There’s also a recent trend of “forever games”, where it’s clear that the goal is to keep you playing it perpetually. It has both upsides and downsides. These games tend to change intensely over the years. Minecraft is such an example.
I don’t have a problem when small studios do it for games like Terraria and No Man’s Sky. It keeps them solvent without having to attach themselves to a big publisher.
I do have a problem when a giant, established company does it, as is the case for Cyberpunk 2077.
Cyberpunk and NMS did exceptionally decent first day numbers…and then they didn’t do exceptionally decent numbers due to the well-deserved backlash. They would have sold even more copies over the last 5 years if they didn’t scare half of the gaming industry away initially. You have to work really damn hard to save your game from death. Case in point: Bethesda isn’t working to save Redfall and it shows.
Whenever I hear this quote I also think of the developers/publishers. They need to have a good reputation so people buy their games.
I think that’s why EA, Blizzard, Ubisoft, Activision, etc sales have gone down. I will not say that gamers react fairly when it comes to unfinished game releases, but it takes one bad game to ruin a developer. Especially when you consider how small the margins are or if they are publicly traded. Even developers with good games have recently been going out of business because it’s not sustainable.
I also think of their legacies. Especially in a post-steam world, a game with a good legacy will continue to sell for much longer. I don’t think a game like Watch Dogs ever got rid of the stink surrounding it, even though it isn’t a bad game to go back to nowadays.
After watching the Folding Ideas video I was 100% sure I will never come back to this game. Toxiest years of my life. I’m glad for many experiences and friends WoW gave me, but I am really over it and I love being a filthy casual in FFXIV.
I can’t speak for FFXIV, but if you want pvp in an MMO you might give guild wars 2 a try. It’s got 5v5 pvp matches where everyone is on an even playing field. It’s available in the free to play version, and you can go into it right after the tutorial if you want, don’t even have to do leveling.
There’s also a large scale pvp mode called world vs world where you have three teams of hundreds of players fighting over territory. That one uses non-equalized stats so it’s an end game thing, but it’s a lot of fun!
I left in February of 2021, but at the time it was competent but unexceptional. Rival Wings and Conquest(?) were the two big battle types, and I think overall Rival Wings was more interesting, while Conquest usually devolved to a round robin rotation of objectives or endless stalemates unless you had a competent caller directing your nation’s team. I didn’t like it at all, but Rival Wings was always dead outside of events. Rival Wings was like a “MOBA mode” plus vehicles, so a big thing was objective and resource management so you could push an organised vehicle fleet down one of the lanes. Engagements were also typically smaller than in Conquest.
5v5s were very unbalanced but fun for casual play due to job variety, although the high end was being griefed by some notorious hackers around November of last year (which is when I lost touch with the PVP community on Twitter).
In terms of activity levels, I could basically always get a Conquest match or a 5v5 match, but I basically finished my 5v5 achievements and then only ever played Rival Wings when there were enough players to start a match. They’ve recently introduced a reward track for all PVP, so maybe Rival Wings has finally seen its Revival Wings.
We heard you liked call of duty, so we made it so you have to start your old caller of duti before you can play your new phone of obligation, so you can play telephone of responsibility while you play anticipate of indirect tax
Personally I feel that way about Morrowind - mechanically it’s like a stripped down, worse version of Daggerfall while also being an inferior implementation of a fully 3d game than Oblivion.
Morrowind is imo the best from a gameplay mechanics perspective. The utility magic alone was such a huge loss for future games.
I could cast levitation, walk up to the moon prison, magically open the lock, use chameleon to sneak inside, steal stuff from 30 feet away with telekinesis, and if the guards find me, jump down with slowfall and then escape underwater with waterbreathing.
Daggerfall has most of that, and has extra stuff like the ability to climb walls without magic! IMO the dice-roll combat also feels way better in Daggerfall than in Morrowind.
Of all the TES games Oblivion has aged the worst. If you didn’t play it at the time its really hard to be objective about it now. Too much Bloom and ugly potato faces combined with its floaty, clunky combat make it a chore to play today. Game had some great quest writing though and Shivering Isles is a GOAT expansion. It also has an undeniable, if somewhat unintentional, goofy charm to it that I love.
At the time a lot of Morrowind fans hated it for going against established lore and “dumbing down” the series, but it did well critically and was generally well received by the public. It got a lot of people, including myself, into the series. I went back and played Morrowind and loved it so I can see a lot of Oblivion’s weaknesses more clearly, but I still have a soft nostalgic spot for it in my heart.
I absolutely agree with you. And I did play it back when it came out.
There’s a few more things that goes in the “Meh”-pile of changes Oblivion brought to the table. Like the boundless fast-travel system and streamlining magic (although I did like the quick-cast mechanic. But that got scrapped as fast as it was implemented with Skyrim) and so on.
Yeah personally I reckon that Oblivion and Daggerfall are the two best TES games ever made - both are better than Morrowind, and significantly better than Skyrim.
I also reckon that Starfield will be up there with Oblivion and Daggerfall a couple years after the modding tools are released!
Yeah, as someone who hasn’t played Starfield and has no interest in playing it, all their criticisms were just saying they didn’t care for the style starfield was going for. Which is fine, but that doesn’t make it a bad game.
It could be that “NASA punk” is boring to 99/100 people, but that doesn’t mean a game in that style is bad. I think we can all agree that games that are enthralling to a very niche set of people are a good thing, because we all want that game to be for us. We don’t want or expect every game to be equally enthralling to every person.
Starfield could have been a great game. But the general route Beth has taken with Fallout, and continued in Starfield, doesn’t appeal to me. Pointless building filler, environmental storytelling over actual storytelling, radient quests everywhere and so on.
