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.
I am a huge BGS and “game cinema” fan, and Starfield felt so… boring. Both the first bit I played before I dropped it, and YT videos to see what I was missing.
For lack of another explanation, its like all those fun side quests and nooks individual writers went crazy making lost their spark. Even ME Andromeda had more compelling bits.
So I can see modders shying away. Why put all that work into something one has no desire to replay, especially with the alternatives we have these days.
You would have to basically make a whole game and rewrite characters and quests to make it better. But that’s a lot of work for modders especially when they’re not that interested in the game to start with.
I never got into WOW. As a 90s kids Warcraft was always the FIRST game in the series. I couldn’t get the 2nd one as a kid (and only played part of it a few years ago to get it out of my system).
This hatred for old games makes me want to take a shit outside their offices.
I did not lose interest in 2. I simply couldn’t get it. I think we had some demo versions but they just… didn’t work. I have a functioning copy now, but I haven’t played it much. It is a fantastic game.
When I first got WC2, I discovered that my 1x CD couldn’t read from the disc fast enough for me to play it. The game would run for about five or ten minutes, then crash. I made it about half way through first campaign - 5 to 10 minutes at a time - before I was able to afford a 4x CD and play it normally.
For me, it is just that the game never ran. To make it clear, I don’t think I ever had the WC2 full game, but the demo, but that didn’t do much either. I remember being at a cousin’s place who seemed like he had it, but again… it just didn’t run. It seems like all the forces that be in the 90s just didn’t want me to play that game.
I find this especially interesting as I bought the game from a garage sale and when I got home I found out it was just a burned disc with a home-printed label. I was too young to understand the dangers of putting that shit in my cd-drive but old enough to know there was a good chance the game wouldn’t work at all. To my great surprise it worked fine and I played the crap out of it. Probably one of the first games where I finished the single player campaign.
I played hundreds of hours of WC2 and WC3 over LAN in college, awesome games. Starcraft too. I mean quotes and terms from WC RTS games haven’t entered the modern lexicon the way that “zerg” has but they’re part of the same cultural continuum and are important to understanding how we got here.
Edit: also, WoW was huge but it’s where Blizzard lost their way and will always be tainted in my mind. RTS is more my scene than those sleazy MMOs
Yeah, I never got into MMOs (probably because WoW got big before I had a disposable income lol), so RTS was also my scene back then. I dabbled in SC, and played WC2 at a friend’s house, but WC3 is where I really cut my teeth. That game was so much goddamn fun to play online (dial-up, don’t pick up the phone mom!). I remember getting caught every now and then in some kind of surprise rush that I had never seen, so I’d save the replay of the game and watch back to see how they did it, and then try it out against other people… I think I learned some kind of wyvyrn rush with Night Elves that way, if I recall correctly. Shit was tight. My memory is shit, I can’t believe I can recall that. There were so many crazy strategies I picked up that way.
I’ve heard a lot of mixed opinions on the WC3 Leaders mechanic, as it focuses gameplay around farming and single points of failure (losing a leader at the wrong moment often meant losing the game)
In that light, Starcraft was the pinnacle of PC RTS gaming and WC3 was an experimental variation that branched off into an RTS variant that would eventually congeal into DOTA, the pinnacle of PC MOBA gaming.
I played DotA for 14 years, but WC3 was home to so many more incredible custom maps. Element TD is an example of another that became a standalone game. But there was also Footman Frenzy, Uther Party, Wintermaul Wars, Hero Line Wars, X Hero Siege, and countless others that made WC3 the greatest RTS platform ever conceived. I hope the suits that pushed out the piece of garbage that is “warcraft reforged” rot in hell forever
I loved WC3 because of the Hero mechanic. It made it added just enough RPG to it… You could usually resurrect your Hero, and if I recall, you can upgrade to make the cooldown faster. Been so long though and I didn’t play the unfortunate remake.
That’s like saying “A hamburger is good, but I just can’t into bacon double cheeseburgers.”
I mean, I would say this unironically.
