I have no clue what people are talking about? I have beaten it twice and surveyed an entire solar system and there was plenty. You can fly around to any point in most planets and moons and have stuff generate at each landing, within hiking distance.
I feel like the game is so big and good, the haters are just hating and being stupidly immature about it.
I think here we are reacting to the colossally dumb reasoning in the quote from the article. Astronauts had a few things to be excited about that gamers… won’t
Everything in the game is “within hiking distance” because that’s how the game generates planets. You don’t just “land on a planet”. You go through several hidden loading screens and arrive in a 1km x 1km square of planet.
Honestly, after the allegations on Xitter, I think it’s time for Linus to not just post apology videos but actually take a leave of absence. He’s the problem and he needs to admit that to himself. Bring in experts on fixing a broken company culture, reorg the company, let those experts fire some problem people, go take some classes on leadership full-time, and come back in a few months and just be a talking head at his company. No leadership at all.
Either way I’m done with them now. Maybe not forever, but I’m not giving them any benefit of the doubt for a very long time.
Remember the "Call of Duty games are DLC" jokes? Well that is literally what they have become. There's no soul in them anymore. They are just a vessel to sell skins.
Yeah but it isn’t really redundant (even if it could have been worded better). Someone might believe that the other shareholders have some say in how the company operates when they won’t.
So, as far as control over the company is concerned, the Saudis have 100% control even though they don’t have 100% of the shares.
If you haven’t noticed there’s a lot of people out there are incredibly dumb, and don’t understand basic math, let alone how a company like EA works.
I can guarantee you that there are more dipshits out there than you’d think who would look at that number and say “well it’s less than 100 percent, so they don’t have total control, so what’s the big deal?”
Now as for whether any amount of clarification is enough to convince those idiots that that’s not how things work, that’s a fair question.
The most recent release is probably Anno 117 which came out yesterday. While decently looking it’s lacking features of the previous title (like coop mode and mod browser) with the promise they will be added later and is priced at around 60€ or 90€ if you want to gamble on the quality of the promised to be released DLC. They also relied on AI generated images in some of the assets used in the game instead of paying their artists. Optimisation for the game seems to be ok, but not great but it might be too early to judge that fully yet.
I don‘t get why they’d cheap out on artists, a couple people drawing illustrations is surely not gonna balloon development cost - and arguably one of the easiest places to spot when it‘s AI slop. It‘s as if they think there must be gen AI stuff in the game somewhere or the game‘s worse or something.
If you look at the older titles, there’s so much love and passion that went into the artworks. 1404 is 16 years old and has aged incredibly well, because of the high quality of the work that went into it. This is missing in 117.
I mean, good creators don’t? There are still AA and indie devs pouring their heart into stories they want to tell?
This article is basically just bemoaning that AAA develops for the lowest common denominator, which I can understand as a gripe, but it’s a very old gripe. If you start really digging into AAA, you’ll get other similar ones like “Why are these gameplay loops made for people who don’t like gameplay” or “How come perfectly serviceable story focused games get mandatory crafting systems added onto them.” When you’re trying to make something to broadly appeal to as many people as possible, you stop making art, so I don’t know why people keep expecting AAA to produce artistic experiences.
I agree, AAA games are long dead. However there was a time where AAA games were amazing, maybe around the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox era. Back when devs were allowed creative freetom to make the games they actually wanted and try new things. I think a lot of people with these complaints miss that level of catered quality from back then
the industry has also be caught in the grips of budget gigantism by an influx of investor cash for the past decade.
Outside investors saw dollar signs with the rapid growth of the market, and also huge financial successes like fortnight. So they were willing to put up a lot of funding in hopes of outsized returns. Pressure from investors and management meant appealing to the largest audience possible, and also chasing the latest trends. Despite the huge budgets, the games were unfocused and bad, both from trying to appeal to too many audiences, and constantly changing direction during development to chase trends.
This article is basically just bemoaning that AAA develops for the lowest common denominator, which I can understand as a gripe, but it’s a very old gripe.
And an easy one to fix: Don’t fucking buy AAA games!
pcgamer.com
Ważne