Isn’t that what sca- uhh, I mean super legit game devs normally do? Suddenly the scope was neeeever that big! You just think you remember all’ those claims that are still visible! No one actually said things you can prove they did!
I feel like this has happened numerous times already and somehow it surprises people every time. Like, there are channels on YouTube that only cover this sort of thing and have days of content.
Like CDPR changing Cyberpunk from RPG to Action-adventure. At least the game didn't release at that point though, but still. I mean Destiny even gets called an MMO when it isn't. Genre is kind of misused a lot, people just need to stop buying or getting invested in games that haven't even released.
I saw that announcement video when it first came out and was super hyped for The Division. I didn’t end up playing it until around 2019 and I was really impressed with how close to the trailer the actual gameplay was. I know it had some controversy, but I guess I’m easy to impress lol
Ah, that’s fair. I’m a pretty casual player and didn’t really go deep beyond the medium skill levels, so I didn’t really appreciate the cut-corners beyond that. I hardly even played much multiplayer TBH, I played and loved the single-player campaigns, which is what I tend to do on most games :D
No, you are saying that you are entitled to an developers code if they leave a project just because they let you test it. You are acting/being entitled as fuck.
Engywuck ( @Engywuck ) True… It amazes me when people become so entitled online, especially in the FOSS community. It looks like they think devs owe them something.
jarfil ( @jarfil ) They got free testing for the promise of releasing the source, then failed to fulfill that promise, so… yeah, they do owe those people something.
You are saying that getting people to do work for you by promising them something in return, means nothing, that you can break that promise whenever you want.
No, I’m a foss dev, and I speak for all of us when I ask you to please not join any of our communities.
Also I’m calling you out. You need to put up or shut up evidence of where that developer said that he would release his code as open source. And that he would do it in return for you testing it.
The promise I’m referring to, is to “release the code”.
(long version)I understand the thought process of people not wanting to show how messy their pre-production code is… but that’s why, following semver rules, you mark it as a version “0.x.y”. It’s not an exam, it’s nothing to be ashamed of, anyone who’s written code knows that’s how things work, and it’s on the community to be understanding of this, so the “initial dev” of an open source project should feel confident in releasing a tangled mess, no less no more.
Promising the code, then disappearing without giving a community that’s invested in the project a chance to take over, is what I find fishy.
I’ve nothing to say more on topic. Off topic, people may be quite different and even if objectively there should be nothing bad in releasing pre-production, they may find it sensitive + there might be someone to actively offend for that. I only encountered the former, luckily
So I just ran across this, after leaving a comment in that same thread. Posting it again here to try and add some sanity back to this discussion:
Okay, but there’s a line here somewhere. Pushing for new features and complaining in the issue tracker that a bug hasn’t been fixed soon enough is absolutely entitlement. Expecting someone to follow through on their word and release the source code is another thing entirely. Especially if they make the decision to stop working on it.
Go check out this EoL statement from the developer of Nomie. He open-sourced the code without even being asked too.
As far as I know the developer never actually said he would release the source. That is purely hearsay from @jarfil. He seems to think that if an app or program is free then it also must follow that it’s open source.
@Scary_le_Poo and @jarfil: if the two of you have a disagreement on another thread, please work it out between the two of you like adults there; don’t spill it over into other, unrelated threads.
@Scary_le_Poo, these types of personal attacks are not acceptable on beehaw. It is possible to disagree while still being kind and without resorting to angry or abusive language. Please try to remember beehaw’s guiding principal when interacting with others in the future.
Yeah, this seems to be using the Xbox play anywhere system. So people who have a PC and an Xbox have thier saves synced. I’m sure it will not work steam.
I still won't buy stuff there, but this is a far better way to make a storefront interesting than Epic. Instead of locking everything behind exclusive deals to try to force people to use your platform, they're adding actual meaningful benefits to using their storefront. Cross ownership is nice. Game pass is nice. That's how you provide competition.
Nothing about Lemmy would suggest people would like Epic anymore than any other place on the internet. Their exclusivity deals have the potential to upset anybody regardless of what website they post on, so while there's absolutely a degree of hivemind hatred, it's rooted in understandable reasons.
That being said, it's disingenuous of that person to imply that Epic never gives any good reasons to use the platform, the biggest being the waves of free games they put on "sale" from time to time, though you could go down another rabbit hole of whether thats really something that would make gamers want to use the platform, or if it's just a nice bonus people pop in to claim while still spending their money on Steam when it comes to actual purchases.
