Ideally AI could be used to reduce the amount of work required to produce AAA assets, and allow that time to go back into quest design and world building. Or just reduce development time so we can get great games more often.
Yeah, another tool like licensing a game engine or procedurally generated content. It will still require a lot of review and revision, custom work to overcome edge cases, and direction to meet your goals.
Just like automating a agriculture, manufacturing, photography, and food production.
The biggest issue is that due to how capitalism works the reduction in labor effort means people lose out on income instead of society as a whole benefiting through being able to have more free time.
I’m more worried about it being a traffic simulator more than a city builder like the first one without any expansions. I would like to design a city I want to live in. It’s good to be honest about performance at least.
Have you watched any of the feature highlights and accompanying dev talks? Visually speaking, the game looks worse in a lot of really bizarre ways, but the actual city simulation gameplay looks like it’s been much improved. There really wasn’t anything groundbreaking, but they added a lot of the depth that’s been seen in older Sim City titles, as well as what looks like an actually currency based economic model, as opposed to the shallow approximation of an economy that existed in Cities Skylines. They also added the frankly crucial changes to traffic AI that was added to CS1 via mods, into the base game. It looks like as far as the city simulation goes, CS2 will be a solid improvement and there have been a couple well known CS1 YouTubers that seem to confirm that.
That being said, I fully expect this game to look rough and maybe perform even rougher at release, but it does at least look like I definitely wouldn’t recommend anyone buy this at launch unless they pull some big improvements out of their asses which judging by this statement, they don’t plan to, but it is also releasing on gamepass…
Nope, I don’t follow any gaming media other than what I see when browsing all in Lemmy. I just noticed a new Cities Skylines game under Steam’s top seller list so I only know what I saw from the previous game. My main hope is I can make walkable cities.
“You can also create dedicated roads that only allow buses and service vehicles to operate on them, and tram tracks can be built separately bypassing road traffic altogether.”
“Walkable areas in the city can be created using the pedestrian street along with the pedestrian path and bridges. The pedestrian street prohibits all other vehicular traffic except for service vehicles and delivery trucks bringing resources to local businesses.”
I would love to see the equivalent of the Harry Potter game but set in a small hobbit shire with the ability to travel to human cities and elven and dwarven cities.
I don’t get why people liked the Hogwarts game (I’m assuming that’s the one you’re talking about). Exploring Hogwarts was cool, but after that they were just wasting your time with the same few activities spread across the open world to make it not be empty. It was so boring. Then the lockpicking game that didn’t need to exist made things worse, and no one caring about you breaking into their homes or walking around Hogwarts after curfew… It all felt so lifeless after the first hour or so.
Hogwarts itself they made feel alive fairly well until night time, which you’re not supposed to be allowed to walk around during. (The groundskeeper literally tells you to though which makes it all even worse.) Hogwarts and Hogsmead are where it stops being even slightly interesting to me though. The flight mechanics were really boring. They were so bad they couldn’t make quiditch work and just gave a lame excuse about it being closed.
Idk, it just felt like the epitome of an over-managed game where some manager wanted all the bad parts of modern open world games from eight years ago (many of which have been ditched by modern open world game makers) without any thought of how it works in their game. This is all without the Rowling issues and the use of goblins.
Eh, I just found it relaxing. I was a fan of the wizarding universe but not a die hard fan, so little details like being able to explore at night didn’t bother me. I just really liked the detail of the world, running around and looking in all the building and finding the neat little magical creatures and flying objects.
I didn’t mind the flying, I wasn’t doing it to beat high scores in racing or become quidditch champion. I just used it as a means to explore the world.
Definitely wasn’t a fan of the lock picking, probably would have been better if they should locked that behind three different spells you had to learn at different points.
I’m a decent fan, but I guess my issue was I’ve been playing games for a long time. I have spent many hours in open world games, and I’ve seen them evolve. I absolutely hate 99% of them now. The issue is they create so much space that the developers need to fill that they end up spending very little effort on any bit of it. They create a handful of systems that they can scatter about so there’s something to do everywhere, even though it makes it so there’s no particular place that’s unique anymore.
