We’re also dealing with language differences. English is not the developer’s first language. What may seem a clear sentence to a native speaker, could be easily misinterpreted/mistranslated to something similar, but different enough that the answer changes.
It seems that the AI use was early in development, and limited to temporary placeholders that were going to be replaced. Since they were patched out within days of release, that seems to imply they already had replacement assets on hand, they were just missed during final checks before release.
The answer from the devs also changed prior to the awards show that implies that they may have had an updated interpretation of the qualification question or answer. If they thought the question was about AI use in the final product, then accidentally missing a placeholder swap shouldn’t be disqualifying. Likewise, early experimentation with the tech and then deciding not to use it probably should not disqualify either. But if the qualification is a hard yes/no with absolutely no context or consideration whatsoever, then that’s a different outcome, and hence them clarifying for the awards team.
Personally I think the hard limit without any room for consideration or interpretation is a shit qualification. Especially considering that isn’t really the case for most awards. Look at the definition of “indie” for example. There’s a half dozen different interpretations people have ranging from having to be self published, avoiding just large publishers, or just the publisher not having creative influence. That’s a lot of interpretation comparatively.
The people still defending them is sad. If you give them even a single pass, they will take it for granted. Be glad atleast someone is trying to set a precedent.
Also this game has to be the most polarising one this year. People that played it love it to death and the other well on a lot of social media are now hating it to death(they’re probably salty because of the game awards).
Would have been fine if they’d been up-front about it. Some people still wouldn’t like it, but some people wouldn’t play a game made by French devs. Maybe. I dunno. People are free to have preferences, even if we think they’re weird or don’t agree with them. I think Clair Obscur had a ton of great ideas. Game really wasn’t for me, but I respect the hell out of it. It’s a shame about the genAI. Nice that they’re committing to avoid AI, but they really just need to be honest about what you’re getting. I think if they told people what the AI was used for, it would have gone over better.
Not where I am. There are kids and old people playing alike. Sure, there are some collectors, but there always will be. Hell, the ATLA set has really good jump start packs, which are explicitly for playing
Nobody even plays the Pokemon TCG. Well, I guess a couple dozen people might, but that’s about it.
The video games are basically the same game repackaged over and over again. No disrespect to people who like Pokemon of course, but the Pokemon Company could do a lot more than they do now. But it has stuck around because people really like the brand for some reason.
MTG, on the other hand, is shitting itself currently, but the core gameplay has evolved over 30+ years into the framework for a very detailed game with countless possible interactions. There are dozens of actively played formats for the game, and despite WOTC’s best attempts, will not be dying anytime soon.
E33 is not even in the same category as those games. To begin with, it’s a single game, not a whole franchise. It seems a bit unfair to compare it to those games in terms of staying power. Regarding gameplay, E33 is far more interesting than Pokemon. It doesn’t have the same depth as MTG or D&D, but MTG’s comprehensive rules is a PDF with around 300 pages, and D&D has entire rulebooks. E33 is far easier for people to learn than those two games as a result.
Chess, uh, is not a very popular game. People play it of course, but it stuck around because of its history. Also, the demographic of people playing video games regularly and classic board games regularly doesn’t have a huge amount of overlap.
Server load is not a great indicator of how good a game is.
Silksong is an excellent game but it’s absolutely not in the same league. COE33 is a much more sophisticated game with deeper story and advanced artwork.
Silksong was 1/3 the price so they could sell many more copies, and COE33 didn’t have nearly the same hype on launch. None of that makes Silksong a better game.
IMHO fart sniffing pick and the only person I know who will play it is a persona fan.
The description and trailers don’t seem revolutionary or mind blowing. Just a pretty turn based with a story that EA or Ubisoft didn’t half ass. BF6 just went on sale for $40 from $70 and is the best selling game of the year.
And never will. The total selling point is “a deep story” and but I haven’t heard single specific that sounds deep or even interesting.
