The one surprising bit about this is the lack of E33. I know it’s not Jason’s fault but it irks me that every game news outlet repeatedly highlights the same dozen games or so. I’m following four of them and 80% of coverage and reviews is for the same games over and over again. Only digitalfoundry strays off on occasion, and that’s because they aim towards a more technical discussion. There were literally 19000 games released on steam alone last year, and everyone seems to only cover E33, BG3, Blue Prince, Hollow Knight, Elden Ring, Avowed, CoD etc. I have to subscribe to obscure subs or youtube channels just to get coverage of the occasional forgotten indie.
That all makes sense though. By definition, popular games are liked by many people. Popular games are talked about more. People expect popular games to be listed. Many people will doubt these publications if they fail to list several of the most popular games.
I’m sure there is some money changing hands too, but that can only do so much (maybe move a game a little higher on these lists).
Popular and good (for you) are not the same thing. Games can either, both, or neither of those things. It is only when we think about large numbers of people that popular and “good” become correlated.
I agree but these are usually supposed to be the first line when games/news hit the web, and sometimes it appears that the only decent journalist left is Schreier, with everyone else seemingly following him and his direction. Paid coverage definitely accounts for some of the overlap, but like you said it’s probably just reviewers aiming for a greater audience.
There’s always steam curated lists for the rest, I suppose.
I literally finished E33 a couple of hours ago, and while I do think it’s a quality game, I just couldn’t really connect with it on any emotional level. I do like the combat system. It’s fun. But the story just didn’t really grab me. I have friends saying they cried at certain scenes, and I’m just like, “Really?”
Meanwhile I got some fat tears flowing during Death Stranding 2. But everyone is different.
Plus, while E33 has really good art direction, on the PS5 every environment seemed to have this haze going on. And there were lots of weird graphical flashes of artifacts or lighting. The game looks good and also doesn’t in a way. It’s hard to describe.
I had no idea who this Jason fellow was prior to this, but that list is essentially made up of games i either have either played, are planning to play, or were unsure about giving a shot. Much more confident in bumping the uncertain ones onto my wishlist now, seems we have similar tastes in games.
Obsidian as a studio is super underrated. Both pillars of eternity has amazing worldbuilding and narrative. They aren’t unknown or anything, but gotdang they are some of the most creative devs out there!
They’re also one of the few studios out there that can manage California salaries, remain a multi-project studio, and not scale up so fast that they’re trying to build games they can’t afford to make.
Are they really underrated? Not throwing any shade, but every time I see them mentioned it’s because people are praising the hell out of them. I also agree that there’s very few games they’ve had their hands on that has been less than stellar, so I have a hard time saying they’re actually underrated. They’ve been pretty steadily a mark of excellence.
People see Avowed and wish it was Elder Scrolls, or they see Outer Worlds 2 and wish it was bigger or something. I’m not really sure why these people come away with the criticisms they do, but in my opinion, Obsidian made two of the best games this year, and those games were rated in the low 80s on average on Open Critic.
Yup, you’re entirely correct, Obsidian is often and loudly praised, they deserve it. But also…
… they deserve a lil more… always a lil’ more!
(I’m just being silly and dum. I have just recently started their games and just wanted to sing their praises myself. Don’t mind me, just a lil fan girling out about great world building. 🥹)
Lol fair. Trust me, I know enough about being a fanboy myself for games I felt deserved better ratings. Again, no problem with them at all, I’ve loved a handful of their games, like Grounded. Haven’t played 2 yet, but my previous friend group had some fallout last year so I’ll have to see who I’m playing that with.
Fuck Neil Druckman, Naughty Dog, and Sony, in that order. Amy Hennig carried the whole PlayStation brand identity and got couped over some good ol industry sexism so that N.D. could opine about how hard it is to be a white man
What’s the matter? I thought they were super confident this was going to do really well. Are they getting cold feet and deciding to make changes for fear of bad reception when they don’t quite have enough time, leading to forced overtime?
EDIT: Wait. All of this was for a DEMO? How bad was the game that they needed to work 60 hours a week mandatory overtime just to finish a demo of the game??
Demo in this context isn’t a consumer-playable ‘demo’ in the sense that most people understand; it means a playable internal build with specific targets for what must be included. Internal demo milestones are often linked to project funding and approval to move forwards, so there is a tangible risk if they fail to deliver.
Presumably the current state of the game is behind where it needed to be to deliver that demo, so they’re now crunching to finish it on time.
IMO, any time a game repeatedly fails to meet deadlines, especially so early on in its development, that usually indicates the game isn’t likely to launch in a healthy state. Either the scope is way too big, or the narrative is receiving major changes and reworks, or the people working on the game just wish they weren’t working on that project and taking longer as a result. This kind of situation is rarely good, and even more rarely ends up with a good launched product.
Cyberpunk 2077, Anthem, Mass Effect Andromeda, Halo Infinite, Duke Nukem Forever, John Romero’s Daikatana (although I personally am a bit charmed by this one despite it being undoubtedly bad), and other games are examples of this. Repeated failure to meet production deadlines, lots of crunch forced on the developers, and all for what? The launch product for all of these games was horrendously bad. Some for technical reasons, some for narrative reasons, and some for both.
