’t even going to hit Act 3 until 50-60 hours in which is already much longer than most other games. So you’ve already formed your opinion of the game by the time you hit the less polished part.
And to be fair, those first 50-60 hours are pretty great. (Minus some gripes with things like pathing and inventory management) If the game just straight up ended with Act 2 I would be completely satisfied. I didn’t even mention this because I wanted to focus on the bugs but even narrative, pacing, and quest design in Act 3 is just so rough compared to the other two. It almost feels like a different game or a different developer. The quality drop is that drastic IMO.
I am worried that other studios might look at this and realize they can just front-load the best content and all the polish in the first section and neglect the rest to fix later. It sets a bad precedent.
Indeed, that's the worry. It sometimes seems like AAA game development is learning just how far you can push the average gamer and still get good word of mouth online by way of leaving choice aspects incomplete and compromised
MMOs have been front loading the best content since at least Conan. Remember that one, the first zone had amazing quests and voice acting that the rest of the game didn't.
Cyberpunk for me was not as buggy as for my friends. I find that a lot of the games I play on release aren't as buggy for whatever reason. It could be my AMD setup. It could be that I'm on Linux and use Proton or sheer goddamn luck. Callisto Protocol was fine for me but I've seen so many videos of the game running terribly and some crazy bugs.
The biggest problem with Cyberpunk was the performance. It ran horribly. The bugs were just the icing. My issues with Cyberpunk was that it felt hollow and lifeless. I loved everything about it but it just didn't feel like it had a soul.
My PC wasn't as beefy as it is now when Cyberpunk released so I felt that pain. I'm still on Act 1 on BG3 (because I insist on exploring everywhere) but I see that it has a huge amount of polish put into it. It makes sense that the earlier parts got more attention because that's what the majority of the players will experience. At the rate I'm going, Act 3 will be in great shape.
I agree completely. I’m even very forgiving when it comes to bugs and performance - especially when it’s a studio I trust will address them - but the huge swaths of obviously cut content combined with the way the story wraps up really gets to me and left me massively disappointed. I too still love the game for the gameplay and Act 1 and 2, but it really didn’t stick the landing in my opinion.
Even just things like the reactivity of your companions stands out; in Act 1 you could barely sneeze without everyone at camp chiming in with a comment about what just happened while in Act 3 you’ll do massively impactful things in both main story and companion quests and be greeted by the standard “Well met” or “hello soldier” at camp.
And that’s not getting into whatever scraps of the stated 17k different endings actually ended up not getting cut or the sorry state or the epilogues. Not even all companions get one!
Baldur’s Gate 3 is great at story and choices, which I think is where a lot of praise comes from. But it has a lot of really questionable issues with smaller mechanics.
The one I’m hating the most is how NPCs react to many summons and wild shape. Having a wild shaped party member makes most NPCs run away screaming, which is very painful in the NPC heavy areas of act 3 and basically discouraged you from even using wild shape or summon elemental, even though those are both incredibly powerful. You can dismiss the summon/wild shape, but it uses resources, so it sucks to do so. People have reported the bug for months but it doesn’t seem on the devs radar (they purposefully made NPCs run away – it’s a “feature”).
And just the other day, I discovered weirdness with warlock spell slots. Something about having used an elixer that gives me an extra spell slot (and then having consumed the spell slot) was preventing me from casting certain warlock spells (I think those of the spell slot’s level) because it claimed it needed that spell slot, even though I had higher level warlock spell slots. So a bunch of my spells couldn’t be used! When I searched, I found many reports about similar issues when people multi classed.
I maybe be wrong but I think they just fixed the NPCs running away in the latest patch. One of the patch notes is, “NPCs will no longer run away from anything but the Dark Urge Slayer form to improve interactivity and flow.” I’m not sure if that is referring to Dark Urge only or if that means they exclusively run away from that one form and now all other summons are fair game. But I haven’t had time to jump back into the game to try it yet.
There is actually a quest where you need to escort an NPC and when we got to the boss the NPC cowers in fear and tries to run away. But because I had an elemental summoned he would run towards the boss and instantly die. At first I just thought that was how it was supposed to be but after defeating the boss 3 times I thought it was way too hard to keep the NPC alive and it didn’t really make any sense for him to run straight in after dialogue saying he doesn’t want to go in there. The quest/dialogue also acted like he was still alive so it’s as if the developers never even planned for the possibility of him dying in that area. On my 4th attempt I moved the elemental in front of the door and sure enough he ran the opposite direction and stood in the corner he was supposed to, safe from the fight.
Yes! Can confirm it’s fixed. It’s great and revitalized my interest in using certain characters. I had almost sworn off some characters because of the bug and now they’re back on the menu.