You come off like the kid who insisted I play Persona. It’s not that deep, try some more adult media. We have a guy here on Lemmy who highly recommends A Brave New World 🥲
As far as I understand it, the comparisons pretty much end at the combat system / gameplay mechanics.
Without giving away too much, you have a world where, every year, everybody of a certain age is erased. Every year, those with one year left to live set out to try and stop that from happening - and for ~77 years, none of them have returned.
This sets the stage for exploration of grief, loss, and associated trauma. In most games, there’s death everywhere but the emotional side is relegated to a 3 minute scene with sad piano music before the characters get back to the action. In this game, they drill a lot deeper and it really makes the characters come alive.
They’ve nailed the blend of sadness, joy, and even comedy.
This is all then set in a backdrop of some of the most visually interesting environments ever presented in a videogame with a completely insane musical score that brings all of those moments to life, the game is effectively a frisson machine.
I’ll add to the other comment for anyone else that’s actually open to new things, because I traditionally don’t like turn based games:
The combat is excellent and the enemies are varied. Party members have fun synergies with both your team and the enemies, and the Pictos system adds a ton of flexibility for each character. You can have some crazy setups, at one point I gave a character the explosive death + instant-death perk which let me skip a lot of the easy battles later on.
Plus there is a parrying mechanic that is challenging and rewarding!
So, from the way you talk about it, it seems you’re describing your feelings about the game moreso than an attempt at an objective take. Which is good, because there is no such thing as an objective take, and I definitely understand the perspective of not liking something that you feel is inexplicably ultra-popular. Especially if you feel that there was something you liked more that you’d rather see get the award.
That said, I do wonder how much you’ve seen of the game? Because I haven’t played it either, but everything I’ve seen strongly suggests that it is a genuine work of art that people put effort and passion into. Which – since you brought it up – is not a description I’d apply to Battlefield 6. So I’m kinda left wondering what specifically about it might put you off enough to want to slag it off like this.
If you’re upset at it for winning a billion awards, that’s fair. Most awards shows are always very silly and this one game getting practically showered honestly highlights that a lot — even a really good game like this probably didn’t deserve quite this many accolades. Still though, it looks to have a clear message, purpose, with good art and gameplay to go along. I think that deserves some awards.
Agreed. As much as I don’t care about Silksong either way, having “so many people wanted me, I broke the storefront” on your resume has to count for something.
The issue with a “The worst of …” list is that you need to find examples that are both really bad and also notorious/high-profile enough to be interesting. “random game I’ve never heard about is really bad” has very little value as a news/“news” item. It’s like buying a bottom-shelf liquor and complaining that it sucks ass.
There is no good reason for us to define, or seek out, the “worst games of the year”. Only outrage culture wants us to direct hate towards known bad games like Black Ops 7, even though by any practical analysis it’s a better game than hundreds of ignored, pretty bad asset flips, and even some high-effort low-thought indie games that have come out.
The problem with articles like this is that they only focus on games that are bad asagame, and ignores games that are good to excellent, but that are still bad because they screw their players over, engage in abusive business and labor practices, or are simply owned by dogshit people.
As you can tell, I’m waiting for the Jimqusition end of year lists.
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 launched with what some suspected to be AI-generated textures that, as it clarified to El País, were then replaced with custom assets in a swift patch five days after release.
Fuck using Gen AI to replace human-made art, and fair enough for pulling the award, but I do think it’s worth making it clear exactly how much of the art is/was AI. And the answer is, very little at launch and none currently.
This is most of it, but it is worth remembering that using GenAI/LLMs for placeholders is still bad. It’s strictly unnecessary, has dubious efficiency gains at best, and you’re still using tech that is provably hurting people and the environment en masse.
I’m not going to hate Sandfall forever for this – it’s not original sin – but it’s still a very real error they should not repeat.
Played it, its timesplitters alright. Story is only ts1, arcade is a bit limited and ai isnt always the smartest, has bugs but the base is there. Its timesplitters, with all its awesomeness
polygon.com
Aktywne