Lemme take a guess here: mgmt are going this start complaining that human written articles are dropping off in quality so they will need to focus more on AIGen content.
I like that they experiment around a lot, it probably keeps the work from getting dull for them too with how long they’ve been working on this game. This studio might be my favorite, they’re great with their community and any problems I have with the game’s systems or mechanics (pets, arcanes, under-performing frames, operators, etc.) end up getting fixed. It’s always improving and giving me something to come back to that makes the game feel fresh, even after about a decade of on and off playing!
i have mad respect for them. I play similar stuff like Genshin so my F2P time is all eaten up, but I love that Warframe continues to do whatever the f they want.
M$ monopolizes swathes of the game industry (and several other computer related areas) while Sony monopolizes nearly everything else media related. This is NOT how market competition is supposed to happen.
BTW, Gotcha Gotcha Games is the owner of RPG Maker and Pixel Game Maker, make of that what you will.
These parasites man lmfao unreal. Propping up what industry exactly, their own subgenre of niche writing? Pretty sure the game developers, tech companies, and hardware manufacturers are the ones by far and large carrying the actual gaming economy.
Launchers should do just that, to launch the game. Doing anything other than that is, before anything, a repurposing of the word.
And regarding this specific game, I didn’t see the whole struggle so I don’t even know which game it is, but in case it is officially sold anywhere DRM-free, I strongly suggest going for that, wherever it may be.
This article could’ve been written any decade since the 1990s. It’s nothing new: The big game companies haven’t changed a bit and continue to exploit workers.
The only way to change things is via stronger worker protections/regulations.
Has anyone actually seen anyone actually complain about having politics in games, and not just obnoxious politics, like Specs Ops where they force you to kill civilians and then act like your the bad guy because you wanted to see the content you paid for? If you dont give us a choice to be good, and if you’re super preachy about it, then its just bad writing.
Look at New Vegas, plenty of politics, but you get to make choices, and its not preachy at all. Then look at the Last of Us 2, where they force you to kill a dog the other character petted, and it comes off as blatant emotional manipulation. Which game is widely considered a masterpeice?
Spec Ops actually did have choices where you could be good (or at least less bad), but ironically people missed them because they didn’t think being good would work.
For example, at one point you’re being harassed by an angry mob of locals. A lot of players simply shot them because a lifetime of experience with shooters told them that no other input would be recognized. But in actuality, if you fired warning shots at the ground or over their heads the civilians would flee without incident.
I didnt know that. After the forced willie pete bit, I thought all the other bits were forced too. Specs op unintentionally set a rule “if theres a choice, youll be forced to take the evil one” which made the entire thing feel obnoxious.
I think you’re actually engaging with it a bit shallowly. You are the one who invented the rule and a different framing is exploring how, if games seem to put us in situations where we must do horrible things to advance even a couple of times, we take that as a rule instead of risking losing to find other ways.
Which is a fairly glaring indictment of the whole military shooter genre which is all about “hard men and hard choices” that completely dehumanise the factions you’re in opposition to.
Military shooter games glorify war and shallowly reward horrible behaviour. Spec ops does it differently.
Majority of people: do horrible thing
Some people: experimental and find heroic thing is rewarded.
Discussion possible, why did the majority do that? could we talk about horrible and uncreative design patterns in the genre of military shooters? How media portrayals of war train us not to look for peaceful solutions? Whether this feeds into how we view American imperial wars?
you: no spec ops bad video game because I didn’t do the good option.
People did experiment, in the first scene with the wp. That experiment told them that the game would force you to make evil decisions to continue playing. I saw that narratively there was a good option, but the game told me that that option wasnt available in the WP scene.
you get that this wouldn’t work as a critique if it was obvious you could make different choices right? Then it wouldn’t make the player complicit. If you’re not complicit it’s just a game saying “military shooters could be different” which is a nothing statement.
Like how games with a “get the information (evil)” and “get the information (good)” button aren’t offering real moral choices. Or how deus ex would lose all impact if the “here’s a gun, go kill these people” starting mission tempting you with a rocket launcher popped up a “you might change sides in the future” warning.
