Tone deaf company. My friend wants me to get into this series so badly, but this article details what a disgusting relationship CA has with its customers.
The funny thing is that “Publisher Bethesda was not permitted to pay additional royalties for the RPG because it scored 84 on Metacritic, according to Fallout New Vegas developer Chris Avellone. It appears that Obsidian’s publishing contract included a deal that meant the studio would be issued bonuses if the game hit a Metacritic of 85.” scores matter to Bethesda a lot even enough to ruin relationships and screw developers.
Oh nooooooo, a random nobody on the internet doesnt like how I write in my second language, whatever shall I do? Is that good enough for you sire? May I get your highly esteemed stamp of approval now?
Isnt that like, a usual part in the game development cycle? I've seen news reports like this for over 15 years now. Developer starts with ideas for a new game, small team. Developer starts actual production of game, team grows. Developer realizes how much work there actually is to be done, team grows even further. Game is almost done and in a good state, team starts to shrink since there is no longer enough work for everyone. Part is laid off and part is reassigned to early development of DLC. Game is released, and smaller team is able to do patchwork. Developer starts with idea for new game, cycle repeats.
Perhaps the main reason we havent seen a lot of these news blurbs over the past few years is that A: CDPR is a good punchingbag. Common memory of the target audience hold the bad release of CP2077, so its easy to get back in the habit and haul in these clicks. And B: TripleA game development mas mostly conglomerated into a few big developers/publishers with several teams around the world. That means that when one project winds down, surplus personnel might be easily integrated into a different team that is just winding up. CDPR is one of the few tripleA developers not able to do this (yet).
No, this is not really typical for a large studio. I’ve been in the games industry for 10 years and losing your team every project is a studio killer. No one does this anymore aside from really small indie studios that can’t afford to keep the team together. This is not normal for a studio that knows what it’s doing.
Saying that GDPR doesn’t know what it’s doing is like saying MGM doesn’t know what it’s doing. They aren’t the best in the industry but they’ve still made some quality products. They know far more about what they are doing than an indie studio that hasn’t even released their first game.
GDPR fans always come up with the most ridiculous excuses for GDPR’s terrible quality. “Well at least they’re better than an indie that’s never released a game”, like seriously?
I’m not a GDPR fan at all. They put out one game I even got through and it was mediocre. I’m just not a fan of the general gaming public thinking they know more than a studio full of veterans.
Ah the classic “if you haven’t done X yourself you have no right to criticize X.” I trust you never criticize books, movies, paintings, games etc of you’re not in those fields?
And, funnily enough, I spent almost 15 years in the games industry as a developer, but I suppose I’m still not allowed to say anything bad about GDPR’s quality because, uh, reasons
I’m not saying that they can’t criticize. I’m saying it’s still a studio that I would say knows what it’s doing more so than a studio that is going to lay off a bunch of people just because the project they were working on ended. You’ve been in the industry for 15 years, how many times have you been laid off at the end of a project at a well-formed studio? In my experience, it rarely happens. If you have a good team you don’t break it up willingly.
That’s all I said. It doesn’t make business sense to do so and CDPR and any well-put-together studio knows this. Any business knows this. To say that “Well, it’s CDPR thus they are going to make stupid mistakes that a novice indie team would make” is silly and not seated in reality.
Not really the case, I was hired 1.5 year ago. There were a bunch of new hires in the meantime and after the layoffs the team looks really similar to what it looked like at the point at which I was hired.
If that’s the case, it’s not the norm. Most studios do not lay people off every release. They get them working on another project immediately. Typically a project starts up as the game is wrapping up for release then people switch gradually.
It was the “traditional” pipeline and to be honest only good for the “publisher” and some big enough studio, but really aren’t that good for those job hunting game devs(and part of the churn and burn culture, can’t and won’t trying to form union if your turn over is high.)
It is how you get broken games every new release cause the guys that sticks around as supervisor didn’t actually code the previous games or know the actual workflow/pipeline that makes the last game(their last touching code/software might be like 10+ years ago), the middle leads etc might have burned out during last crunch and go to next company after their vacation because fuck this crunch thing I have a family, then then newbies wearing shiny shipped game under their belt move to next company for a better position/pay. So no one or very few actually knows how last time things were done and may or may not have a voice during decision making. Every game, you build the team almost ground up and thus, make similar and more mistakes with ever increasing pressure from schedule and scale.