I’ll add that WC1 had fewer variances between factions. Orcs and Humans were almost identical. That made the game more akin to a real time digital chess than WC2, which made Orcs marginally more aggressive and Humans more defensive. I think WC2 is more fun because of the asymmetry, but that’s purely a question of taste. I’m not going to begrudge someone who has a fondness for the original.
Mine experience is polo with non major brand logo and carrying a whole PC. If you come in a white work van, not a single person will question you, they will even open the door for you.
Nintendo: Emulation is illegal, criminal, and you should never ever do it. If you do, we will sue your ass, send the Pinks, and then shit fury on you!!!
Also Nintendo:
Needless to say, I will not be buying an alarm clock today.
They literally included emulation starting with the wii
So it is more of a rules for thee but not for me situation. Not you should never ever do it but you should only do it on our hardware with our emulators
I mean, their position is that they as the rights holders can republish how they please, but that buying a cartridge does not give you license to play on other devices. You can disagree with them on legal or philosophical grounds but their position isn’t really inconsistent.
You arent wrong and they have every right to use emulation themselves as the legal owners of their products.
The hypocrisy, as i see it, is that they have in the past painted emulation as bad. Fullstop. So for them to have had that opinion, then use it themselves is where they come into being called out for it. Hence the rules for thee but not for me phrase.
And its not a perfect fit which is why i said “more of a” if that helps explain how i intended to mean it
The inconsitency is in their past words vs actions especially where going after emulators is concerned.
It’s tough if not impossible to find now, so I don’t blame anyone for not knowing or believing this to be the case whole google results are dominated by more recent events involving more recent emulation cases. But they have literally in the past made the false claim that emulation itself was an illegal practice. Then later they pretend they never said that and most people never see it. I’ve seen emails from the big N’s legal team making the claim, but it was over 20 years ago. I just have a long memory…
Totally wrong my guy. I do see what you mean, but im claiming to be an exception to the case you have laid out.
Their actions are more important than their words which is why i made my point. Im well aware of nintendos history with going after emulation. They almost rival the mouse
For the record im not defending Nintendo here, i just apprciate honesty and accuracy. Otherwise its just slander and misinformation which we have way too much of.
Anyway their “philosophy” seemingly changes whenever convenient. No slander or misinformation there just sucky reality. You replied to someone mocking actual junk they at least pretended to believe at one point so I wanted to point out they actually have said things like this, coz I legit thought you didn’t know. At that time your other reply calling out their hypocrisy didn’t exist yet.
That seems weirder to me to be honest. Like the recent The Lord of the Rings: Return to Moria. Just call if Return to Moria and make a LotR badge for marketings sake. Same here.
While Helldivers 2 and Baldur’s Gate 3 might look like sudden jackpot successes
This article is funny. It’s like the feel-good inverse of a rage-bait article. It’s stating what we all want to be true and cherry-picking two games that only sort of provide evidence towards it, and only if you squint really hard.
Both games are sequels backed by huge publishers with tons of cash.
BG3 is a Dungeons and Dragons franchise title; a franchise which recently received a massively successful film, a huge boost in popularity during a pandemic, and a boost in cultural relevance in Strange Things.
Helldivers 2 fits the claim a bit better, but it is still a sequel to a well received, well selling title. The extraction shooter genre is also exceedingly popular right now, and the fact that it has Games as a Service bullshit built in says that publishers weren’t as hands-off as the article implies.
So the more realistic take-away from this is that good games with huge budgets for development AND marketing in reasonably popular genres can make a ton of money.
Which isn’t saying much. And it certainly doesn’t look like a sudden jackpot.
Very true. Though I would click that bait so hard!
I still prefer this type of article to lots of others in the bait family. Obviously they want people sharing this article and saying “See! That thing I believe is proven!”
Worth mentioning that Helldivers is hugely and openly influenced by Starship troopers, which although not as big as something like D&D, is still pretty well known in pop-culture to this day, at least in the sci-fi circles.
