Well then i hope phisical games come back to be a thing because i will never downlaod a 100gb+ game. They should make game in USB or Hardrive format that an user can buy at store like was with CD and DVD.
Honestly, things like this were why I thought that Blu-Ray drives would take off. It's why I bought a Blu-ray RW drive in 2014 for my PC build because I thought it would be the future as game and media sizes would only get bigger and more of a pain to download.
I was wrong, but I wish I hadn't been. At least I can rip my PS3 Blu-rays to play them on emulators now. It's hard to go back and play them at 720p on a big screen without all the features that emulators give me. Rendering at 1440p (minimum) just being the start.
Soon or later the progress will gonna need to going back as new generation of physical disk-like. Also this depency on the net is simple unsafe, service can go offline anytime and hundred of dollars in game just become nothing. We should relearning the value of owning something really in our hands and not in virtual libraries.
Never? There's that infamous quote about how people will never need more than 64KB of RAM that comes to mind. SSD prices are falling rapidly, and internet bandwidth is only increasing. I understand if you don't have the means right this moment, but 100+ GB games are here and will only happen more often.
I don’t have a problem with large games if I get the option of what I want to download. Most often these large sizes are because it forces you to get full 4K textures and multiple copies of the audio files for languages you don’t speak.
I would bet half the size of this game is unnecessary for the average player. We really need the ability to download the core game and then these add-ons separately.
I mean, yes, all else held equal, I'd rather have a video game two days earlier or whatever, but this is way down the list of things I'd get worked up about.
Hell, the !@PatientGamers crowd waits for at least a year after release, at which point all the patches and whatnot are normally out, often sales are on, hardware to run a game tends to be cheaper, and often people have done substantial work on game wikis and the like. I can understand someone not wanting to wait for a year, but who can't handle a day or two?
EDIT: Or let me put another perspective on it. The release date is essentially arbitrary from a player's standpoint. Suppose some serious bug had shown up late in development -- which could easily have happened -- and that release date had been pushed back by five days. I doubt that anyone would have said anything, even though they would have gotten their hands on the game several days later. But the inability to preload making that same game show up playable a couple of days later has articles being written complaining about it. Why? The delay happens either way.
Seems like Australia gets screwed with these types of things more than other first world nations. Even a lot of third world countries have better speeds on average than Australia. Even then though with a 50mbps connection you can just download it overnight or start it before you leave for work and you’ll be good to go.
I mean… sure if you only play games that have that same feeling?
Like oh no BG3 is just elves & Brittania… Duh?
So play WotR and at least go to the Abyss?
Or play any game based not on Tolkien lore? There’s a ton of games based on different mythologies: Raji, Prince of Persia, Tribes of Midgard, Hades, Wo Long, etc.
Or just play games set in just completely different worlds? Pyre/Transistor/Bastion are all interesting worlds. Remnant I/II is a neat concept. etc. More playful stuff like Cuphead/Death’s Door, etc.
Or look at some MMO’s if you want larger worlds with different influence? Guild Wars 2 is pretty decent as far as a good variety with its world/races for example, even if its still similar to a generic fantasy setting.
Idk, personally it was very unengaging and the only way I found it amusing was through a ton of mods or Enderall’s total conversion mod. But everyone’s into different shit.
It’s weird particularly to see that praise for Skyrim when (imo obviously) morrowind in the same series had a substantially more interesting story and world, a decade prior
I think Skyrim was a big entry point for a lot of fans who haven’t played the earlier games. I do agree though, Morrowind is amazing and is, in my opinion, a better game than Skyrim. Skyrim is kind of a dumbed down Morrowind.
I always thought Oblivion was a much better setting than Skyrim, but I replayed Oblivion recently and I realized nostalgia was doing a lot of heavy lifting. I came away not knowing really what to think. Oblivion still held up and was clearly a great game but it wasn’t perfect and was a bit dated (Jeez I mean skyrim is also dated lol). Maybe everyone just kinda feels that special something about their first ES game lol.