When I was younger and time didn’t matter as much to me, I looked at the hours-to-complete metric as a good thing. I now see how flawed that was. Now I look more towards entertainment-per-hour. The longer your game takes me to complete, the more enjoyable it needs to be throughout. I don’t want to spend 300h doing the same five tasks over and over. I’d much rather a 3h experience that does something unique.
That said, I do agree Hogwarts Legacy had great art direction. If there’s one thing they did well it’s that. It’s just that I felt I had seen it all in a few hours. When art direction is the only thing you’ve got going, what happens when I have looked at your piece of art enough to see all the detail? That’s not to say art focused games shouldn’t be made, but they shouldn’t be made to fill hundreds of hours. I think the game would have been much better if they focused on just Hogwarts and Hogsmead and made those full experiences.
I haven’t played many “open world” games, but I think this captures my general feelings for them.
Like, the new 343 Halo Infinite game’s campaign… it just kinda feels like wandering around a big map doing nothing in particular. I couldn’t get into it.
Compare that to what Bungie has been doing recently with Destiny … much more interesting, much less filler/go do this to keep you busy stuff.
I never played the game but these sound like criticisms I would’ve made. Sounds like it would have been much more fun if they made night exploration more tom clancy style spy/sneaking missions using magic and environmental objects to cause distractions and sneak about. And if they got quidditch right, it would’ve added much-need replayability (and possibly multiplayer) similar to blitzball in ff10.
I also heard the combat was very simple and repetitive. I could understand if they were trying to focus efforts on other hand systems but it sounds like they just skimped on development efforts across the board.
There was an old Gameboy Harry Potter game I really enjoyed that was basically you performing the major Harry Potter plot points (sneaking around, buying stuff, talking to people). The combat was kind of the Pokemon style turn based thing where each side had a health bar and so many moves. Very neat game.
Not surprising that DC is pushing back on this, although I'm not sure if there is anything they can do if Willingham is right and he can put his characters and world in the public domain. Although I suppose they could just send out cease-and-desist notices to anyone trying to use the property and hope no one challenges it.
The original run was creator-owned so he has the right to release it to the public however I am not sure about it now as fables continued on under DC Black Label.
Didn’t a mod get it kinda working not that long ago? The trains were still moving and the stations were there on release, CDPR just put walls up or disabled the doors to the stations/trains. They’re a little jank to ride but it was doable. Felt like CDPR just decided focusing on cool cars was more worth the effort
Since negative opinions travel fast, I’m just gonna say my GPU is actually below the minimum requirements, though admittedly I upgraded CPU last year. The game’s minimum is a GTX 1070 TI, I just have a regular GTX 1070.
In my case, it’s doing a LOT of dynamic resolution and object blurring nonsense to get the game to run smoothly, but it does run smoothly. I get to see the character faces during conversations, I can see what I’m doing, there’s no hitching, etc. New Atlantis looks ugly, but that might change if I get a new GPU.
First game to just have constant crashes on my seven year old RX480, which is great since otherwise the game runs completely fine. Support doesn’t seem to want my crash reports either, I guess in Todds world, I should just throw the thing in the trash for a game that does literally nothing special in the tech department.
So as someone who is an avid fan of Bg1 and bg2, but having never played divinity games because of kinda lack of interest, is bg3 worthy or not? I don’t want to get disappointed.
I had played some post-bg rpgs like dragon age: origins, but it felt like meh and I did not complete it.
I can’t do much to answer your original question but you could always try it and refund it within the 2 hour period steam allows.
Sure, you won’t be able to get the full experience but in that time you should be able to get a basic feel for the game and some characters which could let you form your own opinion.
Steam can be pretty loose with the period too within reason. I only returned a game once, it was the Outer Worlds and I put like 4 hours into it. I explained to them that at that point it was clear that choices didn't have the big impact I thought they would and I felt deceived.
It’s a great game by all measures, but it really feels more like a sequel to the last two Divinity games rather than the Baldur’s Gate series. The only thing it really has in common with the old games is the setting, a few recurring characters, and the fact that it’s based on D&D. Otherwise, they are about as different as CRPGs can get.
If you want a spiritual successor to the old infinity engine games, look at the two Pillars of Eternity games and the two Pathfinder games.
