Travel is gonna become boring if you have to travel the same road multiple times in the course of the game even if you have a bunch of cool stuff along that road. Eventually, I won’t give a shit about that stuff since I’ve seen it a million times. So I would hope there is still some kind of fast travel to go between places I have already been if the world is super big. Otherwise it’s just gonna feel like you’re padding the game for time to inflate a 10 hour story to take 40 hours to finish.
I think the better way to help fix this issue is random encounters, spawns, and a world that changes as the game moves along.
Moving along the same road can be made interesting if different things are happening every so often as you come through. New friendly encounters, new fights with different enemies, maybe randomly spawning treasure or scripted puzzle sequences that can appear dynamically around the whole world. Add to that a world that becomes modified by story events, maybe that road gets blocked and a different passage opens up that takes you to the same end destination, but with a new path and things to explore.
It's not an unsolvable problem, but it is something that goes by the wayside often.
One thing to consider too is scheduled events. Imagine a couple towns get together and throw a fair along a route that connects them, and you get to see celebrations and games and vendors who might sell trinkets that are hard to track down otherwise. Perhaps the local monarch goes on a hunt with the massive party of servants and knights that might entail, with different practices for different cultures. A band of cultists clears an area for several days leading up to their yearly ritual. It’s migration season for a certain species of animal/monster. There are so many possibilities!
Even just vendors passing through can be made more interesting. Do they carry their wares via backpack or cart? Are they being attacked by bandits? Wild animals? Are they trying to smuggle goods or services somewhere?
It all has to be programmed of course, which is the main holdup on what makes it so hard to flesh out those parts of the world.
I do also see weight in the idea that, past a certain point, traveling is just boring, especially if the only thing of importance is the Main Story Quest. Travel is also often boring in real life too but we can tune it out, or find little ways to pass the time and entertain ourselves during the more mundane moments. We’re not frequently afforded that luxury in games. When you’re playing a game and dealing with the downtime going from point A to B, often there is literally nothing to do except hold down the movement keys and deal with the occasional path change/obstacle.
The point of games is to be engaging, and if there’s nothing to do while traveling but look at the scenery and surroundings it will eventually get boring. Even if the travel gets interrupted occasionally for an encounter, I think it’s arguable to say that the content is literally not travel anymore and in fact papering over a bad travel system (if the only thing interesting is the stuff you find that you have to stop and take care of). Adding more unique/transient stuff along routes is only half of the battle; work has to be put in to make traveling enjoyable in and of itself for players to want to do it instead of skip it.
But as always, the best solution to our problem is to simply add more trains.
To add to this, DD1 has quite a number of NPC's that travel between regions and you can come across them. As you progress through the game their patterns and locations change.
I actually am ambivalent on the latter mechanic as it really makes it a pain sometimes, but it still has lots of ways that it can work well.
Depends on the reason for traveling. If you are headed down the road to a goal and keep getting sidetracked by random encounters in a way that is distracting you from the thing you want to do then they just make travel tedious.
It all comes down to why am I traveling and why are encounters on the road more engaging than the reason for being on the road in the first place.
And for the record, Itsuno does say that he thinks fast travel is “convenient” and “good” when done right.
Based on Dragon’s Dogma 1’s use of Ferrystones, as well as this mechanic returning along with oxcarts in the sequel, I think this director understands that there needs to be a balance. It’s good when it’s both properly implemented and has a purpose. You’re right that nobody wants to run up and down the same roads countless times, but it’s up to the devs implementing limited fast travel to make sure you won’t have to. Then it’s up to the player to decide whether fast travel is worth it for any given situation. Knowing when to use your fast travel and how to maximize it is a skill that you develop and should be rewarded for mastering.
But it also needs to have a purpose. In more arcadey games, I don’t like worrying about resources like that. But in more grueling games like Dragon’s Dogma, where the journey is often a very intentional part of the gameplay loop if not the main challenge itself, it fits right at home.
So the CEO makes a shit decision, quits and leaves with his millions of dollars and now a bunch of employees get to lose their job. Capitalism is so disgusting.
