If we are taking about battle mechanics I hope they come up with a new system all together. I think both the OS2 and BG3/DnD mechanics were serviceable, and it was fun to play out fights. But neither was much of a challenge and fights didn’t often feel like unique puzzles.
If you are going to play Divinity 2, start with Divinity 1
They both have differences in mechanics, but play about the same. The only main difference is that Divinity is only 2 player, while Divinity 2 is 4 player like BG3
Also, the mechanics of both Divinity games are build around it being video games. Meaning it is a better experience. In comparison with BG3, which was build as a TTRPG and only converted to a video game.
The only things I miss with Divinity are the cutscenes. Otherwise they would be as perfect (or even better) than BG3.
I’m gonna disagree with that other commenter. I’d recommend starting with DOS2 before 1. DOS2 is much more refined and generally less annoying to play. And they’re separate stories, so nothing in 2 would spoil the experience of 1
But they’re both good games worth playing, so don’t let that indecision stop you from trying either
I’m not sure I agree. DoS2 mechanic are cool, but the combat becomes way to chaotic for my liking. Also you do one mistake and now half your party is dead and the other half is on fire.
In the past games since Dark Souls, the DLCs have consistently been some of the highest quality parts of the games. If they can do that for Elden Ring, that’s good cause for getting hyped.
I have no idea what that trailer was about, so that tracks with FromSoft, and I love them for it, and I will be playing this. Probably after another base game playthrough
I personally don’t care a lot about Kojima’s games but I still think it’s absolutely great he gets to make whatever he makes because he is a unique voice in gaming! In a sea of games as a service, mindless franchise milking and countless copycats someone like him is needed to make outlandish stuff, whether I like the games or not. Tons of people do and that’s great!
His stories are mostly over the top nonsense, but sometimes that’s fun. Also, for a “AAA” studio director, he’s willing to take some VERY big experimental swings when it comes to gameplay. Death Stranding has it’s problems, but it’s very unique. That’s worth some points.
He takes no more 'experimental swings' than hundreds of indie developers. The only difference is, his studio has the money for the marketing campaigns.
I know right? He was suddenly hyped up so much, I guess it's one way to sell games. I'd understand if it was Miyamoto or something, but the man made Metal Gear and not everyone has even heard of that.
He was heavily pushed with geoff keighley's the game awards partnership he made.
He was though, some people might have known his name from Metal Gear, but majority of people didnt. Then TGA and Death Stranding rolled around and suddenly we were told we should care.
The sudden surge in journalism coverage he’s gotten in the last 5+ years are because of his dramatic departure from Konami and the Metal Gear series which his name was practically synonymous with, and he struck out on his own and made his own game studio where he makes very good, high production value AAA games that are extremely unique and experimental in nature.
Like it’s perfectly understandable to not like Death Stranding because of how niche its appeal is, but the thing is the gaming industry has become such a homogenous mess of samey, formulaic, safe games. Kojima is so relevant right now because he’s now one of if not the biggest studios that’s just making games out of passion, and not just the biggest return on investment.
My normie friends who only play cod or FIFA even know what MGS is. Maybe the Fortnite generation may not remember but when mgs was new for us then teenagers it was a cool action game.
He’s a completely insane horny man that loves action movies. His games tend to be high quality and even when they aren’t good they are at least entertaining and try something new.
He may have gone full George Lucas at this point though where he’s so overhyped that no one second guesses him at all. Death Stranding had some weird shit even for Kojima. I wonder what he could make if his personality wasn’t so dominant in a game and it had some input from other creative visions to reign in his weirder ideas.
That’s true, Kojima was just supervising director on that game. But I feel the politics of Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance are very typical for the series and Kojima’s games.
Metal Gear in general is very much about American Imperialism.
As someone who loves Jurassic Park and really, really wants a game like this, really hoping that the devs can pull this off but licensed games are very hit or miss
The game looks bad to me, I feel like the entire trailer is geared towards people who were kids when Jurassic Park 1 was fresh. Like this was a great idea! 29 years ago.
Ngl tho, Im still gonna buy it if the reviews are good. I assumed JSRF had been replaced by BRCF, so Im over the moon about there being 2 franchises about graffiti on wheels
BRCF was excellent, but I could always use more. I’ve still got my Dreamcast and my Xbox connected to my tv and both have jsr/jsrf in them. So I’m all for more options!