I have no doubt they’ll do the same with TES. Just half-assing it really. Skyrim was already pretty flat, so…
Yeah, Morrowind was mind blowing when it came out. Then I skipped Oblivion, and Skyrim, mechanically, wasn’t that much of a leap over Morrowind. Sure it looked better and had voice acting, but it still feels like a static world. I wouldn’t consider Witcher 3 to be quite the same genre as TES, but imo W3 raised the bar for my expectations from Bethesda. So far I think they still have not made a game as good as W3.
No don’t you understand? They gathered two other people, who work directly with them reviewing games the same way they do. If they don’t like it it means it’s a bad game. Obviously!
It could be interesting for procedurally generated games. Imagine a world with no fixed map, settlements where every person is completely unique and will talk to you about any subject you want to talk to them about (instead of the same canned phrase or two), a completely different roster of baddies to fight every time, maybe even the storyline itself never plays the same each time, or the style of play changes from game to game. I’m hopeful we’ll start to see some truly unique games with AI helping out, though I’m guessing we’ll get a mountain of shovelware that just uses AI to generate shitty non-sensical art assets and meaningless dialogue.
Have you played/seen Vaudeville? It’s a detective game where every character had their own LLM and TTS trained for a specific personality.
It’s super janky and I never finished it because I kept getting conflicting info from characters but…it’s a really great use case for it. The massive caveat being that it requires an Internet connection.
AI-generated maps and NPCs might be ok. Ditto fights, though there would have to be playtesters whose job it is to make sure the result is something winnable and acceptably fair.
The main issue there would be that there IS no continual certainty of that. You'd have to either be able to rerolled entire encounters — which would be jarring — or force the AI to DM what happens when you lose an impossible battle — far more rewarding, provided it doesn't keep doing it. But it may keep doing it. This would be impossible to ever test adequately. Every game on the market may be a hard mode Bethesda game.
I personally really don't think I'd enjoy something with a randomly generated cast/main story for the same reason I wouldn't be interested in owning one singular book whose writing changes every time you read it. I don't play to kill time; I play for the stories and I get attached like hell to the good ones. I replay them ad nauseam because I miss the characters.
I think it would be an intensely entertaining idea either as a New Game+ or for those games to have a wildcard setting that you could turn on and off. That way, there's no lack of devs who get to tell the tale they wanted and players can mix it up when they're bored. Otherwise, you've downgraded the job of the entire company to filling the AI in on background lore and nothing else.
Other aspects:
• for those that do get attached and wanna re-experience it, you'd need a way to save the information behind the game you just played. That file might be fairly gigantic?
• Would also lead to a weird market for other peoples' saves. The way modders already make quests, but for an entire plot.
• NPCs and party members that all look like randomized sims.
Personally, I think I would prefer they hold the game back and do whatever patches or updates they need to help with performance, rather than release a game they know is buggy. I guess it’s nice that they’re actually telling us before people buy the game, and they will be releasing updates. But frankly to me this feels like they’re going to be fighting an uphill battle when they launch the game. Plenty of people won’t see this message, and just buy the game expecting it to work, then turn sour due to the poor performance. You could end up with people refunding the game and never coming back with stuff like that.
I would absolutely add 20 super obscure conspiracy nut teasers to every promo and just never acknowledge anything if I was working for one of these companies.
I'm talking like throwing some messages in binary through specific set of sub pixels of images for a year that all come through because they're my actual plans, then switching them to obviously insane nonsense that will take way longer to disprove and finding a way to get someone to notice.
I’m always curious about how hard it is to make insane nonsense that’s hard to disprove. Like, 100% randomization seems like it could be easier to detect vs. more believable things added by people.
So then you have to spend time making it believable…
"If you take the green subpixel at (46,85), (75,32)... it contains just enough letters you could read as words that form a story detail. And in this post it's a gameplay hint. And this one is a character name" but the same locations enough times in a row that it's hard to be random. Then post a crazy fan theory post after the early ones are known facts about the game and I've embedded crazy shit in a few.
I didn’t see a source for the statistic in the article which is a bit disappointing as I’m really interested to learn more about it. It seems pretty high but also there’s quite a lot of uncertainty built into it.
From my experience with VR I found I got sick after a long enough time but was able to get my ‘vr legs’ and have much longer sessions even on more intense games like Windlands where you swing around like Spiderman (super fun if you have the stomach for it).
The other thing to note is that for me at least it’s a spectrum. It’s not just ‘VR makes me sick’ but it depends a lot of the game or activity and there are a bunch of ways for games to try and reduce it. It does take time to get used to some of them though.
Hopefully things become better with time and more folks get to enjoy it because it’s a lot of fun in my experience.
Yea, some games I can play for hours.
Others make me feel weird after a few minutes.
I can spend a ton of time in Alyx, or doing barrel rolls and corkscrews in Star Wars Squadrons.
I have a hard time finishing a level in After the Fall.
I have had a lot of friends over and try it and since they are making up their statics I will do a statistic purely based of my experience. About 5% of VR triers experience nausea when the frame rate isn’t smooth in a moment of movement.
Jet Island was the game for me that grew my VR legs, Windlands sounds similar except you also have Ironman thrusters and a skate board. After that I could then spend hours in dirt rally 2.0 which poetically would’ve gave me a bad headache before.
I don’t think VR is going to work for us. My SO and I get carsick really easily, and my SO gets sick playing or watching FPS games on a normal screen. It’s mitigated somewhat by adjusting FOV and higher refresh, but it still causes issues within an hour (usually like 30 min).
I wonder how much of this statistics are from people like us, for whom even “tame” things like being a passenger in a car can cause motion sickness.
pcgamer.com
Ważne