What gamers want is innovation and overall fun gameplay, sequel or not. I’ve heard rather little coming from AAA studios of interest to me as of late 'cause they’ve all gone to creating endless battle royales, action RPGs or looter-shooters that all play near identically, all with the same military or techno jungle aesthetic that just doesn’t appeal to me. It’s all gunning for their game to get big on that e-sport sponsorship money or find some way to load their games with micro transaction pay to win gambling BS. For the most part, small and indie studios are doing as well as the AAA big boys because they are able to put more creativity into their games on smaller budgets. When a big AAA game such as BG3 does succeed, it’s because they put as much or more effort and care into innovative and entertaining gameplay as they do into fancy ray tracing graphics and cash grab mechanics. Games like BG3 are as praised as they are because they are complete games that work like they should out of the box, no day 1 patch/DLC or extra money required for the full intended experience. We get the quality we expect for our $60-$70. Whether that’s a brand new IP or a sequel doesn’t matter much.
My only quibble with this is that I’m not sure I’d classify larian as a AAA studio. Not when you’re comparing to Activision or Bethesda or something. The game is absolutely amazing, I’ve put over 700 hours in and am still playing it. I can’t think of any of the big AAA studios releasing a game that comes close anytime in the last decade.
Not to mention a lot of them are still crappy at best: Fallout 4 is ridiculous, Fallout 76 is even more ridiculous, Assassin’s Creed turned into a conveyor joke, Cyberpunk 2077 was just insultingly bad at launch and remained that for a long time (haven’t played 2.0 yet, so I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt), Starfield is another sandwich full of lies, Redfall is not even worth talking about akin to Deathloop, Diablo 4 is a machine to vacuum money on a schedule, online FPS has been nothing but battle royale for what feels like almost a dozen years and now they’re testing the waters with “extraction shooters” looking at Escape From Tarkov (the extraction aspect alone won’t bring them the same fame), and all of that is coupled with ever-increasing system requirements and prices, making gaming the most expensive it’s ever been for really no good benefit.
The only AAA game that left me satisfied on launch in the recent years, like in the days of buying boxes, was DOOM: Eternal; to a lesser extent, Hogwarts Legacy was good, but the story felt lacking and really took away from the fun.
I personally blame the managers in the AAA gaming for not managing the scope creeps that obviously happen in many of these games, stretching the development resources, yet resulting in another “mile wide, inch deep” discourse time after time. Again, DOOM: Eternal is a great example: no crafting, no open world shenanigans, no multiple choices all leading to the same outcome (while not being a conceptual story-telling instrument) - just a focused game with multiple elements that make up the linear progression and gradually increase the possible complexity of one’s experience, finally culminating in a complete FPS sitting atop impressive optimization and great visuals.
AAA is just not worth it these days and hasn’t been for several years, neither in terms of hardware, nor software.
You make some true points, but it's hard to take them seriously when you blanket dismiss entire games that are enjoyed by many as crappy or entire franchises as a joke.
That can’t be the sole metric. The POSTAL series is widely regarded as one of the worst franchises to ever happen in video games, and yet, I and many others are big fans of the entire series in general and are especially fond of some entries in particular; but it certainly doesn’t make these games less janky and subpar in many regards - at the very least, none of them was advertised as something “for the next gen” or “groundbreaking” or any of the big words the AAA industry likes to throw around when advertising.
entire franchises as a joke
Thanks for that, though, I didn’t meant to call the entire AC series a joke, only multiple of its entries after the first games.
I'm just particularly fond of Assassin's Creed Odyssey due to it being the only open world game that is playable as a stealth game with stealth game specific mechanics and a world designed for stealth traversal, there has not yet been any other game designed that way that isn't just light stealth elements that fall apart when you inevitably get caught in two minutes, until someone shows me another game like that, I honestly feel that game to be pushing the stealth genre, which is honestly not hard to do because of the dire state it's in.
