But the real-life problems aren't unsolved because there are not solutions. It's just that the meaningful player base is wildly toxic and spends the entire time griefing rather than trying to build or progress.
Yeah, the lack of transparency in the Pay-to-win game mechanics is annoying as heck. It’s frustrating to be lectured on F2P deck building strategies by someone who is P2P and pretending to be F2P (And that’s ignoring the contradictory advice of “Break out of the meta and do something new” and “Don’t spend your resources frivolously and don’t do anything too outlandish, stick with the established strategies”).
The P2P playerbase are functionally playing an entirely different game, and whilst I am fairly sure that game is still grindy and difficult in its own ways (I’ve noticed that P2P players are often so OP that they only engage with the co-op mechanics superficially, if at all. That makes me sad because the only reason I’ve stuck playing this game is how incredible the co-op multiplayer is and as salty as I am about P2P advantages being OP, I want everyone to experience the parts of this game that I have truly loved).
This is why solving the real life problems stalls so much, because “progress” literally means something different across different chunks of players. It’s why griefers sometimes say “I don’t know why you’re getting angry, I’m literally just playing the game”. That used to make me rage, but I’ve realised they’re not lying, they’re just playing a different game. Now I’m just sad that I have to spend so much energy trying to keep them out of my game if I want to make any progress
That's a big reason a could never get into City Skylines, I have 0 interest in managing roadways, and I feel like that's 90% of what that game is. Now they're going to throw even more micromanaging on top of that, I don't think I'll be looking to get this one.
And many people feel the precise opposite, the whole point of the game is to micromanage
To me this new game makes the first one feel like a prototype, i’m so much more interested now that there’s actual sensible simulation of things and people don’t pull a car out of their ass or merrily walk 30km to work
For me, CS1 shows how difficult it is to build effective roads. I solved traffic on my map with an extensive, fast and direct public transit network, and well-connected bike paths along the same alignment for those who don’t want to pay. For roads specifically, timed&sensor traffic lights (TMPE mod) and one way systems in built up areas work well too from what I’ve seen.
I am a little scared of the extra management they’ve popped in to CS2 but I’m hopeful they’ll get the balance right
They invented these things called reading glasses, have you heard of them? Anyway, PC mouse and keyboard is king, but we're talking console format here i think, and a PC console is better than a walled garden console.
Wow, that's a kind of dismissal that only those who have no idea how bad it gets can wield. Reading glasses help with clarity, but clarity is not the only issue with old eyes and other visual impairment. Sometimes you just plain need things bigger.
One day you'll look back on this exchange and cringe at the kind of person you used to be. Be better. Accessibility is important.
Signed, someone who's needed full-time prescription glasses for 35+ years and only recently started having to read small print on food and medicine containers with the zoom on my phone camera.
Hire more staff to do more development/QA in a shorter timespan
Delay release schedule to not be annual releases
Reduce game scope to something the team can accomplish
Gamefreak cannot keep its historically small team size while trying to make large, open world titles that release annually. Tears of the Kingdom tool over 5 years to develop, and that was working with pre-existing assets. Gamefreak's model is not sustainable.
Gamefreak cannot keep its historically small team size while trying to make large, open world titles that release annually
Define "small". For Sword and Shield they had around 1000 workers, according to Ohmori, the game's director.
With 200 being from Game Freak, some from Creatures Inc. (they make the 3D models and send them to Game Freak) Debugging and Quality Control is externalized
So, yeah. The number being close to a thousand, that of course includes all the different functions like marketing and PR and everyone that would be associated with the game ahead of release. But I think at Game Freak, really the core team of people that worked on the game was around 200 people. And of course, Creatures is another partner company that develops 3D models of the Pokémon. There are various teams that handle debugging at our partner companies as well. So there’s a lot of people involved and I think in terms of just the sheer number of the most resources required to make something happen for the development, it was definitely more on the graphical side of things.
To summarize the actual tweets/comments/etc that these videos (there are multiple) are panicking about.
Smaller studios aren't going to be able to replicate the scale and complexity of BG3. So people shouldn't be using BG3 as the bar to compare future titles/RPGs from other studios going forward. Larian is comparable in size (or even larger) to Bethesda when they released Skyrim, and no one has been able to compete directly with Skyrim either.
Not all games and RPGs need to be as complex and long as BG3. Expecting open-ended, 100 hour-long RPGs for every future game/RPG isn't realistic. Not all games require that scope, it's rare to get such a budget for this type of game, and even if you did, most companies won't be able to replicate the game in a meaningful way. Just like how companies other than Rockstar would struggle to replicate the scale of games like GTA and RDR.