By involving you, leading you just like any other military shooter for a bit then cutting you loose is what creates the critique. You compare notes after playing and someone points out something and you go “huh, why didn’t I try that?”. It’s not condemning you for not trying that, it’s asking you if you’re happy with a genre which trains you to never to try it.
If the player doesnt know the choice exists, and has reason to think the choice doesnt exist, then the choice is kinda moot, isnt it? In any case, my original point was a lot of complaints were really about bad writing.
People play games for escapism, not to be reminded of politics. Not every story needs deep political roots, people just want to have fun and forget about real world bullshit.
I stopped following Kotaku years ago. It was the best news site by a large stretch. At some point it quickly became trash in the lapse of a few months.
Regarding the writing guides galore, the same has just happened to Destructoid during this very week, suddenly my feed was flooded with dozens of clickbait “how to de X in [trendy game name]”. I just stopped following them right away.
Now I only have Gemstsu to check news and it is not particularly good, guess sooner than later my only source of new game releases will be the from page of Steam:(
It became trash when they had a site redesign that made it more blog post looking than news site. At the same time, they doubled down on filler articles.
After reading the article, it sounds like they’re at it again with a redesign.
I understand both sides. Busy people love to save their game at any point in time, as they might get interrupted. But I also understand the point from the devs and I also like it sometimes when I cannot save constantly. Obviously both sides could now be less stubborn. Busy people can just pause the game and resume later to just exit the junction and the devs could implement a quick save feature.
Dear game designers, how about you let the user decide what they like most, a very easy or hard game? Usually with difficulty settings, only damage/health numbers get modified. But you could also enable quick save in easy mode, and disable it in hard mode. Take a look at the difficulty settings of Grounded. Easy to implement and you automatically reach a bigger user base. And while we are at it, busy people sometimes cannot play games for a longer time, let’s say 4 weeks. After 4 weeks I have forgotten all the controls and game mechanics again. TV shows play a recap if a new season comes out. You should do the same. A super short introduction of what happened story wise and how the controls and game mechanics are working.
There are definitely technical reasons why saving mid-run is a lot more complicated. With Pacific Drive, right now when you save, it'll save:
the state of your car - this will likely be done by looking each individual "equipment slot" the car has, assigning them a number, assigning each possible upgrade for that "slot" a number/letter, and storing its damage state (which is probably just a scale of 1-5 or whatever). So the game will store everything about your car in the format off "slot x, upgrade type y, damage z", which can just be three values.
your quest state. The game won't remember what quests you've done or how you've done them in the way that you remember it - it'll just store that you've completed quest step 14a and that 14b is your active objective.
It makes for a fairly simple, small save file. Being able to save mid-run would add a lot of complexity because it'd need to save a complete map state, including:
the map layout
your position in the map
the enemies and hazards in the map - their positions, states, etc.
what's happened already in the map
the loot in the map, and whether you've collected it or not
And so on. Not only does it massively increase the complexity, it would also increase the size of save files a lot and make saving and loading a lot more cumbersome. And that's just a simplified breakdown; there are definitely other factors that can make it much, much more complicated.
There are definitely some games where "easy mode" save systems could be implemented without much changing on a technical level, but I don't think Pacific Drive is one of them.
Makes a lot of sense, though I'd say that implementing a "save on exit, delete upon resuming" should be a higher priority than it usually is in games that like to restrict saving. Having to stop and do something else might mean a lot of wasted time, and I think that not being able to drop an anchor point to come back to would be a possible dealbreaker for some and really hamper enjoyment of the game for others.
There have been a good few games where I wanted to play them, but didn't because I wasn't sure I had the time to make real progress, or that I'd make real progress, but have to stop just before a save point, and lose it all. It can mean that an otherwise great game gets left on the shelf in favor or something that better respects my time.