It’s not an healthy cycle, it is something that creative industry should break away from.
This is one of those genuinely funny bugs, tbh. I remember Singles 2, the slightly more naughty competitor from years ago, had a ton of these weird quirky interactions,like masturbating with guests around and stuff.
I haven’t read the design docs for Van Buren myself, were there enough in there to actually build a game out of or is this project more fanfiction and educated guesswork?
In practice, this is a total conversion for Fallout 2, reshaping the isometric classic with new characters, quests, story missions, weapons, and items based on what the Fallout community has learned about Van Buren over the years.
3D like the Fallout 3 we got as a FPS-like game or 3D like still top down but could rotate the camera, sort of like The Sims or Wasteland 2 or something else entirely?
I think it’s because most people already tried out the Quest 2 since it was a bargain. I bought one and forget I even own it most of the time and the same goes for 4/5 of the other people I know with one.
VR is not bad but it nothing about it has really drawn me in at all.
Anything can be suboptimal hardware, the Steam Deck is no different from any other computer and does not even have to be a handheld.
And I do not play or own a Steam Deck or alike, if that concerns you. Accept other peoples hardware and ways to play, it’s a whole lot easier than whatever you’re doing.
The thing could be a budget gaming PC for some people. Most people are not going to be competing super hard; they just want to play the game and have fun. Who else would be taking up the bronze and silver brackets?
Steam Deck is not limited to handheld, you can hook it up to a desk setup with USB -C. Also, I used to play CSGO handheld. I’m in the low silvers even on PC and it doesn’t make a big difference to me skill wise. You can be really precise with trackpad + gyroscope.
Anyone else remember when “competitive shooter” also implied it could be run on a fucking potato with decent speeds? Or that competitive games aren’t still meant to be played for fun by the vast majority of people who are gonna be playing?
It’s not targeted exclusively towards professionals, is it?
I appreciate Postal 2 because the premise is kinda funny. It’s deliberately designed so you can beat it without doing any violence at all. You’re given tasks like get milk, pick up your paycheck, etc. And it involves standing in lines or people berating you. You’re stuck doing tedious annoying repetitive tasks, or you can get a flamethrower. I think standing in line to get Gary Coleman’s autograph takes 90 minutes if you do it normally.
Otherwise it’s very silly early 2000s edgy white guy dudebro humor
You’re stuck doing tedious annoying repetitive tasks, or you can get a flamethrower.
That premise, while cute, hasn’t aged well for me. The ever-rising number of chanlords shooting up their schools (and elder chanlords murder-suiciding their own families) because no one would blow them behind the bleachers (or because the wife left him or the kids won’t call anymore) sours the premise of “wouldn’t it be funny to murder everyone that mildly annoyed you” white guy dudebro humor for me long ago.
This is my only lemmy account and I made it before reddit killed 3rd party apps as I quit going on there. Going through my post history to try and judge me is something weird to do though
Going through my post history to try and judge me is something weird to do though
Rising from dormancy while otherwise doing nothing with that account, just to announce how mad you are that your edgy game wasn’t to my liking is weirder to me.
I comment when I have something relevant to say and typically delete mean shit after typing it out cause morons like you aren’t worth my time.
Surely someone must be a moron if they don’t like your edgy video game! What an emergency! And I’m so not worth your time that you’re still replying, you foaming frothing edgy gamer stereotype. frothingfash
Have a nice life man. Hope you find something you can enjoy your time at instead of whatever it is you’re doing.
Your passive aggression and petty concern trolling attempt, because I didn’t like your edgy video game, is noted and will receive all the consideration it deserves. kirby-wave
Yeah, was so ambitious, but progress is so painfully slow. If they delivered on what they have said though, the game will be incredible, but I highly doubt that is ever going to happen, I gave up hope almost a decade ago.
Elite Dangerous too. I was really disappointed when I lauched Starfield and learned there wasn't any seamless landing for exploring planets. It was a huge bummer to me.