I watched two of the three, and really enjoyed them. Sure, I'd much rather see more gameplay, and they didn't do anything to sell me on the game itself, but they were enjoyable nonetheless
Pete Hines didn’t fucking properly value developers. I don’t buy this shit at fucking all. Mandatory crunch, shitty benefits, and terrible consumer practices were par for the course during his whole tenure. Since I don’t see him out on the union front donating all his fucking blood money this is just a different way of saying “Pete Hines and other executives aren’t making enough money off residuals from a subscription model.” Bethesda (and ZeniMax) was a shitty place to work that conned devs into getting fucked because Bethesda. He can fuck right off with this shit.
Devs haven’t been properly valued in decades and subscription models are nothing new.
Wait, you are telling me 20 dollars a month isn't enough to sustain a gaming service that releases all of xboxs unreal engine 5 slop day 1??!?? Could have never guessed
It sounds plausible Sony and Microsoft don’t have very fair algorithms to decide what a dev earns for their subscription. That’s an internal element, and we don’t get to see that calculation.
Imagine a guy hears about Game Pass, and sees he can play Spiritfarer on it. “Spiritfarer!? That awesome emotional experience that everyone says they cried at? I’m definitely playing that!” 5-ish hours later, they’ve finished the game, and thoroughly enjoyed it, but the subscription is still going.
At this point, the subscriber decides they may as well play State of Decay 2 mindlessly the rest of the month, often without much interest, but trusts another excellent singleplayer indie darling will arrive next month.
I’d bet the algorithm may pay the SOD2 devs far more in that case because numbers show that’s what “kept them engaged”, not to mention live service games like SOD2 have DLC to entice people into.
Theres absolutely a danger in that thinking, since most people bought a PS5 after seeing Sony’s incredible singleplayer games, and I believe that’s primarily what gets people into Game Pass too.
Through lawsuits, we did get to see what those payouts were in the past, and they’re all individually negotiated in lump sums, not determined by algorithm. And those payouts were from the good days. Reporting indicates those payouts have dropped off dramatically, which was followed by a drop-off of Xbox ports, since that seems to be the primary way Xbox players play games at all.
At least for video streaming services, they care more about new subscribers than retaining subscribers. That State of Decay may be a retention game, but the indie darling was the first thing they played upon subscribing. That’s likely going to hold more weight.
Its exactly what we saw with the rise of Spotify and the like… but worse because it is so dependent on in-house productions (so Netflix?)
For the AAA games? it doesn’t matter. They can get special deals (see Rockstar and Activision on Steam) or they just don’t have to care because people will play hundreds of hours of their game regardless. And for the A/B games? It is actually still a great deal because it drastically increases discoverability, early on, where “Well, I always fucking hated Shenmue but apparently people like these Yakuzas? Might as well give it a go for free”.
But it fundamentally changes the medium. It is incredibly rare to see an Album anymore because people don’t listen to music as albums. They listen to them as singles in a playlist. Its why there is no real point in deciding whether something should be a film or a tv series because you can just release it as a four part miniseries or stretch things out for a full eight and so forth.
And we are rapidly seeing that come out of MS. They bought so many dream team studios that were known for making AMAZING crafted SP games (Obsidian et al) and a variety of technically excellent games (iD) or money makers (Bethesda). But none of those map well to a system where there is little point in sticking to a single game and… monetary incentives towards short and sweet games.
I forget if it came before or after Sony made PS+ another one, but the biggest mistake was day and date for all major MS releases on gamepass. Provide discounts and get the “patient gamers” but don’t put Indiana Jones on the subscription service the day it releases. It is just killing Q1 sales. And… once you do it, you can never undo it.
I don't really have my finger on the pulse of most of this, so I don't have anything to add to everything you said. But I am curious about your statement regarding albums:
It is incredibly rare to see an Album anymore because people don't listen to music as albums. They listen to them as singles in a playlist.
What genre are you listening to, where artists used to come out with albums but aren't anymore? As a listener of all kinds of music, like rock, metal, blues, kpop, reggaeton, EDM, country and many other genres, that has not been my experience at all.
Music is released in album format in the sense of being a playlist that might get sold as a vinyl at a show. It is incredibly rare to be released as a curated listening experience. The idea that you listen to the music, in album order, and have a story told to you. One of love and loss or of making it past an infidelity or of murdering your brother in the hopes of waking up a subjugated populace and so forth.
Plenty of musicians have talked about it and it is a very common talking point on the music side of things. I think Hayley Williams’s shadow dropped album (that was part of a hair product line or something?) is being widely praised as an Album? I dunno, I love her but I’ve been too busy to sit down and listen. Which… is also a big part of the problem.
