Length has nothing to do with it. It’s all about the bullshit inflated budgets. They’re comes a point of diminishing returns with how many staff at working on a game, and how much is spent on marketing.
I remember back in the 90s PC mags had the same issues, simple numerical ratings don’t mean shit.
The only score I follow is Steams user satisfies rating thing. the top voted complaints or praises tell me more about the state of a game than anything else ever could.
the advtage the steam system has is first the bought game/gifted game situation, as well as the more important factor, the recent opinion score, as at amy given momemt a game can get good because of a major change (e. g payday 2 reverting all the pay 2 win content the original publisher mandated) or gone to shit because of greed or a bad patch.
the problem users have is finding a curator that has a similar taste in games that they do. If I was a fan of JRPGs, im not going to care about the opinion on some person who doesnt really play jrpgs. at the same time, if you like some niche genre, to the general public, that niche is always less popular, so itll get worse ratings thanit should compared to people who enjoy said niche.
i mean…you could always buy the add-on disc drive? Assuming that it is still compatible with the Pro, not sure why it wouldn’t be. They get to fleece physical media heads for an extra $80, that’s a win for Sony.
awesome! just double-check that it’s compatible with the new one before dropping the extra $80! Nothing about the Pro is official yet, so we still gotta wait and see.
The kicker is that owning the disk entitles you to a piece of plastic, and not much more at the moment. When servers go down, or day one patches are no longer available, the disk becomes no better than a coaster for many modern games.
Yeah… i don’t understand why this is a good move. Sacrificing an element that would noticably improve a core aspect of the games design for the sake of not looking at a picture for a few seconds on startup? Seems completely backwards if you ask me.
You need to toake into account that we're talking about a Kirby game here, which are all 2/2.5/sometimes 3D platformers. So The real effect of Dolby in such a thing would have been close to zero.
That came out on GameCube back when we were all still using composite cables that didn’t support surround anyway.
Edit: Apparently I was misinformed, still KAR was such a casual arcadey game that I’m sure it got more benefit out of quick startup than it would have from surround support.
Exactly. Until around 2005 with the advent of affordable HDTVs and the war between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, anything more than what came stock with your TV, which was usually standard definition picture and stereo sound, was something of a luxury. Sound bars were only really starting to become a popular thing.
This is not true at all and demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how surround sound worked.
Nintendo 64 games like Donkey Kong 64 and Conker’s Bad Fur Day supported surround sound. Even Star Fox on the SNES supported surround sound. All through composite cables.
It works by encoding multiple channels into two channels, so it can then decode those channels to send the proper signal to the proper speaker. For Dolby specifically, you need a Pro Logic compatible receiver, which could decode that signal. If you don’t have a Pro Logic compatible receiver then you will only hear stereo output.
oh, it was the racing game? I must have gone through the text too quickly then. Yet, if we're pragmatic: How many people would have really enjoyed that game (which wasn't stellar to begin with) more with properly encoded surround sound, and how many would have enjoyed it a tad less because of the annoying logo spam on startup? I don't think Surround-Sound-enjoyers were the target audience for that one.
Yeah I did consider that when I made my comment. And keep in mind I do see where they’re coming from. It’s not like I’m calling them stupid for this decision. I personally just see it as a massive overcorrection for something that will, in the grand scheme, have virtually no effect on the quality of the game for literally anyone besides the person who made this decision.
I know it’s not the best comparison, but to me it would be like if RTX support required an RTX logo, and a major studio just removed RTX from their game, not for any performance or quality issues, but solely for a logo. Again, it just seems like an overcorrection for a non-issue. I’ll admit, I sometimes get annoyed by intro logos, but never enough to the point where I’d think it’s worth removing features to get rid of them.
I got the impression that “removing” means removing before it was really implemented. Like, it was planned and decided upon, but it wasn't ready. He checked the license and went “nope, not having it” and scrapped the feature. It doesn't truly become clear in the text, of course, but that's how I read this.
You realize this is Lemmy, and on Lemmy you have to hate every business and every product produced by a business apparently, right? If it isn’t FOSS, then you aren’t allowed to like it.
This is Sakurai’s explanation, and it seems reasonable to me:
“I feel very sorry for making the user wait,” he explained. “If you take one second from each user, that means you’ll be taking 10,000 seconds from 10,000 people. The more this repeats over the years, the more time you will cause players to lose."
I remember one of l Hank Green’s older videos when he added up all the viewtime from all of their videos and realized it was longer than the average human lifespan. Of course, he immediately framed it as “We’ve killed a man!”
I want whatever Ubisoft is smoking. First they’re telling people that we don’t truly own their games and now they’re making AAAA games? I wish I had that confidence in myself.
I have. Hogwarts Legacy has really good graphics but it’s honestly pretty generic, it only sold so well because there are millions of harry potter fans out there.
Hogwarts is fun for about 30 hours roleplaying as a wizard, as a casual potter fan. I got really bored of it after that and never finished the game. At its core it really is very generic, it’s really propped up by the IP. That’s not to say it’s bad by any means but its not got the depth of Zelda.