And I'm glad you expand on Postal particularly, it goes to show that even games that are despised by many have their own meaningful aspects to be gleaned with the right mindset and with their flaws in mind. I think that when it comes to games of this size it is very hard to be able to say they are crappy, full stop, especially ones like these, or even Deathloop, which I enjoyed. Not as much as Arkane's Prey or Dishonored, of course, but it was still an enjoyable game with an excellent art style and soundtrack that heavily tapped into my love of the 70s, and featured a very nice multiplayer mode that simply doesnt exist in any other game.
I’m totally fine with you enjoying whatever games you enjoy, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. My opinion is that of the corporations and their practices only, not the consumers that happen to find something dear to them in the final product.
Granted, we, as consumers, have - or at least should have - certain ways to leverage the industry and let it know explicitly what we appreciate and like, and what we absolutely hate, but that’s much easier said than do on the scale of modern gaming in general, let alone the AAA gaming, the massive beast it is and the sizes of its many audiences. I do what I can to influence the industry, whenever I can, and that includes talking about it with my fellow gamers to maybe spark the same tendencies in them - but I certainly don’t want to discourage anyone from having fun.
Off the thread topic, yeah Prey and Dishonored are definitely one of the greatest games we’ve seen in 2010s, especially Prey.
I think you do bring up some good points about how a lot of the weakest AAA games now are either extremely over-iterative and lose appeal by virtue of sharing large parts of their design with their past iterations, diluting the novel good bits (Assassin's Creed), and trend chasers (that most popular online FPS games chase battle Royale and extraction shooter genres, though battle Royale seems to be finally dying off.
It takes something like Doom, a game that bucks the trends, but doesn't stumble on the execution of something fresh, but rooted in strong game direction and execution. Or something like Hogwarts Legacy, a rote-on-paper genre of game (open world) kept fresh and interesting because of its long-time-coming incredible choice of setting and the ways that it uses that setting to benefit the gameplay and immersion (the magic combat system, broom riding, and lots of sprinkled bits of lore that reward long time fans of the world)
But even then... imagine ten years down the line if there's a Doom 6, and they let history repeat itself...
Its not AC anymore though, they should have made a new IP instead of using an existing one on games that are completely different to the originals in the franchise.
I would agree with that, but then there's a whole debate to be had about whether Odyssey would receive the same funding if it weren't an AC game, and whether it wouldve been executed as well or has as much content in that alternate reality Odyssey.
I guess. I mean thats why they keep using the AC name though isnt it, they had no faith in their products to stand on their own.
I think all the recent AC games could have been a new franchise, they all are pretty much the same base game. I wouldnt even count AC4 as a AC game personally, I guess I just crave that beautiful AC2/Brotherhood experience again that we will never get.
You can enjoy stuff that’s objectively bad. Like fast food. The problem is less the individual games and more the state of gaming as a whole.
It’s not that one game launches as an unfinished buggy mess, despite having a paid for early access period. It’s not that one game increases the cost of entry, and further augments that with season passes, microtransactions, preorder bonuses, always-online requirements and all other bullshit that is modern AAA gaming.
The problem is that it’s the norm. If someone who doesn’t play a lot of games picks up a copy of the Ubisoft game they will probably have a blast. The systems in the game were fun when they were novel fifteen years ago. It’s when you see the same games released year after year, with the same issues, and the same predatory monetisation schemes that it gets trite.
It’s perfectly fine to enjoy Starfield. I hope those who waited so long for it do. For me personally there’s just nothing to get excited about because it’s just another version of the Bethesda game. I have already played it a dozen times before, and while twelve year old me enjoyed it immensely, thirty year old me can find better things to do with his time.
In short, it’s not that fast food is hard to enjoy, it’s just that every restaurant serves the same boring old burger.
What it's really about now is the combination of certain game mechanics. You've played a Bethesda game, and you've played a space sim, but you haven't played a Bethesda game in a space setting with ship construction, planet exploration and resource extraction outpost building, or really any light space sim with solid first person shooting at all.