When I first saw the trailer for Intergalactic, I had mixed feelings. I liked the intended graphics/art style and retro styled tech, the Porsche was a little weird product placement but fine I guess, but the characters and dialogue I personally found both unappealing. The obvious Snake Plissken rip-off woman the main character talked to (blonde with an eyepatch, I can only assume she is some sort of merc job handler) seemed maybe interesting but then she spoke and the writing lost my interest. Upon learning the game is likely to follow some sort of religious theming, I lost all interest in the game. Its not what I want from a video game. So this was pretty disappointing to learn. But now seeing the game is in such a state doesn’t give me great confidence that the final product will be even decent when it launches.
I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad take, but it’s worth pointing out that lots of games miss internal deadlines and waste time ‘spinning their wheels’ but still turn out good or even great. The difference is that you don’t usually hear about it, whereas here some of the team are obviously pissed enough about the crunch that they went to the press.
Crunch is always bad and is an indication of poor project management and/or unrealistic expectations, but issues with scope or major reworks aren’t always a death knell either. I’ve seen plenty of games go through that and come out the other side better than before.
Of course there are always exceptions, but I don’t count on news like this to mean that this project will be the exception.
Metroid Prime and Halo 2 both had excessive crunch and both turned out great, obviously. In Metroid Prime’s case, a management change seemed to fix it in the long term. In Halo’s case, Bungie just embraced the suck I guess, since they still wanted to make Halo 3.
Regardless, these were exceptions to the rule, and I would never expect a project to be an exception, personally.
I wonder why companies do this? does it actually make it get done faster? Last I knew most workers were only efficient at their job for like the first 5 or 6 hours if that, spending an extra 8 ontop of it sounds like a waste of salary.
Ex Activision QA employee here - It does not get anything done faster, and it burns out the devs and QA alike so more mistakes are made. It’s always about hitting dates on time for shareholder profits, the C-suite people in charge do not give a shit about releasing a quality game.
Naughty Dog made its name by working ludicrous hours. One of the founders worked 16 hour days for a year, only taking off for Christmas, in order to make Crash Bandicoot.
For short periods, like a few days, you can get a small boost in productivity. But if it goes on too long, you actually see a decrease in productivity overall.
And most companies aren’t paying for this, as lobbyists managed to get “computer workers” onto the list of allowed overtime exempt employees.
That‘s nice but I‘ll wait until reviews flock in to confirm this. There is a point when a studio is too big to pre-order. I‘ve seen this pattern before and know better than to ride the hype wave from one super success all the way to the next „more ambitious than ever“ title.
For smaller (indie) studios it can make sense. If the game costs more money to developed than the developer has, preordering is indistinguishable from crowdsourcing like kickstarter. It removes the need for the developer to take a loan and investors, possibly giving up creative freedom.
Anything backed by a (big-ish) publisher should never be preordered!
They are employing almost 30 concept artists, their art style is extremely unique. Just look at the Elves in DOS2.
They use the tools available to them. If quick iteration of the “foundations” of ideas is improved by the use of GenAI, why not use it? It’s already integrated into the products they’re paying for (like Photoshop).
It’s like saying “they shouldn’t be using Google Images or artbooks when developing concept art”, it’s just silly.
The concepting stage is a really crucial and foundational stage in terms of design, but it can also influence writing, gameplay, etc. as an artist explores the thing they’re concepting.
I don’t like genAI, and think that using it at such an important stage will invariably mean it ends up influencing the game. I want to play games or experience media made with intention by people, not bland products shat out by a chatbot.
You: “The exercise at the gym stage is really crucial to building muscles. I don’t like cars and think that using it at such an important stage will inevitably mean it ends up influencing the training”.
I mean, if you just want to invent and imagine things and then get angry at them, go ahead.
I’m just trying to tell you that Larian isn’t replacing anything or anyone with AI, they’re using it to help with the foundational stage of some processes, which is how it’s supposed to be used. Throw shit at the wall and see what sticks, then work off of that.
Like… It’s hilarious to complain about their use of AI like that in the context of the fact that they currently employ 27 concept artists and are hiring more.
I think maybe you’re having a different argument than me? I didn’t say they were replacing anyone or anything with AI.
What I have expressed an issue with is exactly what you described:
they’re using it to help with the foundational stage of some processes, which is how it’s supposed to be used. Throw shit at the wall and see what sticks, then work off of that.
And you dismissively and incorrectly compared that to driving to the gym.
I think maybe try a different LLM to come up with your arguments, maybe Claude? Because the one you’ve got thinking for you right now doesn’t seem to be working lad.
I think what they’ve said is that they’ll be using it in the ideation stage, which is part of the process of creating concept art. They’ve also said they often use it to “develop concept art”, which could well just be a slip of the tongue by management rather than a clear statement by somebody involved in the process.
But they’re using GenAI in the ideation stage of concepting, which is something I have a problem with, and you don’t (which is fine, by the way). I feel like we’ve come back to the beginning of this argument, lol
I feel like replacing low-quality, quick-and-dirty doodles (often by non-artist members of the team) with medium-quality AI is fine and doesn’t pose a threat to the job security of concept artists (as exemplified by Larian currently hiring more concept artists).
If you’re just against any use of GenAI, then I get it - it is controversial due to the way it’s trained, and I’d prefer if they weren’t using it, but at least in terms of “AI replacing humans” it’s a non-issue in this case.
bloomberg.com
Gorące