I wonder if this 40-70% demographic has actively tried to play it a couple times? My first experience with VR was incredibly disorienting, and yes, made me feel nauseated. But after playing for 2-3 hours across a handful of 15-20 minute sessions (passing it around a few friends for an evening) that just went away. Once the body uses it a bit and learns, even high-movement non-teleport movement games stop being an issue.
I wonder if I happen to be in that upper percent, or if the numbers in question are a matter of people who tried it once in their life and felt sick. Clearly the author has put real time into trying to move past it, but that doesn’t say anything for the study he quotes the “40-70% of players are 15 minutes” numbers from.
I played VR and had a blast. It was usually the ones that were mounted to the ceiling at a mall arcades. I could play no big deal for hours. My brother in law got a vr headset for Christmas and I tried to use it and got unbelievably sick after 20 minutes of playing it.
I played super hot, some moving zombie game, and that plank game on thw vr headsets at mall arcades with no problem moving around, twisting, and moving fast. I played a stationary puzzle game on my bil’s. I dont know what causes the sickness but it was veey bad on his unit. I womder if the suspension at the mall arcades made the difference, rather than having a free roaming headset.
Heard somewhere that it can get worse if you try to power through the nausea and sickness. Like your body remembers that it made you sick before and wants to actively avoid going through that experience again. So if you start feeling sick, especially when you first start out, stop playing.
Since you’re asking for anecdotes: my VR headset consistently made me sick following 30 min to an hour at the absolute max. I still played dozens of times for short spurts, but it never got better for me.
He’s said that way before 2020, also. Publicly. It seems that has not changed. Most in that kind of position would come to the same conclusions of buying up the competition and making money off their products. It’s cheaper, it’s easier, you already get the infrastructure and customer base, etc. What capitalist wouldn’t try to go that route?
The timing on these comments reads to me like: “I sure am sad EA made us dilute Dragon Age into a third-person action game and chase trends, now that BG3 proved CRPGs can still sell”.
Though TBF, the genre went on life support for a reason. It will be interesting to see if we get more CRPG mainstream hits going forward.
I’m loving BG3, but DA is honestly not that far off the mark. It’s missing crunchy, turn-based combat, and the sprawling story, but they probably have the tech and writing chops to pull that off, too.
I believe 2008 Bioware had the chops for it, Post-Anthem Bioware gives me such doubt. I think EA has made it impossible for them to make a game like that again.
Why did the genre go on life support? I have been missing a couch co-op game since the days of PS2, my wife and I used to love playing together. Speaking of old RPGs, anyone know if there are any plans to reboot Champions of Norath? That used to be our favorite game.
I also get confused by all these RPG prefixes, probably too old. In my day I would walk into the gamestop or Babbages and just say “got any new good RPG games” then they would point me to one of the Final Fantasy games, and then I would say “actually I mean, do you have any new hack and slash RPG games?” Then they would say “no, but you can pre-order Call of Duty” and then I would rifle through the bargain bin, and then leave. Good times.
Which means I have essentially been asking for Baldurs Gate 3 for 18 years now (Champions 2 was released in 2005, a year after BG2).
The golden age isometric RPGs (BG1 & 2, NN, Fallout, etc) were dubbed Computer RPGs, because the idea of translating a pen & paper roleplaying game to the computer was novel. But as the 2000’s marched forward and 3D graphics became an expectation - and video game budgets ballooned - simulation and writing took a backseat to visual spectacle, action gameplay, and set-pieces. Niche CRPGs became too expensive to be worth the risk, leading to KOTOR, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, etc; which would have more mass appeal.
As Larian has been showing, the ability to pack all that story and character moments, and present it with a cinematic look and feel is becoming increasingly possible (with years of hard work). Larian and Obisidian have been whetting everyone’s appetites for the CRPG format, and now BG3 seems to be reaping the rewards.
I’m not sure the article convinces me this’ll be more than a reskin of stellaris, which is my most played game of all time, but given that this is my favourite IP of all time…? Can’t say I won’t buy it on launch day.
HG just kept duct taping more crap to the game without adding any depth or integrating their crap together. It’s still an incredibly shallow game where you’ve seen all that there’s worth seeing on the first day of playing.
TL;DR They included battle passes to a game you already have to pay for monthly. People didn’t like it. They went the classic corporate route of empty phrases while including a subtle poke at the people who now boycott it, which made them like it even less (seriously, did this ever de-escalate things?).
Playing the matches is fun, since it is just Overwatch. Literally the same gameplay as Overwatch, but with 5 per team instead of 6.
In between is an assault of micro transaction manipulation bullshit that ruins the experience. PvE is hidden behind a paywall, except for the free stuff that is a retread of the seasonal PvE from Overwatch. I know this because I gave it some hours to see if it was as bad as people were saying.
People hate it because it was supposed to be an improvement but instead it was just another attempt to bleed the players dry. It might be the only game I have reviewed negatively on steam because the monetization really is that bad that it ruins the whole game.
I’m working towards starting my own indie studio. Games are made for people to experience people emotions and it takes a person to be able to understand them in a way that can be accurately conveyed. When I make my studio there will be no generative AI, not in the product not in development. Probably there is a way to use it to streamline some stuff and I’d argue it’s difficult but possible to use it ethically but why the fuck would I want a computer to do my art for me? Why would I want to rob myself or my team of the opportunity to express themselves to other humans?
I made an AI generated cupcake recipe a while back. It was fine, it covered the bases, ratios were more or less correct, if someone were to give me one I’d eat it and not complain. But it was a technically correct cupcake not a good cupcake. It had no love, you could tell it had no love. People joke about that but it’s a real thing there’s something extra humans can do that AI can’t yet and maybe never will be able to, or not in a way humans relate with well. We’ve known how to make games with no love for a while now, that’s capitalism, but AI let’s us freeze dry the love out of everything at scale and the companies behind them are telling us that’s a good thing. Fuck that I’m not buying into it. I don’t make games for money, I barely make games for other people, tbh it isn’t even that fun most the time, I make games because it’s what makes the most sense to me for self expression. Games are what I know how to pour the most love into and an AI won’t help me with that.
I am a programmer and I do not use AI, I’m going to school with some programmers who also do not use AI (some do some don’t). I don’t need luck to find like minded people.
what would you even do in online bully? Roleplay as pretentious teenagers? Sounds even more cringe than GTA and Red Dead RP, which is difficult to accomplish.
And to clarify, I’ve spent most of my life RPing so the call came from inside the house.
pcgamer.com
Ważne