I think the biggest issue for me was how large the map was. They did the castle and hogsmede very well, but then threw in a bunch of filler content in the other towns. If they had stuck to the more core areas only, the game wouldn’t have gotten so stale later on.
Sure, more room is nice, but the map could have been 1/3rd the size and still have a good sense of speed with it. A better option would have been to put in some fun mini games with the broom, but that would have been required then to make flying the broom more engaging.
Eh I dunno, I got bored of it before I finished the story or explored the other half of the map. Feels like a bit of a failing there. 30 hours would be fine if it was a fully contained experience.
I’m kinda curious in what way Zelda (assuming TOTK) has more depth. Combat wise HP has stealth, an attack typing system, comboing, special moves, and more if I recall correctly. TOTK does have a variety of weapons and you can craft weapons, but it generally boils down to just whacking away at things. You could also mention the ability to make vehicles/automaton, but the time to build things (until you find ultra hand?) mixed with limited resources made that more of a pain/chore than fun.
I could go into other mechanics, but ultimately I think TOTK would be rated worse if it wasn’t for the Zelda branding carrying it.
You aren’t wrong, there was an unpopular opinion thread some weeks ago and several zelda fans called both BOTW and TOTK just ubisoft open worlds with a zelda skin. They are both carried by their IP (even though I love these 2 zeldas), the worst Zelda (Skyward Sword) still sold 4.15 million units, just counting the HD version, the Wii version sold 3.67 million.
Haha I appreciate the comment and the ability to call them out even though you like them.
I just wish I felt the same. The longer they’ve been out the more I realize that we probably won’t get a more traditional zelda ever again. I think the thing I liked about zelda up to BOTW was that the world itself was a puzzle. Figuring out how to navigate and open up new areas was part of the fun and challenge to me. Not to mention dungeons being larger and more intricate puzzles than anything you come across in BOTW and TOTK.
I played both. Both are excellent games, and both also have flaws.
I think Zelda was by far the better game - HL isn’t really on the same level as it at all, design-wise, story-wise, or or in terms of things to do.
HL’s strength is definitely the world itself - the Hogwarts and Hogsmeade areas in particular are both incredibly well done and very faithful to the source material. The other areas are just alright.
I’d say HL’s weaknesses become most apparent if you’re a completionist. Things can get very repetitive if you’re going for 100%. I did, and I honestly think you’ll like it a lot more if you just don’t.
It’s still lots of fun though. Zelda was my most played game in 2023 and HL was kind of far behind, and everything else combined would still probably be a distant third.
I absolutely agree with the other people saying HL is generic and propped up by the IP. But for me that was enough.
I’m really confused by all of the story comments in this thread. It’s fair to criticise HL’s story, but at least there is a story and characters. What story does TOTK even have? What characters have more than a line or two? While Zelda has never been big on complex narratives, at least previous entries (before BOTW and TOTK) could develop a story since they could have a linear progression. A couple of flashback scenes really doesn’t tell a great or compelling narrative and really disconnects the gameplay from the events going on.
Disclaimer: I haven’t played TOTK. I only played a bit of BOTW.
It’s all about expectations. I never thought of Zelda as a game with a story, so BOTW not having one doesn’t bother me. Harry Potter, on the other hand, I’ve always associated with memorable characters and a bonkers world. HL translates this bonkers world into a game quite well, but its story doesn’t (in my opinion) fit that world nor does it have memorable characters. (Some of the characters look and feel like Lidl versions of the characters from the original books.)
Zelda is the better game. Problem is (sales wise) the Zelda franchise isn't nearly as popular outside of gaming circles, and access to this game is locked to those that own a Switch, whereas HL is on all platforms
This solution shouldn’t be that hard, just create an AI model for every individual “voice” or character and then license it for use or receive royalties on it.
They’ll probably use it as filler for side dialogue and then have the VA do all the main lines to really nail the human presence, since AI isn’t as good at emotional inflection.
Honestly this would be a good method. Limit AI voice acting to only single use NPC such as Town folk when you visit a town and then have like shopkeepers or party members or the main character actual voice. You aren’t expecting much out of those temporary characters anyway so them having weird Oddity voices isn’t going to be super jarring for the environment. Plus it will help you as the player realize which characters are supposed to be part of the story and which ones are there for just Scenic effect
I mean even main characters could have AI generated dialogue, you have the VA do the voice until there is enough sampling data to train a model on, and then you can use that for any small or side content.
Then just have that characters AI model be owned by the actor and use of the voice gives them royalties for it. Then you can supplement actual lines with generated banter, etc. While still giving the VA compensation for their voice and likeness.
I’m torn, because on the one hand, the logistics of constantly recording new lines for minor stuff is really annoying. Imagine you’re playing a live-service game that really needs a certain balance patch, but that balance patch is reliant on a very slight change to a voice line (for instance, reducing the time it takes for a character to perform a special attack. To take an Overwatch example, maybe a certain archer is voicing his ultimate ability too quietly). Having to call someone in just for that is costly and unproductive.