Elite Dangerous is by far the most fun I've ever had landing and taking off in a space ship. No other game comes even close. It genuinely never got old. The entire docking process was so damn fun with a HOTAS.
Oh wow, I haven’t played since before you could land on planets. My issue with Elite was always feeling like there was exactly nothing to do at all beside mine and be bad at dog fights lol.
I mean, that’s still pretty much the case, it’s just emulated very well, with lots of polish. It’s a lot like Minecraft in that you have to make your own fun, but once you find it it’s a very nice flow. It’s definitely better with friends, and fights with real players especially are fun, and make you realize just how bad you are.
What's fun about getting ganked by overengineered griefers hunting newbies at the first engineering station that the game points you to? I jumped to solo after that. Fuck that.
Likewise, I haven't played any of the expansions. I didn't say it was a perfect game, just that landing and taking off has not been better in any other game. I loved the space stations.
You mean you can now land on planets in Elite Dangerous? A game I own and haven’t played in years? This is the second game I’ve been shown I need to go back to by these conversations. ‘Satisfactory’ popped up yesterday. At this rate I’ll never play Starfield.
You can land on moons in elite dangerous and if you have the expansion you can land on planets and moons with a light atmosphere and walk on foot.
If anyone complained about barren moons everywhere in starfield, just be warned elite has exactly zero interesting planets/moons in the literal billions of star systems it has. Everything is identical minus terrain colors and planetary rings. I loved elite for a while, but as far as exploration goes you really need to like scanning for the sake of scanning.
Starfield has a lot of stuff to explore, even if some of it is repetitive, but elite has maybe 10-15 interesting locations in the entire galaxy…
I’ve been thinking about picking it up. Do you need one or two HOTAS? I already have a pretty expensive racing sim so I’m not trying to go down that rabbit hole (again)
We’re now at the “I dunno how much more worse we can make it but let’s keep adding more shit and find out” phase of the failure of the Suicide Squad game.
I watched a trailer and gameplay and some interviews for the first time yesterday and it's such a bummer vecause some of the ideas that they have are really interesting, and i think the game could have some potential, if you are into the kind of looter shooter thing. But i have very little hope for the game. Little to no
As someone who uses gold to buy WoW tokens for both game time and shop credit to make other Blizzard purchases, I have a hard time getting upset over this. I’ve been playing the game without spending money for years, and tokens are also how I buy both WoW expansions and other Blizzard games. Asking me to pay money for a month of sub time every few years seems reasonable, especially if this change makes it even the slightest bit annoying/harder for bot accounts.
The WoW token wasn’t introduced until WoD, so if you played that long ago it wouldn’t have been an option. If you’re ever looking to jump in again though, it’s definitely a useful system if you like to make gold in game.
As long as it’s a one-time thing I can’t get too annoyed by it.
I just hope it doesn’t turn into a frequent thing, and it’s hard not to be skeptical when the token/battle.net credit system has only become more restricted over the years.
True, if it turned into a situation where you had to sub with money for a month every time you wanted to redeem a token or something, that would definitely lessen the value for me. I’d still say it was worth it because I could use the tokens for expansions and other games, but not everyone may have the same opinion.
But somebody else has spent the real money to buy a token. The only justification for the concept is, that it allows people with less time and more money to balance things with people with more time and less money, in an effort to curb the expansive illicit gold trading that happens otherwise (and still does).
Without the motivation of the people with less money and more time, to afford playing for free, the whole concept is weakened and the token sellers are more inclined to go back to illicit gold farmers.
I don't think they did. The genre could do that all by itself regardless of Halo or CoD. It also feels like there can only be so many creative weapons. Ratchet & Clank reused the same handful of templates after only a handful of entries.
We used to have flak cannons, tri-barreled rocket launchers, railguns-a-plenty, and rifles that straight-up shot everything from super-heated(and occasionally explosive) circular saw blades to literal lightning bolts. What do we have now? Licensed out dime-a-dozen replicas of the same like 30 weapons that keep spilling innocent blood in the hands of irl barbarians; I refuse to believe that would’ve just been ‘the end game anyway’ assuming a world without military spectacle as a genre. Not knowing how much Pentagon money goes into military spectacle.