Nah, jet set radio is better. You can take more hits, there’s more characters, you move faster, and that’s just start of why Jet Set Radio is better than BoMb RuSh
Mahershala Ali said it’s still in development yesterday. But who knows… I love Blade and think he’s a great pick for the role so it’s super frustrating that it was announced four years ago and it’s still two years away at the earliest… Dude’s gonna be 51 by the time the character even shows up in the MCU. So either Blade isn’t gonna be around very long or we’re looking at a daywalker that’s gonna need to use an actual walker to get around by the second movie.
That’s fine, I’m not worried about the next reboot or sequels, I just want to see that movie.
I was very excited to see the original blade, and I still like that movie, but I’m just as excited to see what they can pull off with Ali and such a cool character.
Oh shit but it’s marvel so it’s probably going to be pg13!
Oh, no, it’s R. Whew, that would have been terrible.
He will not be the first. Here is a good run down. Ironically, Ali isn’t even the first Luke Cage villain to get a second role. Alfre Woodard played the grieving mother who convinced Tony to kick off the events of Civil War.
Gemma Chan was arguably highest profile in terms of plot importance if you don’t count Agents of Shield and the Netflix shows… She played a named bad guy in Captain Marvel, then Sersi in Eternals. You’ve also Michelle Yeoh who played a Ravager in Guardians 2, and Shang Chi’s aunt. A bunch more had voice/CGI roles for their second appearance, like Linda Cardellini or Benedict Cumberbatch.
No, it looks like it’s pretty common for marvel to reuse actors, actually. I had no idea until you asked though, and there’s even another actor from Luke Cage with multiple roles coincidentally:
I really don't agree with: get stronger must also have world get more difficult. This is how you get scaling difficulty, where you never feel like you're going anywhere, because every upgrade is made pointless by enemies just becoming more dangerous in turn.
Bullethell rogue likes like vampire survivor are getting it pretty right in my opinion. Just have the chance to get ridiculously powerful, but take a bunch of tries. Then add in Hades way of not ending the story with your death and failure, the nemesis system which is sadly patented and you'd have a fairly ideal game where some things will inevitably kill you, but you will get better and the small stuff will only get you still, if you are not paying attention.
I really don’t agree with: get stronger must also have world get more difficult. This is how you get scaling difficulty, where you never feel like you’re going anywhere, because every upgrade is made pointless by enemies just becoming more dangerous in turn.
But in the other case - you get stronger but the world doesn’t get stronger around you, say you keep fighting the exact same lame enemies as in the beginning - then why even continue playing?
The greatest challenge was right at the start. Unless the later parts are exceedingly brief, just letting you bow out on a power rush, why have all those later parts that just end up being trivial?
Shouldn’t the former difficult enemies at least become the trash and new, tougher, enemies get introduced to uphold the difficulty as your new abilities and upgrades make the old ones trivial?
It depends on the type of game I guess. I like the way Final Fantasy 13 did it when you arrived on Gran Pulse. Everything was there from the start of the chapter, there were some enemies you could handle, some that were a challenge, some that were out of your weight class and some that would wipe your team without even noticing you were there. You had to pick your battles and know when to bail. Despite the problems that game had, you could at least feel yourself getting stronger while the world stayed roughly the same.
Welp, I didn’t say it was a good deal. Nonetheless it’s a better deal then getting ow2 coins for buying rtx 4000 gpus. And some later buyers got Diablo 4…
Man Starfield’s nowhere near as bad as Jedi Survivor, let’s be honest. At least it runs well on my Steam Deck and doesn’t stutter every 3 seconds like it does in Koboh in Jedi Survivor.
I know that's probably rhetorical, but probably a similar problem to modern movies where (as described in the video Why Modern Movies Suck - They're Too Expensive) they are going after spectacle (rather than story or other elements) and due to cost they must make a 'safe' product to stay profitable, where a bland but universally palatable product will sell more tickets/copies than a stellar niche thing.
I'd also add that companies know they can usually ride the success of their own name/brand recognition. Even worse here with games because of pre-ordering, early-access as a product, and crowd-funding (which some wildly successful publishers still do--on top of unpaid self-promotion and all the other things--because people still think of them as indie).
I gave the title of it and I figured that would easily be found (title only because it was something I saw in not-logged-in YT recommendations, figured others may have seen it too).
The main problem is they drop $20mil on effects and star faces and fucking spend $20/hr for a fucking committee to write a story in a week that wouldn't pass a screenwriting 101 course.