I can’t speak to Helldivers, but pinning Baldur’s Gate 3’s success on the recent growing popularity of the D&D franchise is beyond reductive. There’s no huge publisher for Baldur’s Gate 3; Larian’s a licensee and an independent studio to boot, and Hasbro’s not running massive marketing campaigns for them any more than Disney is for the typical licensed Star Wars game. There’s also the game’s pay-once sales model, which is something else you get when you’re not beholden to publishers or public shareholders.
BG3 was the culmination of decades of iteration by Larian and was the studio’s first attempt with a AAA budget. The game has more in common with Divinity: Original Sin 2 than it does Baldur’s Gate 2, as the Baldur’s Gate die-hards would be happy to tell you.
Calling CRPGs a popular genre is also going to get some laughs. Sure, we might be able to look on this point now in a few years as when CRPGs went mainstream (or maybe not, as the insane amount of choice built into the game set the bar so high that it’s possible no one’s going to bother with that kind of risky content-making). But by the time Larian started development on BG3, the genre had just risen from the dead after some successful Kickstarter campaigns and was still very niche.
I think the last good Ubisoft game I truly loved was Beyond Good & Evil. And I am pretty sure they merely published that, but it’s been a long time I could be misremembering.
That’s probably why development now stops. Nah, I’m being sarcastic, they did good with Anno 1800 and I can understand something new to make money with is needed.
CS is awash with gambling websites that let you bet on the outcome of a match and potentially win some weapon skins. As for the reasons for the stunt, it’s explained in the article.
I really wonder how the palworld devs feel about being gamepass day 1. I have no idea what the payouts look like for them. It probably got a lot more people to try their game, but would they have done better selling it only on steam? They probably weren’t in a position to negotiate a very favorable contract with Microsoft.
I think that’s looking at the deal in hindsight. Palworld had just as good a chance at flopping completely as hitting #1 worldwide, I imagine they were grateful for the opportunity to have some guaranteed income at the time.
I think they meant guaranteed income prior to selling the game, since they had no way of knowing how successful (if at all) the game was going to be once released.
Because craftopia and palworld have a social aspect getting a big seed of players who only played it because it was free (for them) was I think a catalyst in making palworld blow up like it did. There are too many games out there for people to look through so it probably helps get word out effectively to sell out cheap for a big initial audience like gamepass when you’re a small dev. I only knew of craftopia or palworld because of gamepass at least
The flip side is Microsoft is 100% giving the above as a sales pitch to devs why they should put their game on gamepass for peanuts (paid in exposure!). That’s probably some of what drives the shittier deal devs get now
For those wondering about why such basic features are mentioned here it’s because work on Squadron 42 (single player part of the project) moved to the polishing stage and everything created for it is being ported back to Star Citizen (multi player part).
Is it worth an article? It is if you’re interested in the game, I guess?
Is SC a perfect project? Of course not, far from it. I do find it interesting however how… angry it makes people and how much they want it to fail. Yeah, I know $1000+ packages and so forth (not needed if you just want to play the game btw).
For those interested in actually checking for themselves whether it’s a scam or not, there are free flight events multiple times a year - you get to see the current state of the game with everything good and bad it entails. Surprisingly enough, they tend to bring in more players every single time.
Just because the product they are making is quality does not mean it isn’t a scam. The game was supposed to be released a decade ago now. They said they had the entire single player finished and ready in 2014. The things they have made are impressive, sure. But after that amount of time its looking more and more like they lied about how ready things were to get more funding, and have been doing that for a decade now.
I absolutely agree with this point. I think CIG’s inability to openly communicate when things go bad is a big reason for the scam allegation (that and loooooots of issues with planning, especially early on). I see it’s as a serious problem for a project that presents itself as “open development” (which it is, don’t take me wrong, but not as much as it should be).
I think both CIG and players underestimated how long it takes to build a company, tech and two big budget games at the same time. It’s 100% on the devs to realize and communicate that, which they failed to do.
For better or worse, S42 is officially in its final stretch. Is it really? Transfer of people towards SC seems to confirm that but we’ll see when the game finally releases. When that happens we’ll also see whether game taking this long was worth it.