But, we’re talking about delivering the source of someone’s work and livelihood (as well as all their creative influence, exaggerative tones, and delivery) into an algorithm. The line where it would go beyond convenience into worker-reduction efforts is going to be hard to draw.
I would rather that the voice actor retains the rights to their voice, even if it’s put into an AI algorithm. Thus, if the developers want to make a small change to a voice line, they still need to get approval for some AI-generated correction - and the actor would have the right to say “No, that one sounds terrible. I’m only going to agree to re-delivering this one myself.” Similarly, actors could approve limited sets of explicitly-defined live AI usage, for instance pronouncing the player’s name. Granted, some companies would become annoyed at actors being too inflexible, just like they have disagreements with actors today.
I’m definitely worried about too much signing-over of voice identity. I think it’s very easy to cut humans out of the equation that way, which not only damages the health of the industry, but also reduces creative output.
While I agree, the corpos dont and will fight tooth and nail to cut the cost anyway.
So unless the US gets the stones to collar and muzzle these businesses (they wont) we have to work around these monsters who will bite your arm off to skip lunch
In my mind, they should be paying the actor the same for the new lines regardless of whether they opt for them to come back in and re-record or use AI to generate the new line. The actor’s product (their voice) isn’t worth any less, but the company could save money by streamlining the creation of a new line through simplified logistics. This way the company has some benefit while preserving the actor’s livelihood.
Of course there’s no way these companies are going to want to pay full price for these new lines, since it’s an obvious point where they can pressure performers to accept a lower rate.
this seems soon-to-be the Embracer cut. this company fucking sucks man. hate this shit
VGC reported earlier this month that Free Radical was at threat of being closed just two years after it was established, as part of huge company-wide cuts at Embracer and its owned publishers.
Although Embracer has yet to publicly confirm Free Radical’s position, sources told VGC that Wingefors has now acknowledged in a company e-mail that the Nottingham, UK-based company could be closed on December 11, following the completion of a consultation process.
Borrowing money was cheap until it wasn't. When they bought the old Eidos stuff, everyone thought Square Enix was taking crazy pills. Now, given that everyone's cutting back right now, it looks more like they knew something Embracer didn't.
I think regardless of that deal, they were already on the debt-go-round for long enough it would’ve caught up to them eventually. I can’t imagine this was gonna be “one last job then we go clean.” The market would continue to demand more and faster growth until they hit the wall one way or the other.
I honestly don’t think anyone was taken back by Eidos being sold off. The biggest mess Square Enix did was let IOI go while putting out The Quiet Man. Hitman 2? No! The Quiet Man, one of the worst games of the decade, YES! MORE PLEASE! Eidos hadn’t made a great game in a while but IOI had just put out a rather successful Hitman 1 season with large seasonal plans to keep it going. Now they are working on a James Bond game that everyone is excited about and Square is looking like an idiot. While Eidos will probably flop and flounder until they can get back their roots and build something substantial.
Really? I didn’t hear that people were shocked at thinking 300 million USD was that little of money for Eidos. It seems about right to me. Especially through Square Enix’s eyes where they had just put out GOTG which didn’t sell well enough to them.
Square Enix was going to close down or sell IO Interactive as they had pulled funding and were talking to other companies to sell them off. IOI employees triggered the MBO clause and made SE sell to them. This was only 2017.
2017 is ancient history compared to the current economic climate, and that sale came out of an attempt to make games episodic to their detriment. $300M seemed low considering the buyer makes that money back with probably 1.5 Tomb Raider games, and Deus Ex and all of those other Eidos properties are a bonus. Yes, the deal seemed crazy for Square Enix at the time.
They sold 9 million copies of Shadow of the Tomb Raider. I think I'm in the ballpark. And again, that's only Tomb Raider, when they're not blowing their money on a live service Avengers game that everyone knew was a bad idea.
Marvel’s Avengers was mainly Crystal Dynamics, not Eidos-Montreal. I don’t think another Tomb Raider would sell exactly as well as Shadow Of The Tomb Raider. Also, come to think of it, I don’t think Eidos-Montreal has the Tomb Raider IP.
Embracer got all of these studios and most of their IPs in the sale, the two biggest being Tomb Raider and Deus Ex. I focused on Tomb Raider because it's the most valuable one in that purchase and almost makes the sale worth it on its own, or it seemed to before the economy turned, but they got plenty more besides just Tomb Raider.
Hmm, that’s a good point, and looking back I didn’t realize it was 300 million for both Crystal and Eidos… that’s pretty cheap considering the IP attachment but I think Square Enix was also looking to shed a lot of their studios.
They bought everything up because loans were cheaper and this positions Embracer as a strong IP holder. They now have lots of IPs they own and while you might think “Well they got no one to make the IPs for them!” that might be true in-house, although they certainly have plenty of successful studios still they are busy they have their pick of IPs. Additionally, you can license out IPs for a lot of money with additional funding from the actual sale of the game while a third-party publisher foots the bill entirely.
Even simpler, just having that IP denies the competition access to it. In their eyes that creates value and at the end of the day that's all that matters to these companies holding IP. They can just sit on it.
videogameschronicle.com
Ważne