Can someone explain to me how we got here? We were the pioneers of video game ratings in this industry. Having a game rated as a “A tier" was the mark of ultimate quality. Then, out of nowhere, someone else introduces a game with a DOUBLE “A” rating. Did that intimidate us? Absolutely not. Because we came back with something even more groundbreaking – a rating system that includes a THREE “A”’s. But what happened next? Just listen—I’ll tell you what happened. The competition jumped straight to four "A"s. Now here we are, looking foolish with our outdated system, no matter how cutting-edge it seemed at the time. Suddenly, we’re the underdogs. Well, no more. We’re jumping to five "A"s. That’s right, four "A"s and an additional level of excellence.
Sure, we could have followed the natural progression and moved to four "A"s, just like our competitors. That would be the logical step, right? After all, three "A"s were quite effective, and four is the next sequential number. So, why not play it safe? Why not just add some minor enhancements and call it a day? Because we’re in the business of innovation, that’s why!
You think adding a fifth “A” is madness? It might well be. But I couldn’t care less. From this moment on, we’re the trailblazers in the video game rating game. Are four "A"s the peak of gaming excellence? Not by a long shot. A game with five "A"s is the new pinnacle.
What’s not clicking here? If two "A"s are good and three "A"s are better, it’s obvious that five "A"s would set a new standard for gaming excellence. You get me? We didn’t climb to the top of this industry by sticking to the status quo. We got here by daring to be different. And this, my friends, is our biggest gamble yet.
Here’s the memo from the Development team. Someone put it in the break room: I want to use it as a coaster. They don’t tell us what to innovate—we tell them. And I’m telling them to push beyond the four “A” boundary. I don’t care how they do it. Make the criteria for the fifth “A” so stringent it’s almost unattainable. Let’s redefine what it means to achieve gaming excellence. I don’t care if they have to overhaul the entire rating system, just make it happen!
You’re thinking too small, stuck in the “safe zone” of video game ratings. Break free. Let’s do this. This is our chance to redefine what gaming excellence means. Let’s dream bigger. All we need to do is believe that a five “A” rating is possible, and it will become a reality. If you’re not with us, you’re against us. And if you’re part of this decision-making process, then you’re either with us, or you’re holding us back. If taking risks means I stand alone, then I’m more than happy to bask in the glory when our five “A” rating system becomes the new gold standard in gaming.
People doubted the feasibility of moving beyond three "A"s. “It’s too complex,” they argued. “It’ll be too difficult to implement,” they said. Well, we proved them wrong. And now, someone out there is saying, “Five 'A’s? That’s lunacy!” Perhaps they’d be more comfortable in a less ambitious setting, fussing over trivial updates. Not us, though!
Maybe I’m out of line. Maybe we should just coast along, content with being followers. Not a chance! The day we settle for mediocrity is the day I leave this industry, and that’s not happening on my watch!
The market? We define the market. All it takes is to introduce our new system with a bit of flair. It’s as simple as saying, “Playing a game rated with anything less than five 'A’s is like accepting mediocrity.” Or, “Experience unparalleled excellence with our five ‘A’ rated games.” Imagine the buzz it’ll create.
I know what you’re thinking: “What will people say?” Forget about them. When you’re leading the pack, you’re bound to be a topic of conversation. That’s the price of innovation. And we will continue to lead, now and always, amen—five "A"s, by all that’s holy in gaming.
Hold on. I’ve just had a groundbreaking idea. Get ready for this: Add an exclusive recommendation alongside the fifth “A”. That’s right. Five "A"s, plus an endorsement that sets it apart. You heard me—an added layer of distinction. It’s a whole new era in video game ratings. Don’t question it. Just get on board, because we’re pushing the boundaries like never before, and I’m ready to lead the charge.
This seems like something Kojima would say haha !! But it applies to every new “next-gen” game/console convention/livestream with big publishers/editors.
Tired of those fumbling buzz words that doesn’t reflect the actual real gaming experience anymore, but rather the investors deep pockets.
Thankfully we have indie games and they mostly have way better time/investement/amusement ratio !
aftermath.site
Ważne