I wasn’t being completely serious about leaving for lemmy for that one particular reason. However, one of the biggest problem I found with gaming spaces on “that site” was a variety of dumb circlejerks and tribalism, which is something I was hoping this site would be free of due to a perceived level of maturity. This includes “le epic sucks” discourse.
It's hard to outrun that kind of human interaction anywhere that there are enough users and the anonymity of usernames, I do think it's not as bad on the Fediverse still, I hope it stays that way
Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean it’s automatically a circle jerk. People do have valid reasons for not choosing to spend money on the epic platform.
Oh it does? So you need two copies of the game, but cross save works on steam? That’s actually kinda useful for folks with steam libraries and game pass.
Yeah, but the SEO rewards anything with the word “Starfield” in it at the moment and there’s enough people seemingly invested in putting down the game at every opportunity that they’ll share this around and drive clicks.
My google news feed is like all Starfield now - getting ridiculous and i’m expecting by tomorrow will be like “Should you make french toast and eat it while playing Starfield?”
I don’t understand the people who spend a hundred hours on a game to then give it a bad rating, calling it boring. Why don’t they just quit much earlier and play Chrono Trigger or something?
I have about 30 hours in it now. I wouldn't say it gets any better over that time, if you didn't like it at the beginning you won't like it after 30 hours.
With some games after 20+ hours the honeymoon phase is over. But I want to finish it so that all this time doesn’t feel wasted. And there’s hope that the game will get better. I mean everybody else loves it so it must be a great game right?
However, often it just feels like work and it makes the flaws of the game even more obvious. And I just end up despising it.
This is the best answer, players are invested after a certain point, but the realization that they don’t like the game comes later in the process. The more you play the game you don’t like the more you’re frustrated with it and the more likely you are to give it a poor rating, especially when the things that are your biggest complaints feel like obvious bug fixes that should have already happened, but continue to exist.
That is a great question! I’ve certainly asked myself the same thing and the only answer I can come up with in 2 parts.
1: The game is compulsive. While you are playing you want to keep playing. And while the moment to moment interactions are dull (imo) but not so dull as to drive me away. There may be plenty of Oblivion nostalgia keeping me playing.
2: Many of the games problems appear in retrospect. The dumbing down of the subsystems, for example. Much like Outer Worlds; it feels fine while you’re in there but once you stop and step back you realise how crappy they are.
Yes, this was exactly how I felt when playing Fire Emblem Engage. God. I hated how the hub world basically sucked an equal amount of time for each map I cleared. Sure, the mini-games are optional,But so is brushing your teeth.
I may be getting older but it feels like a lot of games are just padding their runtime with gameplay that doesn’t mesh well at all.
To be fair, the game is so massive, any review (positive or negative) done on less than 60 hours probably won’t do the game justice. It’s entirely possible to hold hope for redeeming qualities only to be a bit disappointed in the end.
Customers aren’t professional reviewers. Paying customers are entitled to have their opinion at any time. Tiny Tina’s Wonderland immediately put me off with that lame overworld. I think I clocked around 3 hours and then uninstalled it. Never ever would I spend dozens of hours in a game where a significant portion massively annoys me.
IDK, I think 10 hours is plenty for any game, and 2 hours is enough for most. By two hours, you’ve likely discovered the core gameplay loop and seen how it handles progression, and by 10 hours you’ve seen whether that core gameplay loop changes throughout the game.
I don’t like negative reviews for games when they’ve spent double the time HLTB gives for a playthrough. I don’t expect to play much more than “main + extras” on any game, so any review that’s expecting content beyond that just isn’t useful for me.
But it doesn’t excel at any of those play styles. It’s the classic case of “Jack of all trades, master of none.”
I guess it’s fine if it’s the only game you play, but if you have choice, I don’t see why you’d pick Starfield over other games you could get. It’s kind of like the cult around Minecraft, you can play pretty much any style you want with mods (e.g. soccer, Pokemon, roller coaster, etc), but every style is done much better in a standalone game.
So I give Starfield an 8/10 or a B, it’s pretty good, but it doesn’t really stand out in any particular way.
Honestly, the games that take the most time I often have more negative opinions about. The Assassin’s Creed games, for example, purposefully waste your time. They shove a bunch of junk in and try to make you interact with it when I could be doing something enjoying with my time. Enjoyment per hour should be the measure of a good game, not hours alone. If the game takes me 300h to complete and I only enjoyed 10h of that, it’s a bad game.
Games are meant to entertain. If they aren’t fun or force you to do unfun things, then why waste your time on them?