Druids are insane. Owlbear does utter bonkers damage. Far beyond what I could do with any other character (I can’t tell if that means I built my other classes wrong). Only downside is that druids feel super limited. Usually to just melee attacks with no items and most equipment doesn’t even do anything (there’s little reason to ever purposefully revert to your original form, since you’d just eat a wild shape charge).
I love BG3, but agree that it deserves some criticism for act 3 bugginess. Just remember Bethesda basically forced them to release a month early when they announced starfield was coming out on the same weekend.
Exactly this. It was only two generations ago when idTech was an open world engine, id can and have made it to do whatever they want and to suggest that despite Bethesda money (let alone MICROSOFT money) id couldn’t make a better engine with similar development workflows as Creation is just dishonest to suggest.
It’s a shame idTech is no longer released publicly. It would’ve been amazing to see what people could do with the beast of an engine that powered DOOM Eternal, especially modders.
I assume you’re talking about Rage, which had an open world map, but no where near the level of simulation systems as a Bethesda game. In fact I remember back at the time most of us saying the map was pointless as it was just a way to travel between levels with nothing to do in it.
There are no “levels of simulation systems” in Starfield. NPCs don’t even have schedules in this game, they literally just stand around in the same spot 24/7.
“keeping track of lots of variables” doesn’t cost CPU time though, since nothing that isn’t on the same map as you is ever relevant for anything. Their engine just fucking sucks.
Keeping track of variables doesn’t use CPU time? Ok man. I’m all for hating on Bethesda’s shitty engine but that’s just not true. At the very least it does track what NPCs are doing off screen which is how they end up at your ship when you tell them to go there. They will actually walk to your ship if you don’t get there first.
On the other hand it’s basically guaranteed that Bethesda spent zero effort optimizing that. I bet it’s the same code they ran for Skyrim.
ID tech is nowhere near flexible enough for something like Starfield or even Skyrim. It’s partially the reason why it’s so efficient. It simply isn’t fit for the task.
And the Bethesda developers are intimately familiar with Creation Engine, achieving the same level of productivity with something new will take a long time. Switching the engine is not an easy thing.
Not to say that Creation Engine isn’t a cumbersome mess. It has pretty awful performance, stability and is full of bugs, but on the other hand it’s extremely flexible which has allowed its games to have massive mod communities.
If Bethesda can’t take the time to do it then who can? People act like they’re some small time developer but they’re not. They simply refuse to expand their dev team to do things like a redesign.
Creation engine is not going to hold up well for another 6 years, there’s no way their cell loading system will be considered acceptable by the time ES6 comes out. The amount of loading screens in Starfield is insane for a modern game. This company needs new talent badly.
You realise custom engines are built for specific game types right? iD Tech is great for creating high fedelity FPS games with linear levels and little environment interactivity. That’s not what Bethesda make though.
They could do everything they usually do but better if they used Unreal. They don’t need a custom engine. They just need an engine that isn’t over 2 decades old with a bunch of shit taped to it to make it look modern. Not to mention, ID already did make a custom built engine that handles much of what Bethesda RPGs do when they made RAGE. They could have used that, with the only issue being learning it. Not sure what their turnover rate is like… maybe they’re just too used to GameBryo/Creation to be able to switch now. It might take too long to learn anything new. Plus it would have to be able to have a toolset. If they didn’t release those easy to use modding tools, there could be rioting in the streets.
As far as I know, Bethesda are unusual in modern Devs in that they have a small team for the size of game they make, but they have strong retention of staff so have huge amounts of institutional knowledge about how they do things. Shifting to a new engine would basically mean starting from scratch on a company level. Unlike Ubisoft or Activison, they can’t just throw several thousend Devs at a game to brute force the development either.
But that’s their biggest problem. There’s no reason for them to have a small unchanging team. It’s very very obvious that they never get an influx of new ideas. Starfield feels like it was made in 2016 and the optimization effort is comically bad. The writing is still mostly boring, campy and naive like it was written by a 15 year old Mormon. The facial animations are incrementally better than fallout but still noticeably worse than much older games like Witcher 3. I could go on.
It’s not a bad game at all but it could’ve been so much better if Bethesda execs weren’t greedy cheapasses and the dev team was open to changing their process.
This why Bethesda needs to be criticized instead of constantly getting fellated by fanboys. ES6 will be an outdated mess because Bethesda never sees any feedback except over the top praise for half-assing their games.
Fanboys downvote you but you are right, even if I love the fallout franchise, the same gameplay loop, the same engines, potato faces in 2023, outdated animations… etc, right now I would prefer Microsoft to force obsidian to take care of the next fallout, and ban Todd Howard for ever putting one foot in the dev took, even in the building. He can go fuck himself and his shit engine.