At least Halo tries to look like it didn’t jump off the weapons rack at your nearest military outpost’s armory. Fails about half the time, but it at least tries.
The sci-fi games that didn't just jump off the weapons rack gave us assault rifles with chainsaws on the end of them. Ratchet & Clank has no connection to the military industrial complex and gave us the same handful of templates within only about 5 years of the franchise. There's just only so much you can do with a weapon that's essentially a gun. Maybe you get one really unique-feeling weapon every game, but you can't get an entire arsenal of that every game.
I’d have paid 70 bucks for the zombies mode alone which is all I wanted it for anyways. Team deathmatch and domination are so boring compared to game modes like warzone, DMZ, and the new zombies.
Considering it’s the first CoD I’ve purchased since Infinite Warfare, I probably won’t. I haven’t even bought a new game since Mass Effect: Legendary Edition. I’m a patient gamer 99% of the time, I just love the idea of an open world zombies game and it was absolutely worth the money on that premise alone.
How does the open world affect it? One of the reasons I liked Zombies mode in the earlier CoDs was being able to do quick maneuvers through tight spaces and really getting the game down to a muscle memory to see how far you could go.
Well there’s definitely still places where you can flex those muscles! There’s nests that you have to go into buildings and clear out, which still requires you be able to dodge and loop through rooms. Getting stuck in a room that doesn’t have a window to jump through or a second door is a death sentence unless your gun is way over-leveled for the zone you’re in.
There’s also a couple other mission types that are “hold out” style that you have to perform in similar ways.
The open world does affect it though, in my opinion for the better. The map has three zones of increasingly difficult enemies (the ones from Cold War Outbreak are back) so you can pick how far you want to go on any given match. The goal isn’t to hold out for as long as you can until you die (though you can if you want) but instead the goal is to find and extract items that will allow you to upgrade your gear quicker (all pack-a-punch, rarity upgrades, and perk colas reset on extract) so that you can drop in and gear up fast for a high level set of missions that will earn you higher level equipment and upgrades. Including schematics so you can craft the upgrades eventually and have a little bit more to roll with from the get go.
So basically, perk sodas, P-A-P, and rarity are extractable items that you can stash and stock up (in addition to weapons) and the gameplay loop is either in building your character out for high level missions or acquiring a backstock of critical perks and upgrades so you can drop in and upgrade immediately to go straight into the hot zone. If you survive, you have to extract. Which can be done either at the least dangerous zone but based on the given match’s randomness could also be in a higher risk zone as well.
Extracting is just mowing down hordes of zombies while trying to defend the helicopter until it takes off.
It’s functionally DMZ+Outbreak, but the itch it scratches is closer to L4D than old school zombies. If you really like the idea of getting to high waves and pretzels with a ray gun it probably won’t be enjoyable, but for someone who’s always wanted an open world zombies game done right, it’s perfect.
bit wait, I do remember another differentiator. Dying light heavily discouraged frequent use of guns, preferring you to use melee. If you used guns too much, it would spawn in a bunch of 28-day-later zombies that would absolutely fuck your shit up in groups.
I think this is an accurate way to put it. I happen to like that game but if it's not what you were expecting or you're tired of it you're not going to like the game.
I have to say the best change from FO4 is ditching the voiced protagonist. That was a big mistake at the time.
What a wierd take, given that people STILL play Skyrim, Morrowind, and Fallout games in droves to this day. And that there are a ton of YouTubers that have made careers exclusively off of Beth lore and build videos and such.
Also given the post is about the game shifting to “mostly positive” on Steam. Which means the vast majority of reviews on steam are actually positive. And a lot of the negative reviews have to do with performance and technical issues, not the gameplay itself.
Also the fact that other “open world story-based shooters with rpg and crafting mechanics” are actually really popular - you know like Cyberpunk, or Mass Effect, or RDR2, or arguably, Jedi Survivor.
If you don’t like Beth games, that’s fine. They’re not for everyone. But it doesn’t mean your opinion is universal.
pcgamesn.com
Ważne