I got the same with collectibles in games. Chasing collectibles is boring to me, and you will never see me going for one that isn’t directly on my path. It is meaningless fluff.
Chrono Trigger was the first example of a game that came to my head that’s just great. I replayed it a few weeks ago as well. It’s time better spent than playing a shitty game for 100 hours.
IDK, I bailed around halfway through. I got to the Magus fight, and it felt really RNG dependent. If he attacked in a certain order, I would lose a team member and eventually lose because I couldn’t keep up with healing.
Maybe I was too low level, or maybe I didn’t have the right items equipped, IDK, but I completely lost interest when I failed several times without knowing what to do differently except hope that he attacked in a different order. So I bailed.
Maybe I’ll try it again sometime. I originally played on my phone, but maybe I’ll have more patience on my Steam Deck. I really enjoyed the game up to that point, but I just couldn’t bear the RNG. I have no problem failing over and over (I love the early Ys games and some bosses took a dozen tries), but I need to see some sort of progress.
If a narrative-heavy game takes 60 hours and then fucks it up on the third act, it deserves the hate. Games having a bad payoff 200% warrants bad reviews.
Wait you think danganronpa fucks up it’s third act? I was absolutely hooked from start to finish for danganronpa 1 and 2. Not yet had the time to play 3 properly yet though but I’ve looked what I’ve played so far.
If a narrative-heavy game takes 60 hours and then fucks it up on the third act, it deserves the hate. Games having a bad payoff 200% warrants bad reviews.
2 hours doesn't let you experience even 10% of what a game like this usually offer, less alone giving you time to tinker with the systems and see if they actually work, and furthermore if they are actually fun once you're good at them.
Of course I agree. But it’s still not that great game design, if you are bored for hours. It’s like people telling me about tv show that gets good after first season. What should I do until then… :)
How else do you explain to someone what dwarf fortress is, for example? You need dozens of hours just to get the grasp of mechanics and UI, less alone to figure out whether you even like the game. Same goes for many bigger games, for example mount and blade (bannerlord) starts off strong with a promise of you establishing and leading a kingdom but once you actually reach that part through tedious grind, you realize it was all for nothing and the game's a badly designed, shallow, unfinished sandbox with absolutely no vision or execution in that regard. Good luck getting to that conclusion without already investing at least 50 mediocre hours in it though.
You need dozens of hours just to get the grasp of mechanics and UI, less alone to figure out whether you even like the game
The problem with this thinking is that you split the game in 2 parts: first a tedious learning process of dozens of hours, and then an enjoyable experience once you know how to play, and imply that you need to get over the first part before being able (or allowed) to rate the game. But the learning part is the game, even more so if you need to invest dozens of hours.
Many players will simply enjoy the grind of Mount and Blade, because they don’t care about the endgame. Many players (maybe the same) will uninstall Dwarf Fortress after half an hour, because they will estimate that the learning curve isn’t worth their time, even if it was the greatest game ever.
I understand your point. But, if I take your example of mount and blade. If it’s starts off strong with 50 hours of fun, that’s a win in my book. But yes, in this regard steam ratings fail, because of binary recommend or not recommend voting. On the other hand, you can see how many hours did the user that posted a review played, so you can kinda make your own decision.
Also, I would like to add that games like dwarf fortress, rimworld, factorio and similar, all start of fun, if you’re into this genre….at least for me, they did. Thinking back, I think I never experienced playing a game for X hours having a horrible time, and somewhere in the middle changing my mind. At least from the gameplay standpoint. Maybe sometimes story had some unexpected bump in quality (thank god), but not really core gameplay.
Overall, I agree with you, 2 hours is too little for a complete review of a video game. But these are user reviews that can be helpful as well. For an example, for someone who hasn’t that much time to invest in a game to get to the good part. Professional reviewers (or people who have themselves as professional) should play the game for a suitable amount of time, before making an informed review.
If I game can't keep you engaged while doing that for the first 2 hours it's not a good game, at least for that person. You don't need to know everything the game has to offer if it's bored you for 2 hours.
I think there are too many exceptions to this that the best way to truly know is to play it for yourself. I hated Death Stranding, Control, Days Gone, Final Fantasy 7 Remake, Fallout 3 and many other games in their initial few hours, but as they opened up they quickly became my one of my favourites. I’ve started my first playthrough of Witcher 3 and in the first 3 hours I’m not yet impressed, but I’ll give it a good chance before dropping it. Not sure if Starfield is any good but given its systems, it’ll probably need some buildup time I guess.