The problem with movies and games these days is where the money goes, not how much of it there is.
It’s an issue of time and scalability. Going from 100 employees to 200 employees wont make the game in half the time. And corporate accounting would rather have 2 mediocre games per year than 1 extremely good game every 2 years, even if it sold 4 times as well since revenue is analyzed within fiscal years and financing isn’t free. Capitalism sucks.
All the greatest games ever made were created in capitalistic economies so i cannot see how that is a determining factor. I don’t know what games your thinking of. Tetris?
Without capitalism Tetris would have remained an obscure piece of shareware probably vaguely known outside of ex-soviet nations. It’s only the desire to monitise the IP that saw it on every platform under the sun and packaged with every Gameboy.
Yeah, the creator didn’t profit at the time because of communism and their belief that his creation belonged to the state. If he had been in a capitalist country at the time he could have copyrighted his game asap and exploited it for profit himself.
At the very least a smart creator in the US can go to a solicitor and make sure he isn’t being mugged off before they sign a deal, you didn’t have that that with the Soviet Government.
Yes lots of creators have been screwed by the people that worked for, notably in the comics field. But a lot of the time it’s because they signed a contract having no inkling how big the work would be.
I don’t believe some people were tricked but we’re a victim of their own success. Take Alan Moore and Watchman for example. He signed the deal that he would get the rights to the book back once it went out of print as that’s how the industry model worked at the time. The book was so popular that it’s stayed in print for the last 40 odd years, so the rights didn’t revert. Maybe DC should have renegotiated things in light of that, but I see that he and they went into the deal on good faith based on industry realities at the time.
I think there is a difference between “capitalism” and “capitalism”.
I think a more nuanced argument is that better games come from companies that are not primarily driven by the quarterly revenue cycle of Wall Street, that is defined as “capitalism”.
I think it’s more of a hit-and-miss, and good corporate leadership is the kind that people forget it’s there when good games come out. I mean CDPR had a CEO both when Witcher 3 was the thing, and also when Cyberpunk 2077 was the thing that flopped. Obviously, people were more interested in the beancounters’ influence in the latter case.
I think you’re missing the point. They’re just saying the incentive structure of capitalism doesn’t necessarily encourage the best types of games. We see this with borked EA launches, predatory MTX, loot boxes, battle passes, etc
Trust me, I get it and I agree, #capitalism sucks. Mostly.
But that's not how it works.
You can't just take an arbitrary event and claim it came to be despite the circumstances, not because of them.
Like, that's not how causality works.
Besides, It's a way stronger argument to point at the overwhelming amount of bad games and bad features and say those got produced under capitalism and that's why it's bad full stop.
Counter point: Baldur's Gate is selling well within capitalism because it satisfies what the customer wants, which capitalism rewards in an environment with lots of competition, and video games have lots of competition. As big publishers like Ubisoft, EA, Activision-Blizzard, and Take Two have scaled back their offerings of lots of different types of games, including the type of RPG that Larian makes, it's no surprise that the likes of Larian are rewarded for making that type of game. It's why companies like Embracer, Anna Purna, Devolver, and Paradox are going to be growing a ton over the next decade.
We don’t exactly have many non-capitalistic economies.
But we have games that people made outside of the incentives of capitalism. i.e., because they wanted to make the game they wanted to make. This is what has created the absolute best games in existence. Not the incentive of money.
Was terraria made for the purposes of money? Was outer wilds? No. They were passion projects. Of course they had to earn money, because you need to earn money to survive, but that wasn’t their primary goals. Contrary to games such as call of duty or whatever. Which are just incredibly bland in comparison.
I mean see how much microtransactions, loot boxes, etc. Is ruining the atmosphere of games and exploiting the hell out of people and kids. Don’t tell me devs are putting that in because that is what their dream game would contain. No, they put it in purely because of capitalistic incentives. Would you argue that that is good?
Making a good product is an incentive of capitalism too. Microtransactions, battle passes, loot boxes, and other "live service" trappings dilute once-good products because people are often too attached to brands. As people tire of bad products, good ones can come along and thrive, which is what Battlebit appears to be doing for Battlefield fans, what Baldur's Gate 3 appears to be doing for RPGs, and what Elden Ring and the last two Zelda games are doing for open world games; what Cities: Skylines did for SimCity fans and maybe what Life By You could do for Sims fans. There's money to be made for making a good version of something that the reigning champs screwed up, abandoned, couldn't think of, or didn't bother to bring to market; that's capitalism.