To me, that combination is novel. Just like AC Odyssey's fusion of a true stealth game and an open world setting is novel and doesn't exist. The particular parts that make up the whole are not novel, the combination and execution are. There is still new ground to cover there.
A review bomb is when people start jumping down the game's throat with negative reviews for shit unrelated/peripheral to the game. If they're triggered by the actual core design choices of the game it isn't a review bomb.
These reviews are because the game is a money grubbing downgrade from the game people bought and had taken away from them, and this is the first opportunity they had to publish a review on a storefront. The motivation being the actual game means it can't be a review bomb.
No, it's still a review because you're still actively dealing with whatever it is you're complaining about.
"Hey, I really like/liked the core game play loop of this game but I think that it's gotten significantly worse than it was previously. It'd be nice if they changed it back?
That's depends on the business model. For one-off payment games, it still does considerable damage, whereas they don't gain much by you continuing to play.
For subscription games, your point stands much stronger.
It's a free to play multiplayer game. If you continue playing it, you're providing value for some other player who might spend money, so just by being in the matchmaking pool, they've got you where they want you, and they won't care about your review.
Yes, I answered your question with a question because your scenario was as absurd as you perceived mine to be. So I'll answer yours directly: "yes, but not at that scale". Because at that scale, it's a review bomb.
So if General motors was using slave labour to build their cars and feeding said labour with baby kittens, would you consider it a review bomb for someone to say 'You shouldn't buy the latest vehicle from General motors because of the way it is made'?
What if general motors came out and said that they think a great start to the day is to wake up and punch a dutchman in the face?
A review is, ultimately, a recommendation of whether or not you think other people should buy this product. If you can't recommend it because of something the company who made it did, to me, it's still a review. Because recommending that product is recommending financial support of that company. Not recommending it, is not supporting them.
For me a real review bomb would occur generally only in a case where a site like 4chan might suddenly spin a wheel of mayhem and pick a random game to just go shit on or something like that.
Why would 47k people choose to play the game when it's the worst game on Steam? Literally worse than a game like Bad Rats: the Rats' Revenge that fundamentally doesn't function correctly. For reference, its peak today was about 20 players.
Before you reply with something like "marketing", you seriously think that if Bad Rats launched today, and with the same marketing budget as OW2, that it would achieve anywhere close to 47k players peak 10 months after its release?
Like I said: you're disconnected from reality if you think OW2 is the worst game on Steam.
As far as I'm concerned they do. But my opinion doesn't decide the rating of a game any more than yours that's it's supposedly a better game than bad rats.
It's a product of everyone who votes giving their opinion, and the entire steam userbase has come to the consensus that Overwatch 2 is a particularly egregious example of it.
It cannot possibly be a review bomb when the reviews are legitimate opinions based on what the game is.
the previously referenced games all sit above 80% positive and yet have the exact same problems that you cite as OW2's reason for being bad
legitimate opinions
"the zeitgeist has told them that the game is bad" is not a legitimate reason for not liking OW2, hence accusations of review bombing
if you think there are legitimate reasons OW2 deserves the rating it has, by all means please provide them, but so far all you've given me are #badthings that also apply to basically all the popular F2P games on Steam.
it’s the game they gave me to replace the game i purchased.
if i bought a toyota camry, and 2 years later toyota said “sorry we can’t let you continue using your camry, here’s a corolla” you better fucking believe i’d be trashing toyota in every public space possible to warn potential customers.
in your analogy you bought a camry and mr toyota said "we're getting rid of this camry but don't worry i fought to get you a free corolla" and were fine with it and hailed mr toyota as a hero but then mr toyota left the company so the free corolla became poisonous and bad
Those games are not nearly as aggressive in their attempts to get you to buy shit. CSGO? a tiny ass fucking button to buy Prime. TF2? Don't even remember seeing a shop button.