I really can't see where you're coming from. I'm discovering and listening to loads of new albums every couple of months. Spotify is even pushing albums with their "pre-save" feature, where artists start a countdown for their album that's about to drop, and you 'pre-save' it to your library, so you get a notification and have instant access, once the album drops.
Your specific point about Hayley Williams also doesn't make sense to me. I haven't listened to much of her music, since it wasn't really my cup of tea, but I have family members who love her music, and look forward to every album of hers.
I agree that singles are more important than ever in a marketing sense, and that there are probably some artists that focus more on putting those out, than creating albums. But to say that albums are incredible rare is just straight up untrue in my experience. Plenty of artists are still making thematic albums and/or albums that tell a story.
I think you still very much don’t understand the distinction between a music set (an “album”) and a curated set of songs to tell a story (an “Album”).
There are a LOT of things to complain about but frigging Beyonce talked about this… a decade or so ago. And plenty of other musicians and “music industry” people have made the same sentiments.
Are there still some Albums? Of course. But they are a tiny fraction of what is actually created for reasons very much tied towards streaming music services, attention spans, and so forth.
So you can either continue to not be able to see how this is a statement and continue arguing against it. Or you can actually do some googling and look at this as a greater discussion point. Up to you.
And to people wondering why online discourse is dead and it is increasingly hard to distinguish AI slop from actual human beings: A single supporting argument/reference to an industry that has gone through the exact same mess we are triggered a massive derail as people insist that, because they themselves haven’t experienced a pretty major talking point, it can’t possibly exist.
Me not agreeing with you is not arguing against you. I'm only talking from my own experience, and not insisting that what I'm experiencing is the absolute objective truth. At no point did I say you were wrong or that what you're saying doesn't exist. Just that I can't make sense of your viewpoint. Anyway, this is it for me. Have a good one.
It is incredibly rare to see an Album anymore because people don’t listen to music as albums.
…what? This claim is so incredibly wrong, it slants your entire comment. Artists as small as you can get to those as big as Swift are still releasing albums. Just because you don’t interact with them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Agreed. From reading OPs replies to my questions, it seems they have different definitions for "albums" and "Albums". But as their claim slanted their entire comment for you, I would also say that our whole exchange sets the rest of their comment in a different light for me.
Its why there is no real point in deciding whether something should be a film or a tv series because you can just release it as a four part miniseries or stretch things out for a full eight and so forth.
There absolutely is. A movie is still expected to be watched in one go in its entirety and so is an episode of a mini series. It has a huge effects on the pacing of the media and how you segment episodes of one.
I’ve seen Mat Piscatella talking about this, and it seems like his take is, paraphrasing, “it values different games”. Some games see far more success with the broad access they get to subscriptions, and some see less, which seems to be corroborated by the author of this article.
Subscriptions have become the new four letter word, right? You can’t buy a product anymore.
I mean…you can for anything in Game Pass, but that’s not the case for Nintendo.
Without wishing to portray myself as a comprehensive researcher … I have come across one study of Xbox Game Pass and PlayStation Plus that appears to bear elements … showing that in contrast to the music or movie and TV industry, these subscription services have not “substantially cannibalized existing revenue streams”.
And I think a lot of that has to do with how much longer we spend with a given game than any song or movie. And even in television, every current show is on some streaming service, and you really can’t buy those, but in games, it’s the opposite. With few exceptions, you can just about always buy the game, and they’re often not present on a subscription service. When games are sold, they tend to command a higher price, too.
Then, not mentioned in the article, are weird cases like Indiana Jones or Doom, where they’re quality games that don’t sell many copies despite impressive pedigrees, presumably because everyone knows they can get them on Game Pass. But then games like STALKER 2 or Clair Obscur, with low-ish review scores and basically no pedigree, respectively, sell plenty of copies despite being available for far cheaper on Game Pass. Some of this might be the association with Game Pass being for Microsoft-owned studios or something, and Microsoft is aiding that association by making fewer lucrative deals for third party studios.
I don’t buy civ games until they release all the DLC. Since CIV 5 it seems like they have released unfinished games that lack major game mechanics on launch and the game only gets finished through DLC.
Poor adoption and sales with CIV 7 is their own fault. They have conditioned the market to wait for the DLC.
rockpapershotgun.com
Gorące