Almost certainly still stuck with their fork of gamebryo. On the bright side, the footage I’ve seen of Starfield suggests that they’ve actually gotten around to implementing a better animation system.
I’m not sure on the specifics of how animations work at the engine level (I know there’s stuff about animation rigs, but not much beyond that) but all their games up until now have had the same system of character animations and it consistently looked ancient. Straight from the late 90s levels.
Oh man, I remember in Oblivion how bad the third person view looked. Characters were stiff and stood perfectly upright while their limbs flailed around in nonsensical ways. I was amazed at how bad it was for a game of that gen.
Then Fallout 3 was a little better but still pretty shit. And Skyrim massively improved it, but it still wasnt up to par with games that actually put some effort into the animation systems (like GTA4).
Major quality of life feature. People make mistakes, sometimes the character lighting in the gen screen is completely different from in-game and now your character is stuck with purple eyes.
What I’d like to see afterwards is player PC slot kicking / clearing. Far too many people have started a game with some friends only for a person to quit/leave after dropping by to realize to their horror that character is permanently locked to that save and can’t be replaced with an NPC.
Lol. Goodbye BlazeIt! Go out in a...YourName of glory!
But I think people want those characters to show up when the player does and disappear the rest of the time. Otherwise your CoOp saves pretty much need to be 100% co-op. Can't really drop in and out with your friends.
sometimes the character lighting in the gen screen is completely different from in-game
I’ve seen this in a lot of games recently and it annoys me a bit. Diablo 4 for example the character creation hair color looks sometimes okay, but then in-game horrible.
In a nutshell, interpolated frames are basically just extra generated frames that go between the frames outputted by the video game itself. They’re used to combat things like motion blur, and to make animations look smoother.
Right? “We made a mediocre game that doesn’t deliver on the promises we made. Pls give good review now”
That being said, I have not read the Steam reviews, but it could be that they are getting bombed, but the situation described in the article is just people not liking the game for valid reasons
I went and read a good chunk of negative steam reviews for it. And yeah, the vast majority of the negative ones are about mechanics, or performance, and seem perfectly legitimate. A lot that basically even say, "I don't recommend now but seems like it will be good once they cook for a bit."
I did see a couple made super recently that were basically negative reviewing because of this dude's statements, but not many.
And funny how the only reviews I could imagine being considered review bomb-y seem to only have happened because of his whining about being review bombed.
Mostly it looks like the game's recent "The Breach" update was legitimately poorly received by the playerbase, the studio head decided, "No, it's the children who are wrong."
Ugh, this discussion happens every time this topic comes up. There’s nothing about the phrase “review bombing” that implies the reviews are somehow illegitimate. It just means a large number of negative reviews in a short time.
While it mentions malice in the first few words, I would argue many of their examples are not malicious, including the one given about the first known use of the phrase:
One of the first appearances of the term “review bomb” was in a 2008 Ars Technica article by Ben Kuchera describing the effect in regards to Spore, in which users left negative reviews on Amazon citing the game’s perceived lackluster gameplay and digital rights management system.
based on this article I’d say it has more to do with the organized nature of reviews. It even says:
Review bombing is a similar practice to vote brigading.
What other purpose for reviews is there than signaling to others whether or not they should buy the game?
Do you think the negative reviews for No Rest For The Wicked don’t have the intention of making it not sell as well? And if not, why do you think players leave them?
Related: I got PS+ for my birthday and saw they had Indiana Jones in the catalog and downloaded it without really looking. I thought it was the new one; it was a PS2 game. lol
Most games that are long are artificially so, with padded out content and grinding to advance. Short excellent games sell well. Huge expensive messes don’t.
Just like movies, large blockbuster, high budget content can sell well but does risk sacrificing its soul and purpose. Occasionally one is both excellent technically, artistically and fun too.
Or you can have smaller games with a more specific purpose which won’t sell as well. Some low budget games are bad. Some high budget games are bad. Neither is a mark of quality, they are just different ways of making games with different outcomes and purposes.