OW2? Makes the worst, money hungry mobile free-to-play blush with how aggressive it tries to sell you shit.
tf2 drops crates every 30 minutes that's literally just an advert for the in-game store (which has a dedicated button pretty clearly labelled on the main menu)
If it does, I've literally never seen it, and I play regularly. The closest I ever got was the Halo MCC soundtrack in CSGO, and I'm pretty sure I only got that because I also have MCC on Steam.
my guy csgo crates were controversial enough a few years ago that people sued valve over them, and at no point did csgo come anywhere close to being the worst reviewed game on steam
how are you unironically out here saying that csgo doesn't drop crates?
leaving a negative review because of that would by definition be review bombing, because at that point you're not reviewing the game, but external context that surrounds it
"i liked overwatch 1" is not a valid review of the game overwatch 2, and people leaving reviews to that effect en-masse is pretty textbook review bombing
if you're reviewing specific things you don't like, that's reviewing a product
leaving a negative review because "OW1 was killed off" isn't doing that
if you want to discuss specific things you don't like, please provide some that would reasonably justify OW2 being literally the worst reviewed game on steam rn
leaving a negative review because "OW1 was killed off" isn't doing that
Leaving a review because "OW1 was killed off" and the intended transition route was a drastically inferior product, is in fact reviewing a product.
Context is actually an important part of reviews. Orcarina or Time looks like a shit game today, and needs the context of being a late 90's innovator to fully appreciate it. Likewise, a BoTW clone would look fantastic, a game changer, even...if a certain 2017 game hadn't already set the benchmark.
Calling something an inferior version of its predecessor, which was cynically shut down to push people to this inferior product, is worthy review information. It tells people that a superior product existed, and all this new product is, is the enshittification of it.
ow1 was shut down to avoid splitting the playerbase. when kaplan went on record saying that he'd fought to get ow1 owners a copy of ow2 for free everybody loved it, but now it's bad, actually? yes that makes sense
Orcarina or Time looks like a shit game today
comparing the entire landscape of gaming to a game is a very different thing to comparing it to a specific game
it would be like if somebody reviewed Baldur's Gate 3 by saying it was bad just because they liked the source powers from Divinity 2. as part of a review maybe it works, sure but as the bedrock and sole item of substance, it's useless.
your entire argument so far has been "I preferred the previous game therefore OW2 deserves to be the worst reviewed game on steam". even ignoring the fact that you've failed to articulate any differences past a vague notion of not liking that it's free-to-play, that's an almost laughably braindead take
And making comparisons between the two products is perfectly valid.
ow1 was shut down to avoid splitting the playerbase.
I'm sorry, are you an Activision/Blizzard employee?
I ask because only one of their employees could come up with such a bullshit statement. The core gameplay loops aren't different enough to cause that kind of split, and OW2 Is free-to-play. Anybody that wanted to voluntarily jump from OW1 to OW2 could have freely done so at literally no cost, if they so wanted.
They shut down OW1 to a) pump up the numbers for OW2 and b) to get OW1 players forcibly exposed to their F2P market.
when kaplan went on record saying that he'd fought to get ow1 owners a copy of ow2 for free everybody loved it, but now it's bad, actually? yes that makes sense
Definitely an Activision/Blizzard employee. Nobody else would miss the disingenuity of making such a statement about a free-to-play game.
comparing the entire landscape of gaming to a game is a very different thing to comparing it to a specific game
And my point is, taking into account the landscape, even in a macro level such as Activision's own behaviour with the series, including this very game, is relevant context worthy of being part of a review.
it would be like if somebody reviewed Baldur's Gate 3 by saying it was bad just because they liked the source powers from Divinity 2. as part of a review maybe it works, sure but as the bedrock and sole item of substance, it's useless.
Your analogy falls flat because Divinity and BG, though they share much of the same inspirations and development staff, are very different games. OW2 is basically OW1 with some minor tweaks and microtransactions.