It’s such a bizarre, but real issue. I’ve always been boggled by the idea that you can’t offer your opinion on some games without first giving them a full work week. “I know you just sat there for the length of 5 movies and didn’t like it, but it doesn’t really get good until you sit through another 10.”
If you give it 2 hours, a game should have made it worth your time.
I’m all for improving consumer rights in the videogame industry, but I’m more than a little amazed anyone’s willing to put up a fight for The Crew of all things.
Seems more to do with the way things line up–it’s a perfect example of a physical and digital game getting permanently shut down without any sort of refund or compensation to the buyers of the game. It sounds like it’s about setting precedent so people will have a better idea of how this kinda stuff is going to work in the future.
He just likes driving around and nothing more, it’s his podcast/tourism game, but also the perfect one since it happened after he started this fight for preservation and it’s not sold as service but as a product, unlike MMOs.
They saw Pokémon dancing around those two and animal brutality, and decided to settle down right in the middle of it. The whole game is like a big April Fools joke.
Yeah, the money they are putting in hyping the game would be better spent on development. Don’t talk about it to people who aren’t involved in making it, just do it. I much prefer the steam early access method where it you think you have a good idea, you release it early on for a cheaper price. Then you see how it does and receive player feedback and iterate from there.
Too much hype can make a game seem worse by raising expectations too high.
I know they are probably bombarded with requests for comments and interviews, but CDPR have learnt nothing from CP2077.
they are going to over-sell this again, promising things that don’t materialize because they are dreaming of the thing now when it’s still 3-4 years away, then people are going to be disappointed when it releases and doesn’t have all the things they talk about.
Obviously consumers haven’t learnt anything either, we eat this up, but CDPR is going to get the fallout from it.
Obviously consumers haven’t learnt anything either, we eat this up, but CDPR is going to get the fallout from it.
I waited for almost 3 years of patches and a deep discount and I’m still somewhat disappointed, it’s just three shitty ubisoft sandboxs stacked in a next gen suit.
I’m talking specifically of the over-promising and under-delivering on game design. not the technical issues which is a whole separate problem that may or may not be solved by UE5
Now if only CDPR would eliminate their crunch work environment, and release games when the DEVS say it’s ready.
If you can’t afford advertising the game prior to launch, just don’t. That’s where for example Bethesda saved a ton of money. Released “complete” games within 1-3 months of the first announcement. (Do mind I’ve lost all hope in Bethesda)
In other hand, over-promising in terms of what’s actually currently out is fine. The issue is when you …
Don’t have the devtime. (Board releasing the game way before it’s ready, because marketing is so damn expensive, and the stockholders want it now not later)
Don’t have the skill. (Which means re-training all your employees constantly)
Don’t have the work morale. (Which leads to talent bleed, further exaggerating point 2.)
Additionally, this isn’t new IP like Cybeypunk was, you’re not designing in-game systems from the ground up or hashing out the gameplay loop…you’re just improving on an already existing formula that is well received. The main challenge is the new engine, but as you’ve said they will also get a lot of problems solved with UE too. I think it’ll be fine in the end.
TBF an online Windows 7 copy is just asking to be Hacked given Microsoft support ended in 2020 and security updates after that required a paid subscription which ended in 2023.
I think there’s a good chance that they fuck it up as bad as 76. I’m willing to be proven wrong, Bethesda as a company hasn’t done much to convince me otherwise. I’ll be honest, their acquisition by Microsoft has only given me more monumental doubts. I think the biggest thing Bethesda has going for it right now is pedigree and the fact that the release of their last big series entry was so long ago that people are forgetting how terrible not just the releases were, but they way they handled them as a company, especially where the pre-order merch was concerned.
There was a play tester that said when Redfall released Starfield was in even worse condition and that’s when they decided to delay it for another year.
I’m all for delaying games until they’re actually done, but it’s pretty telling they wanted to release both games in those states.
As a company they’re definitely being held up by some rosy glasses. And mods. They bank on mods to fix whatever they’re too lazy to.
Don’t forget to preorder Starfield so you can maybe receive a… wrist watch? Huh? Lol
Its nice to see a low cost microtransaction, and nice to see that you can get the currency in game but really thats just the same as it was a few years back before it went full 100 dollar for a reskin mode.
You are defending a game by pointing out that its money grabbing methods are less greedy than another company.
Games wont make the billions and billions they make now if they move away from the in game purchases models but they also evidently dont need billions and billions to operate.
Some of the best games on the market were made on small budgets by indie developers and sell well because the are fun and people actually want to play them.
pcgamesn.com
Ważne