There, I've summarized multiple 20 min videos. Just without all the hand-waving and drama.
It seems the summary of most of the posts are "smaller studies can't create games as big as BG3" and "not every game/RPG needs to be as big and complex as BG3".
Are those responses incorrect and how is that being critical of BG3?
If anything, they are critcizing the idea that BG3 is the game all RPGs need to strive to be.
"I would not be surprised if this was more dev effort than the next 2 or 3 games in the genre combined. It's Rockstar-level nonsense for scope.
Only a few studio groups could even try this. I cannot wait to play, but this kind of effort likely won't be replicated this decade"
Yes the original starter of the thread Xalavier Nelson Jr. has a very fair point that this can set a standard for indie games however most people have big problems when these complaints are also coming from other AAA developers. James Berg works for bloody microsoft one of the largest companies that is absorbing huge portions of the gaming industry in a monopolistic pattern. Josh Sawyer is a Design Director for Obsidian who is a company who basically follow a very similar path as Larian, its just they sort of failed with their Pillars of Eternity series especially after Deadfire. Maybe Avowed will turn out well but their recent stuff has not found much favor at least in terms of RPGs.
BG3 is what AAA development should be if it was about making good products but at the end of the day these companies are here to make as much money as possible. I mean there is nothing wrong with making money but its clear many publishers have been pushing quite hard on consumers to paying more for less. As long as gaming budgets are this expensive we should be getting things of this quality more frequently but its not likely. I doubt we will see anything close to BG3 from Bethesda with ES6 a game they have teased for nearly 5 years now with almost nothing beyond that little teaser.
Like gamers especially RPG gamers just want a complete game. Its clear the success of BG3, DOS 1 & 2, and Owlcat's pathfinder games show there is a clear market for this. It just needs to be handled with well.
Plenty of games are "complete" and have a similar or larger scope then BG3, and they're not getting the attention that BG3 is getting now. On the other side of the coin, people really responded to Disco Elysium, and a lot of that had to do with what they did within a small space. If all I wanted was "big" and "complete", I'd be interested in Starfield, not Baldur's Gate 3.
I think you are confusing my term for complete with big and shallow. BG3,DOS2, Disco Elysium did well with their confines. The world felts very reactive to your decisions as a player and there is connecting sinew to most of the game with itself. Starfield and Bethesda's game are in a way glorified puddles they may be miles wide but typically underneath there is very little depth to it. Typically modders are the ones who add the depth that Bethesda didn't want to deal with. So you basically have a game where the puddle dips in an irregular fashion. This was honestly the biggest problem of CP2077. It was just a huge puddle, it had a fantastic writing for its main and side stories but almost everything else was pretty meh. I rather they just had a smaller world but pack it fuller with far more cool stuff than have vast spaces of nothingness.
No, I thought you were saying that a game was incomplete just because they added an expansion pack to it at any point, ever, which is a definition I find to be pretty absurd but plenty of people use. In this case it sounds like you're saying that some games are incomplete just because you prefer a modded, remixed version of the game rather than the one they actually made, which is a definition I'd also disagree with. Large swaths of empty space, particularly in Elder Scrolls and Fallout, is an aesthetic and design choice, among other things, and more or less reactivity may or may not mean that there isn't as much depth in the story, but those games have other strengths, like build variety, exploration, and such.
you're saying that some games are incomplete just because you prefer a modded, remixed version of the game rather than the one they actually made, which is a definition I'd also disagree with.
I would argue no, its more the systems in place feel like a first pass. For instance, the civil war of skyrim feels like a very unfinished concept. Its something that was slap together to just say they have it as content. You do a few side missions then a siege and repeat. There is little ebb and flow to it, it is a straight line, you as a player are on a monorail. Your actions have little impact on the world besides what arbitrary flag is being flown. Also build variety of Stealth archer? There is very little reason to change your playstyle compared to DOS 2 or BG3 where your different classes/attributes do have a major factor in how you solve encounters. The teleportation gloves of DOS 2 are the perfect example of how equipment can easily change how people interact with the game. Sure we don't need games where there are exclusive routes but the common Open world approach is keep it as open as possible. Like cyberpunk 2077 suffered from problems with the empty space that Witcher 3 didn't because you are on the hunt for recipes for new armor sets and witcher potions.