I have had one of the pathfinders games gifted to me, but not tried yet. I guess I should give it a go after I finish up with (totally unrelated) Monster Train.
Pillars of eternity was fucking incredible. They absolutely nailed that old bioware vibe, something I’m certain the cranial leakage Larian employs is incapable of.
I never played BG1 or BG2 or any of the Divinity games. I have played DND a lot. This feels like medieval fantasy Fallout 1 & 2 with AAA flourishes. I really like it. It’s very unforgiving. There are a lot of creative ways to finish quests. You can miss entire bits of the game based on choices. There’s a character you literally cannot recruit based on your morality choices, and with them entire subplots. The game is DEEP
Baldur’s Gate 2 is one of my favourite games of all time, and I was extremely worried and sceptical that BG3 could live up to the hype and the name of the franchise.
To the first point, it definitely has. The game is fantastic, deep, fun and absorbing, with gorgeous environments, interesting nooks, crannies and dungeons to explore and lots of fun making custom multiclass combos for your character.
It does a good job of creating a facsimile of playing Pen-and-Paper D&D with an abundance of skill checks and visible Dice Rolls, and if you decide to roll with your failures instead of save-scumming it has lots of different permutations for events and decisions can have serious consequences.
When it comes to how it relates to the previous games, I’m at the end of Act 2 and have yet to discover a real reason for this game to be called “Baldur’s Gate 3”. So far it has been entirely standalone, narratively. There might still be connections further down the road, however.
The real difference is in the writing. If what you love about the old Baldur’s Gates were the characters and the writing and you want and expect more of that then you will be disappointed. First of all, this game takes place 100 years after BG2 so expect very few familiar faces. The one returning character I’ve encountered so far has not felt particularly recognisable, either. It’s a damn good game, but it definitely feels like an unmistakably Larian game, and not a Baldur’s Gate game, writing wise. It particularly comes through in the companions.
As someone who adores the old games, I still recommend trying it as I’m having a lot of fun with it, but you might want to pretend it’s called “Divinity: Faerun” and not Baldur’s Gate 3 to enjoy it fully.
I love BG series since I’m young (started playing bg1 when I was 14, and I was still playing this year). While BG3 is different in many respect, it is honourable to the franchise IMO.
The game is different obviously, because 20 years have passed. Beamdog made a remaster is what you want is the original game. And BG3 shares a lot with divinity original sin, mostly because it’s the same engine running it. It’s not real time with pause, you have far more interactions with the environment, far more possibilities while exploring the world, and the world is far more reactive to what you’re doing.
IMO BG3 is better than bg2 in almost every respect.
The companions relationships are deeper, and they still have their own personalities, they’re not just following you like in almost all bioware games post BG. There can be very dramatic moment with them.
The rest of the game has a lot to do with what made BG good games. And there was a lot to it.
An important part was the dnd fantasy world and rules. They are updated to 5e, and it’s still dnd, no other game than a dnd franchise would have that.
Most other aspect were already there in Dos2 though: exploration, character and group building, itemization, open world and big side adventures. All that is there and it is the quality of BG. The freedom to do anything the way you like is also there and better than with BG, because the engine allows so much more.
The tactical aspect is also there. The only difference, as I said, is turn based instead of real time with pause. If you’re OK with that, I cannot see how you wouldn’t be happy with BG3, except for some nostalgia that would prevent you from liking anything new. IMO BG3 is factually a better bg2.
Lastly, the story. I’m not that far, and I haven’t seen many connections with bg1 and 2 stories yet. There are references. And the story happens around and in Baldur’s gate (unlike Baldur’s gate 2 btw).
I loved BG2 and it was one of my favourite games ever for a very long time. Though when I read the old BG sub on Reddit it seems people there disliked everything I loved and hyperfocused on things I just considered part of the vehicle to deliver an amazing story that allowed so much freedom and depth that made you feel emotional and connected. I had tried to replay BG2 but the mechanics are so, so outdated now and distracting.
BG3 over delivers on the choice depth, story and connection but does so with an updated, fun and much better engine with much more mechanics.
pcgamer.com
Ważne