The problem with OW2's mtx though is that the game makes it as hard as possible to ignore its microtransaction nature as possible, and they willingly hamper the user experience to do so.
Other than the MTX, OW2 is so similar to OW1, that without it, these reviews would be saying that they're essentially the same game. So what they're saying now, that it's OW1 enshittified, is valid.
your entire argument so far has been "I preferred the previous game therefore OW2 deserves to be the worst reviewed game on steam".
If that's what you took away from my comments, then I'm afraid you cannot read. That, or you're unable to discern from different users. All I've said was that people calling OW2 basically enshittified OW1 is not review bombing, because it's a valid review.
even ignoring the fact that you've failed to articulate any differences past a vague notion of not liking that it's free-to-play
Because there are very few differences and none of them are improvements. Like the shrinking of team sizes and available modes.
Also, F2P can be predatory as fuck, and Activision/Blizzard have most certainly been so here. they've even broken sales laws in countries like Australia.
OW2 is so similar to OW1, that without it, these reviews would be saying that they're essentially the same game
All I've said was that people calling OW2 basically enshittified OW1 is not review bombing, because it's a valid review.
Because there are very few differences
Okay so you clearly agree that OW2 doesn't deserve to be the lowest rated game on steam, since "there are very few differences", and you liked OW1.
I don't really care what semantic nonsense or mental gymnastics you have to apply to convince yourself that whatever caused it to be ranked so low doesn't count as review bombing.
Okay so you clearly agree that OW2 doesn't deserve to be the lowest rated game on steam, since "there are very few differences", and you liked OW1.
I do agree it doesn't deserve to be seen as literally the worst game on Steam. I never said otherwise. I hate, hate, HATE the MTX system...but as you said, this doesn't make it literally the worst game ever. MTX aside the game still works and the core gameplay loop is fun while you're in a match. Big Rigs: Over The Road Racing this is not.
Would I hit the Recommend button on Steam? No. The MTX strategy is a deal breaker for me. Whenever I'm not in a match I feel like a fucking product. At that point I'd rather just fire up another shooter because I straight up don't want to deal with that shit.
OW2 isn't a bad game. It is a predatory game. It is debatable which is worse (I consider predatory to be much worse than bad). Being predatory is plenty reason enough for a bad review.
You are really trying to downplay the power of marketing, but you seem to realize that gets people playing. Not only that but live service design is very effective at keeping people playing even when they are not having any fun whatsoever. Because they gotta grind the battle pass and such. Extrinsic rewards and habit-forming conditioning making up for a lack of intrinsic enjoyment.
Still, I would agree with you that it's not the worst game on Steam, but like I mentioned in the other comment, that's not what steam ratings mean. It means that the vast majority people would not recommend it, and that seems pretty reasonable.
i mean i ignored the second part because it was irrelevant
"You're entirely disconnected to reality if you think Overwatch 2 deserves to be the worst-reviewed game on Steam." doesn't say "deserves to be the worst game", so if we're playing the reading game maybe you should take the first turn
On Steam being reviewed poorly is not a matter of rating from 1 to 10, but how many people would recommend it or not. It's completely valid that the vast majority of people would not recommend this game even if it's not a 0/10.
yes obviously, and none of that changes anything about the fact that very clearly OW2 isn't bad enough to deserve the title of worst rated game on steam
You tried to argue with someone else over this, but the fact that more people played it, being F2P, means that more people can agree that they wouldn't recommend it. Given how Steam ratings work, that makes it the worst rated. There's no arguing how it is. You seem to take an issue with it as if it meant Gabe Newell personally stamped it with a 0/10, which is not how it works.
In Steam, being 4/10 for thousands of people is worse than being 0/10 for a couple people.
So, the author mentioned a couple of delightfully strange recent games. The thesis of the article is way too broad and unsupportable. If you’re sick of mainstream settings, then stop playing AAA games.