I know they don’t want to switch, but it would be worth it to make the swap to something like unreal, even if it takes a few years of customization to get the open world stuff right. Creation Engine just feels so old.
In this instance that’s definitely the case that it’s shitty behaviour IMO but in general I still hold dear to my view that most people are good and it’s my default position on new people I meet, with some bad vibe exceptions, until proven otherwise.
It’s like the old Mr Rogers quote about looking for the helpers. I see (and try my best to also do and am so lucky to be married to someone the same) so much good in this world.
It just boggles my mind that there are people who think everyone should give complete control of their computer to Microsoft just because there are people cheating at games.
Well i already switched and I’m wondering, how does root access works on Linux ? What i mean is there games that used shitty anti cheat that are running on proton have the same access to your PC or is limited by the proton prefix ? Thank you in advance for your input on the matter!
Tl;dr : yes they are limited in their access to the rest of your PC… mostly
From what I understand, when such anticheats are configured for Linux, they’re still running in the user space and is why some developers go as far to disable support for Linux entirely.
You, the privileged user, unless logged into the root user (not recommended), are part of the “sudoers” group, which allows you to execute commands on behalf of the root user using the “sudo” command which requires your password. Games should never need this to play.
This however doesn’t mean the AC is sandboxed, its honestly beyond my knowledge exactly what it does have access to, but I can say it is far less than what Windows kernel AC has. And again why developers feeling the need for such intrusion simply pull away from linux
The anticheat can read all your files (in the home directory), and see all running processes. It can’t change much about the system, however, if you give it root once, it can keep it.
people really need to put the nostalgia googles down…back in the days nobody played Crysis with full details and a steady framerate.
You were in 1024x768 and turned everything down just to play the game with barely 30fps and you know what, it was still dope as fuck. So yeah guys get used to lower your settings or to upgrade your rig and if you don’t want to do that get a xbox
Crysis was built by a company specialising in building a high fidelity engine. It was, by all accounts, meant primarily as a tech demo. This is absolutely not the case with Starfield - first, the game doesn’t look nearly good enough for that compared to Crysis, and second it’s built on an engine that simply can’t do a lot of the advanced stuff.
The game could be playable on max settings on many modern computers if it was optimised properly. It isn’t.
sure mister gamedev, please continue to tell more on how an engine you clearly worked on, should run…
I dont say that Starfield is a well optimised game and performance will get better with upcoming patches. But I also don’t think it’s an unoptimized mess, I think it is running reasonable and people really should start review their rig, because modern games will need modern components
Oh and also other games did not run that well like you maybe remember ;)
sure mister gamedev, please continue to tell more on how an engine you clearly worked on, should run…
I can easily compare between what different game companies do. Why are you acting like I need to be a developer on a game to criticise that game?
I dont say that Starfield is a well optimised game and performance will get better with upcoming patches.
Todd could have said so. He didn’t. Why?
But I also don’t think it’s an unoptimized mess, I think it is running reasonable and people really should start review their rig, because modern games will need modern components
I never stated this. I simply said: comparing Starfield and Crysis is deliberately disingenuous, because Crysis was fundamentally meant to break boundaries, which Starfield doesn’t do.
Oh and also other games did not run that well like you maybe remember ;)
Okay, what’s the argument here? Do you think I say for those games “well, you’re not Bethesda, so I’m fine with you not running well”?
does it look it look good compared to other AAA games? no
well I beg to differ on that, but it’s quiete a subjective topic right ;)
does it run fast? no ergo. the engine is crap.
Again very subjective, very dependend on your hardware and also a pretty dumb conclusion, since an engine has more qualities then to run “fast”.
I already mentioned in this thread, the games runs quite well for me and I would call fps in the range from 80 to 124 quite fast for a Bethesda Open World Game. So what do we do now with our subjective oppinions 🤔
well you can put your “not in my computer” opinion in your ass. widespread benchmarks by established gaming journalists show good computers struggling.
I don’t know why they keep using that piece of shit engine, Microsoft should order them to format every PC and start again with UE5, the engine that it’s actually next gen
You don’t have to be a game dev to see that games that came out before Starfield look and perform better. If you bought the game and you enjoy it, that’s all fine and I won’t make fun of you for it, but let’s not defend what is an obvious point of incompetence on Bethesda’s side.
And buddy, I’ve been playing Bethesda Games since Daggerfall and believe me, Starfield is a fucking polished diamond compared to their old good games and compared to their latest shitshows like fallout 4 and fallout 76…
You’re comparing Bethesda games to Bethesda games, which we all know are buggy messes. Starfield falls short of my expectations for what a polished diamond looks like.
okay not-buddy 😂 I think we are also pretty much done here, since I dont see any point in discussing this any further with you. So byeeee and have a pleasent day not playing Starfield I guess.