On the contrary, the last few years were pretty much fully focused on Squadron, with SC being maintained by (almost a) skeleton crew - hence the slow updates.
Now updates are seemingly picking up, though it’s early to say for sure since we only got one quarterly patch so far, with next one probably targeting April-May (depending how porting some of new additions goes).
They didn’t, they just had a big announcement on October that SQ42 is “feature complete” and that it’s entering the polish phase which is why they moved devs back to SC. The remaining teams stay on SQ42 as so-called “strike teams” to polish and tweak tech.
Source: I follow the development way too much, send help lol
It’s not that they lied about it being complete, it’s that they entirely changed the scope of the game around 2014ish. If I remember correctly they even had a poll asking the community if they’d rather wait for planetary landing which was originally not meant to be in the game.
The original game was freelancer 2.0. you don’t land on a planet, you get into a cutscene and then appear in “New Atlantis” (yes I’m referring to star field, that’s not a city in SC) then as the story goes a developer made a tech demonstration they called “pupil to planet” showing the ability to continually zoom out from, you guessed it, looking at a pupil and going all the way to space with no loading screen so the had to essentially rework the game from the ground up. The story and a lot of the assets/voice work, etc was all done and “ready” for what that game would have been, but since the change they now had to rebuild a lot of the systems and make new systems for the way the game works now. That’s just squadron 42 (the single player game) star citizen the MMO has always been a bit on the “back burner” waiting for SQ42 to complete.
Now that we’re past all that, and just this last weekend SC had a majorly important tech test that seemed to go very well, they’re putting the last foundational pieces together so they can actually complete the game.
If anyone wants to say it took too long, I’m with you. I backed in 2014 and thought “damn, answer the call 2016? That’s a long ass time.” but to say it’s a scam? They’re the dumbest bunch of scammers in the entire history of scamming, Nigerian princes and all, if this is supposed to be a scam.
If SC simply showed their original roadmap and timeline, it would speak to itself if it is a scam or or not.
As someone who bought in from the start (when everything was bundled), the argument of “not a scam” fell through when they started to hide their original roadmap.
Just to clarify, which roadmap are we talking about?
The changes to the release view from last year or so?
One from CitizenCon after addition of full planet exploration?
One from the early days where SC was suppose to be a prettier Freelancer with planets separated by a loading screen and consisting of a small hub for activities?
I’d like to make sure which one we’re talking about.
Edit: I’d also like to add, how far are we going with people being scammed?
I can understand this view for early backers (I’m one of them) but what about people who decided to drop money on the game in the last 2 or even 5 years? Were they also scammed despite hundreds of articles about delays, issues and thousands of people yelling about a scam every time SC is mentioned?
I can understand this view for early backers (I’m one of them) but what about people who decided to drop money on the game in the last 2 or even 5 years? Were they also scammed despite hundreds of articles about delays, issues and thousands of people yelling about a scam every time SC is mentioned?
Maybe, maybe not, but is entirely possible to be scammed while also being in a position where you should have known better; the two are not mutually incompatible.
Of course, but I think it’s a bit harder to defend this accusation with all of this info available and the ability to try the game for yourself for free. The latter is what I’d suggest to anyone interested in the game, even if they aren’t worried about wasting money anyway.
Eh, let’s not act like CIG is completely blameless in all of this. They made a lot of mistakes along the way and SC is still far from what they promised it to be.
Yeah it’s honestly pretty fun, but there were juuuust enough performance and stability bugs that I gave up and returned it. I think it has potential and I’m glad someone is doing this.
Which is why I appreciate them doing free flight events. They don’t present the game in the best light a lot of the time but it’s a great way to test if the game is for you in it’s current form (or even in general). They are also a good way to prevent new players from feeling scammed so there’s that.
I feel like a lot of us backed and stayed with this project despite all of the issues exactly because they’re trying to do something no one else is willing to risk. It’s a rough road, full of mistakes and delays but they’re sticking with it, which is more than many people expected.
pcgamer.com
Ważne