Edit: I should add, I also played Morrowind somewhat recently (much longer after playing the original two) and it was also a great game but didn’t seem necessarily better than the other two.
Edit: Edit: I also played daggerfall, it was very ok lol
Skyrim was a significant improvement over Oblivion, in every way I can think of. Only Oblivions quest lines were better, but that’s not what I go to an open world game for (and I found the extreme mismatch between the cinematic plots and open world gameplay immersion-breaking). And while Morrowind has a much more interesting setting (and the plot weave that encompassed that setting was brilliant), Skyrim was the first entry since Daggerfall to really give me a decent first person action RPG feel.
True, Vvardenfell was a really interesting setting because of how alien it is, but skyrim added a lot of interesting lore through books and such. Like the argonian counter-invasion of oblivion after they were physically altered by their hist-trees, forcing the immortal forces of dagon to close their own portals.
I don’t think the in-game history books count very much at all. That’s the flattest, laziest world building possible. They’re fine, sure, but having good “told but never shown” history is worth the least marks by a long shot.
The mid nineties to the turn of the century was a special time. We got Morrowind, Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri, even Ultima 8 had a pretty interesting setting (even if the gameplay was atrocious). I’m sure there were other games and fiction with interesting settings as well.
Then the LotR films came out, and that was it. Everybody started bandwagoning hard.
This is true of just about every story telling trope in every genre of every form of media right now. The gems that stand out genuinely change the formula, because otherwise, we’ve seen it all before.
That is an interesting read. Everyone in the comments are ripping the author as pretentious oof lol. As I said in my OP, I think this problem goes much deeper than shallow video games. Movies and TVs are struggling to find novelty in the endless deluge of content we’re currently experiencing. (Books and webserials seem to be doing more ok but I’m also a lot pickier about what I’ll consume there so its selection bias) We’re in an infinite monkey typewriter situation and at this point it seems mostly random when something is just different enough to be good television. A tale as old as time, the situation remains: the best stories are character driven.
I think the reason they are struggling is because all the decisions on what should be greenlit are being made by VC investor types, business people who arent in it for the love of film or storytelling etc. No chances are taken, only huge guarantees of big returns are considered (which means replicating what has made money in the past.)
This kind of thinking neglects what actually makes a movie good, and how movies were made in the past.
100%, Id say the problem is multi faceted but for sure a big (maybe even majority) part of it is big money trying to guarantee a hit rather than produce quality content
95% of everything has always been crap. We live in a golden age where we have enough non crap at our disposal that we never have to watch anything awful if we don’t want. You will, however, have to look for it – it’s scattered among a dozen services and you’ll need to engage with reviews and social media to find what you’re looking for, most likely.
There’s also a filter of time thing going on, where we forget the shitty media of the past. 1992 gave us Reservoir Dogs, A Few Good Men and My Cousin Vinny. It also gave us Pet Seminary 2, BeBe’s Kids and Love Potion Number 9. So was it a good year or a bad year?
This isn’t a well formulated idea but something that’s been kicking around in my head for a while. There have always been bad movies and TV but I think what is somewhat new is that the blockbuster films are so big budget that it’s always “a good movie” in that its well made but the substance is always lacking. It’s kind of a bizarre and unsettling feeling watching a well produced 200 million dollar movie that kinda… sucks? Is boring? Because movie magic has become so commodified its hard for a movie to ride on flash and sparkle alone.
Ah, I’ve seen this problem in storytelling broken down to this:
You don’t want your story to be a bunch of “and then and then and then.” You want your story to be “because this happened, this other thing happened, then because of that, this other thing happened.” Etc etc.
Tell me the irony isn’t lost on anyone else that this website article about users being frustrated by min maxing profits and inorganic design language is designed exactly like the kind of site that they are talking about.
pcgamer.com
Aktywne