There will always be that game that pushes the boundaries between current gen and next gen. Sometimes even more. Crysis is the perfect example of the past. Starfiels seems to do a decent job right now even if it’s probably not even close to what Crysis did. When people spend a lot of money we feel entitlement, thats only natural. No one did anything wrong. So no need to point a finger anywhere.
You seem to have missed the part where I wrote that Starfield is probably not even close to pushing the boundaries in the same way that Crysis did. So I can’t do much explaining in detail about that it is.
But it didnt tho, it looks shit and hogs more resources compared to other games like cyberpunk which is probably a better example for next gen graphics
It’s system by system, I have the same cpu and do fairly well, admittedly with it boosting to 4.5ghz. My wife has the same cpu and it struggles on her machine. It feels like the game just wasn’t tested well.
After all this time I don’t think I ever heard anything about how Crysis plays or what’s the story and such. People only talk about how hard it was to run and how fancy these graphics were. Doesn’t make it sound all that great.
Story is meh but lots of people will say how the open ended nature of Crysis was fun and a pity that it was removed for a more linear CoD style in Crysis 2
“Development of this skill tree actually started before Darktide launched, but some classes were further along than others. The system just wasn’t ready last year.”
Sad that it’s another “launch the game now and finish it later” situation. Hope these are fun.
Yeah, I enjoy the gameplay and atmosphere a lot but it’s obvious this game was rushed out in a bad state.
They wasted a lot of goodwill with the initial release, I hope with changes like this they do good with the players and then they’ll have a chance to bring in new ones.
They messed up initially with Vermintide 2 and then caught up and did the same thing again with Darktide.
I would agree. It’s wild to me that they are still releasing content (Free and DLC) and regular hotfixes for Vermintide 2. I remember it also releasing in a similar state to Darktide. Which is why I just decided to wait. I’ve had a ton of fun with both Vermintide games, so I have a good feeling they’ll get it there eventually.
Honestly, at this point every AAA title should just be treated as having a release date of 3mo to a year out from the actual launch. There’s zero reason to buy a game before day one, and any developer that tries to give you one a la cosmetic preorder bonuses probably doesn’t have a product worth your money, and is just trying to milk your FOMO for every dollar it’s worth.
This is true of just about every story telling trope in every genre of every form of media right now. The gems that stand out genuinely change the formula, because otherwise, we’ve seen it all before.
That is an interesting read. Everyone in the comments are ripping the author as pretentious oof lol. As I said in my OP, I think this problem goes much deeper than shallow video games. Movies and TVs are struggling to find novelty in the endless deluge of content we’re currently experiencing. (Books and webserials seem to be doing more ok but I’m also a lot pickier about what I’ll consume there so its selection bias) We’re in an infinite monkey typewriter situation and at this point it seems mostly random when something is just different enough to be good television. A tale as old as time, the situation remains: the best stories are character driven.
I think the reason they are struggling is because all the decisions on what should be greenlit are being made by VC investor types, business people who arent in it for the love of film or storytelling etc. No chances are taken, only huge guarantees of big returns are considered (which means replicating what has made money in the past.)
This kind of thinking neglects what actually makes a movie good, and how movies were made in the past.
100%, Id say the problem is multi faceted but for sure a big (maybe even majority) part of it is big money trying to guarantee a hit rather than produce quality content
95% of everything has always been crap. We live in a golden age where we have enough non crap at our disposal that we never have to watch anything awful if we don’t want. You will, however, have to look for it – it’s scattered among a dozen services and you’ll need to engage with reviews and social media to find what you’re looking for, most likely.
There’s also a filter of time thing going on, where we forget the shitty media of the past. 1992 gave us Reservoir Dogs, A Few Good Men and My Cousin Vinny. It also gave us Pet Seminary 2, BeBe’s Kids and Love Potion Number 9. So was it a good year or a bad year?
This isn’t a well formulated idea but something that’s been kicking around in my head for a while. There have always been bad movies and TV but I think what is somewhat new is that the blockbuster films are so big budget that it’s always “a good movie” in that its well made but the substance is always lacking. It’s kind of a bizarre and unsettling feeling watching a well produced 200 million dollar movie that kinda… sucks? Is boring? Because movie magic has become so commodified its hard for a movie to ride on flash and sparkle alone.
Ah, I’ve seen this problem in storytelling broken down to this:
You don’t want your story to be a bunch of “and then and then and then.” You want your story to be “because this happened, this other thing happened, then because of that, this other thing happened.” Etc etc.
pcgamer.com
Ważne