First and foremost it’s bold to put this out before Drag x Drive releases which is just weird enough to become its own thing. Second, even the owner Epic doesn’t even seem to know what to do with Rocket League because they seem to be trying to make it part of Fortnite. Thirdly, esports are everywhere, sorry not all of them look like legacy sports but that’s not a problem for people playing the games
Look man, as someone who thought Switch 2 mouse controls were a gimmick and has sunk 17 hours into Civ VII, I don’t feel confident enough to tell all these people that they are wrong. If I had been in college and was told people could get scholarships for NASCAR Soccer I would have laughed in your face. Being that cocky is asking to be wrong
I’m not a betting man, but if I were, I would put good money on this being closer to Excite Truck in the public consciousness a few years from now rather than one of the most successful games of all time. So no, it’s not bold to think that Drag X Drive isn’t going to supplant Rocket League.
It doesn’t help that Nintendo seems to actively hinder competitive play in their games. It’s not starting from a winning position, but I wouldn’t count it out entirely.
My partner and I had a lot of fun playing RL back when it released. We both purchased it. Toxicity in matches grew exponentially soon after and she was the first to eventually get tired of it’s chat, players scoring against their team, and so on. We both stopped playing and then it’s dev studio was sold to Epic Games and the EGS account requirement was that last little push we needed to know we wouldn’t play it ever again. Still, we share some very good memories of that game. I’d say it was worth the purchase.
Judging by all the shark card crap they jammed into the last GTA, I fully expect them to shovel a bunch of crap in to make more money: $70 base games, deluxe editions, DLC, micro transactions, social club integration, required internet connections, all of it.
He was always a “lie, lie and lie until you make it” kind of guy, it’s just that in the last couple of years he’s been doing it widely enough and long enough that the real results of enough of his lies came though and enough people started suspecting his words and looking at them more carefully and spotting the lying early.
As the saying goes, “you can deceive some people all of the time or all people some of the time, but you can’t deceive all people all of the time” - and at some point, when he became more widely known, he seems to have gone from the first mode to the second and by now he’s run out of time.
Right wing and not understanding second degree, name a more iconic duo
Edit: Lemmy users and not understanding who people are talking about, name a more iconic duo! I’m talking about the right wing Steam users commenting on the patch notes.
I’m talking about the users commenting on Helldivers patch notes. Just like with Starship Troopers, people on the right see Helldivers as inspiring when the real message behind the media is anti fascism.
Try to follow the conversation, that should have been very clear considering the comment I was replying to.
I really like that there was a whole thing about building a super-weapon where players had to complete quests or whatever to contribute to its development. Then enough players compete the quest and the weapon was completed, and it turned out to be an orbital bombardment that killed enemies and players indiscriminately.
A lot of players were pissed but it’s so aggressively in-character I can’t imagine how they didn’t see it coming.
For all the crap the game gets, Johnny Silverhand in Cyberpunk was actually an incredibly written companion character. Plus bonus points because of Keanu Reeves.
Kainé from NieR Gestalt/Replicant?
KOSMOS from XenoSaga?
Geno from Super Mario RPG?
Karlach from BG3?
Heck, even Serana from Skyrim could be there.
Many characters I would consider at the very least to be contenders for top spot, if not outright surpassing Morrigan.
Shit. Pick a character from Chrono Trigger. Citan from XenoGears. Teepo from Breath of Fire 3. I mean, I could go on and on… There are so many classic companions in games. I can’t pick one, and I’m not sure I trust anyone who can, especially when there is bioware money being thrown around.
I like GOG and I like steam too. While it is true that GOG can’t take the offline installer from me, this does not make it true I can play the game forever since many games are dynamically linked to libraries that may not be available in the future. This happened to me with games I just had bought. Steam also dynamically links to libraries but what I like about the way they are doing it is that these are part of the base installation so as long as you keep these files, the games should keep working. Nothing being perfect, I think they both try to do things in their own way and try to convince us that it is the best one.
pcgamer.com
Ważne