Games need to turn a profit to be visible, so they should be looking at what’s the optimum way to spend their budget and make sales.
As gamers, we should be rewarding good games, and avoiding microtransactions and all the upsells. I don’t buy any cosmetics or additional content (unless it’s a continuation of the game that makes sense as another chapter). I want to avoid that side of gaming as it doesn’t lead to good games. I pay full price at launch for my favourite game series, but not extra content. Other games I purchase later on sale.
I have a very feminist outlook on things, but I enjoy some problematic things. I know it’s not very progressive of me, but it is what it is. I acknowledge they are problematic.
Which is just to say, I don’t like this. I understand, but I’m not a fan.
Not even then. I think the thing that’s easy to forget about shareholders is they’re not doing this because they’re evil and get off on watching people suffer. They’re doing it because their own personal inadequacies are so vast that the only way they can cope with life is by trying to fill that enormous emotional hole with money. As a result, even when every other person on the planet has been crushed and ground into paste, and just one person with this mindset finally owns everything… it still won’t be enough for them. They will still be left with that unfillable emotional hole. They will still be empty inside.
And so the endless cycle of the borderline CD projekt games continues. Everything is hyped beyond realistic expectations a decade before launch, the masses whipped in anticipation. The game developers are kneecapped by suits making technical changes and demands they don’t understand. The game is launched after sorely felt apologies for delays, as a messy distasteful buggy disaster. Then the devs get to finish the game during thn next five unars after sorely felt apologies for the buggy mess at launch. 5 more years later the game is hailed as a creative masterpiece, despite being held by bubblegum and paperclips under the hood and still being a subpar experience. Then CDPR announces a new game, and the cycle repeats.
We didn’t learn anything from “Bethesda’s magic”. What a mismanaged company.
Yes, you did. The last step of the cycle is that everyone forgets that this already happened before. The witcher, then the witcher 2, then witcher 3, then cyberpunk. Each was such a mess at launch that the press at the time thought the games would flop. Each time devs, not suits, pulled the games out of PR hell after the fact.
People forget that the console port of the first witcher game nearly bankrupted them.
Just look at this thread people are talking like cyberpunk was always a perfect masterpiece since launch and negative comments are being buried in down votes.
The difference between CDPR and Bethesda is CDPR games always end up being all time greats though. That’s why I don’t get influenced by the hype, and keep faith in them as developers, as well as their move to unreal engine
Bethesda’s games are also celebrated as all time greats.
Games are good, eventually, in spite of the mismanagement, not because of it. At one point they will run out of magic, just like Bethesda did. For said magic is just a ton of good writing and developers putting up with crunch.
Agree to disagree on that, I haven’t played a Bethesda game I’ve considered “good” since Morrowind personally, and on the other hand Cyberpunk is top tier for me.
Bethesda delivers just good enough for the modding community to pick up the rest and fix their shit. Unofficial patches, Oscuro’s Oblivion Overhaul, and all that.
CDPR fixes their own shit.
Both end up with solid games for patientgamers but damn you gotta be really patient.
I played Witcher 3 a few months after it released, and it was nearly bug free, and certainly lived up to most expectations. It had a massive world, every inch of which was crammed with fleshed out interesting stories and characters with character. It was a breathtaking experience from the start, and if it had a few things to work out in the initial weeks, I can understand that.
I just got 2077 after however many years. 50 hours, I know the end is like the next mission or two but I don’t want it to end. Easily my favorite game ever. Guess I’ll get another play through in 5 years before I play the sequel after its released and has a couple years of debugging.
I thought I saw somewhere that it was 150 hours for a full play through. I’m down to just a handful of cyberphycos and side gigs before the last mission. Almost 60 hours now. I’ve been trying to do literally everything but there’s not much left.
When phantom liberty goes on sale I’ll probably get it and do another full play through. I know there are multiple endings, tons of different builds, but its all still the same story that I know what’s going to happen so there’s only so much replay value after you know the story, kinda like skyrim.
This would 100% be the game I would choose to completely forget so I could experience it again.
videogameschronicle.com
Ważne