Do you think those games wouldn’t have been made without capitalism?
All of those examples are driven by people wanting to make a good game because that is their passion.
If they were given infinite resources to make a game, and would gain nothing else beyond just a decent standard of living or whatever, do you think they wouldn’t made them? Because I think they would.
How hypothetical are we getting here? Somehow we live in a world where everyone has infinite resources? Capitalism just distributes the finite ones we have to things that people buy. A government can do that as well, but we don't have a great track record of them being able to buck the realities of where those resources need to go. If there's a UBI, you could end up with more games of the scope of Stardew Valley, or once tools and game engines get to be good enough, you could end up with more games that are feasible to be made by one or two people in a handful of years like that one was. But Baldur's Gate 3, Elden Ring, Zelda...no, probably not. I can't predict the future, but they seem to be impossible to be made by small teams even with magical game engines that automate a lot of work that went in to make them.
Once you get beyond the profit motive, you're now at this point where you need to hire more people. Anything beyond really small teams are going to have a hard time sticking to someone else's vision unless one person is the boss calling the shots; otherwise known as the one with capital, paying those other talented people to work toward that goal. Of the 600 people making Baldur's Gate 3, I'll bet 550 of them disagreed on lots of directions that it went in, and it just becomes an insurmountable problem to wrangle that many people otherwise and keep them on track. If you don't need the money and you disagree with what the boss is doing, you'll just do your own project instead.
Meanwhile, we just got a Titan Quest II announcement, which I'll bet is a reaction to the general direction Blizzard has been going in since Diablo Immortal was announced, much like I was saying earlier. There's also another perspective I'd like to add on here, which proves both of our points. Ryan Clark of Brace Yourself Games, makers of Crypt of the NecroDancer, used to do a YouTube show called Clark Tank, similar to Shark Tank, talking about how to make indie games that make money. Creatives have tons of passion projects they want to make, and you'll never get through all of them in a lifetime. However, you know types of games that you would like to make, that you can observe are also making money, that you're confident you can deliver while they're still popular, so that you can profit, expand, and repeat the cycle. In a sense, passion projects and what the market is asking for via where they're spending their money.
My point was that capitalism and its incentives do not create good games.
Capitalism rewards profit at any cost, and nothing more. In the end this allows for cash grabs and terrible working conditions, which the industry is riddled with. Good games would still have gotten made without these incentives.
There’s many assumptions in this text, and it ignores great games that were financial flops (or couldn’t get made in the first place), and terrible ones (like gacha games or basically the whole mobile games ecosystem) which are greatly rewarded and successful. There are so many resources wasted on objectively not good things for players such as how to exploit their psyche to spend money which compromises the game design, or resources spent on stuff like marketing just because that’s what pays back, instead of spending those on making a better game.
I would argue that capitalism’s incentives hampers the creation of good games if anything. Because now instead of thinking what makes a game good, devs are instead forced or incentivized to think what makes money. And they are very much not the same thing.
Someone could make the best game of all time according to one random guy, but if it's not a game I want, I'm not playing it, and there are games I'd like to be made so that I can play them. Great games that people want to play create profit. Exploitative games also profit, but I'd lay that at the feet of poor regulation. If you want to profit, generally, you're making a game that as many people as possible will want to play, or a game that enough want to play but that itch hasn't been scratched by your competitors. How do you make money with Baldur's Gate 3? You make a really good Baldur's Gate game, and then people buy it. Even the exploitative games are desirable to their audience for one reason or another before they get to the exploitative parts.
Usually they don't. Something like Horizon Forbidden West credits almost 3500 people even though Guerilla Game has less than 500 employees, most of the rest is absolutely massive bloat from different outsourced teams and Sony departments - like the "Head of Opportunity Markets Business Operations Tim Stokes from Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc.: Global Business Operations" was undoubtedly very important for the development of the game.
As for Baldurs Gate 3, Larian Studios currently has 450 employees in 6 different locations, so they are actually around the same size as Guerilla. I wouldn't be surprised if the credits end up being well above a thousand people (D:OS2 has around 500 credits even though Larian back then had only 130 people).
games are art projects at the end of the day and there are often many non-art people (or just people without the right skills or vision) making executive decisions on direction, deadlines etc.
youtube.com
Ważne