Hell even some of the games I recommended do suffer from some mechanics not hitting well. Pathfinder Wrath of Righteousness had some issues like the crusade minigame since it feels like the devs said hey would it be cool if we had a HOMMlike minigame in our already packed crpg. That sounds badass but the minigame wasn't that fun however everything around it was phenomenal like the troop recruitment even though it didn't matter had some very interesting talking points and choices. Like you pick the lich route, should you use death row inmates as undead meatshields to liberate your nation under assault of demons. Like it didn't hit well but it felt like the mechanic was thought about and had effort put into it from other sections of the game. It isn't some isolated system that is just there.
I am not a fool who thinks expansion packs are the devil. Hell I am in favor of hefty expansion packs since I remember when you got 1 or 2 and that was about it for the game.
None of what you said makes those games incomplete though. It's just something about it that you didn't care for. The systems are hardly a first pass; they've been making that game for about 15-20 years before Skyrim, and they're not going to deviate too far from the formula for Starfield either, I'll wager. It doesn't mean they didn't finish making it. They've finished making games that way over and over again.
Those aren't criticisms of Larian or Baldur's Gate 3. They are opinions that creating games at a certain scale isn't something developers can just replicate at will. Just like Rockstar games aren't something any studio can't just go out and put together.
It's like how someone would argue that not all books/novels need to be as long and complex as the Song of Ice and Fire series. Not all books need to be like those books, just like not all games need to be like BG3 (or GTA or RDR to use the other comparison).
BG3 is what AAA development should be if it was about making good products but at the end of the day these companies are here to make as much money as possible.
I think the quality of game, and lack of monetization, is certainly something that AAA games should strive for. I wouldn't agree that all AAA needs to be as big and complex as BG3 though. Just as Elden Ring being a great game doesn't mean that all similar games need to be massive and open-world in the same way.
Those aren't criticisms of Larian or Baldur's Gate 3. They are opinions that creating games at a certain scale isn't something developers can just replicate at will. Just like Rockstar games aren't something any studio can't just go out and put together.
It's like how someone would argue that not all books/novels need to be as long and complex as the Song of Ice and Fire series. Not all books need to be like those books, just like not all games need to be like BG3 (or GTA or RDR to use the other comparison).
Except my point has very little to do with complexity or how long it is. I rather a game be short than waste your fucking time, we don't need 200+ hour games. It is one of those things I hate about modern gaming where if a game is less than 20 hours of enjoyment it is worthless to many. I want quality yet many AAA studios don't pump out the best stuff. Halo infinite ended up as a trash fire that didn't respect its players and has basically been put down because of pointless money grubbing. Every Ubisoft game follows the very same formula make a large empty world where you clear towers.
We as gamers should strive for games like BG3 because they were quality works that were made for the enjoyment of the player. They aren't meant to fuck with you and hand over your wallet. Hell one of the biggest games this summer was a fucking roblox Battlefield game. People just want to play a good game that isn't trying to always nickle and dime them. Its a plus when there is complexity but its not a requirement for it to work.
Edit: Larian is a studio that has basically been the poster child for "crowdfunding" and I personally am fine with that. This can be what happens when we support studios with an idea. There will be a ton of failure but crowdfunding has brought many top tier indie games especially in genres thought dead in modern gaming (FTL, Divinity Original sin, Shovel Knight, Wasteland 2, Superhot, Yooka-Laylee, Night in the Woods, A Hat in Time, Elite Dangerous, Ready or Not, etc.)
We as gamers should strive for games like BG3 because they were quality works that were made for the enjoyment of the player.
But that's what the comments that people are taking as "criticisms of BG3" are talking about, and is the context for the video from OP. There aren't developers saying "High quality games shouldn't be the standard".
I asked for examples of developers criticizing the scope of BG3, and you replied with examples. I guess I'm confused as to how I was supposed to know you weren't talking about "complexity or how long it is" (aka. scope)?
But yes, if your point is "developers should make good games, and not bad games" (yes, I'm being reductionist) then sure, I agree with that, but that's not really what I was trying to point out, and that's not what the video was about.
I think saying you can make 2/3 games out of the effort of 1 is a more cynical approach of you should be milking your consumers, you don't need to put this much effort into the game when 1/3 of that would have been "worthy" of release in the modern AAA space.
Since yes in a reductive point I'm just saying "Make good games, not bad ones idiot AAA devs" I'm just anti devs (more realistically publishers) trying to milk consumer's wallets.
Just like Cyberpunk 2077, I will wait for this game to be worked on and get it for a discount later. I learned my lesson long time ago, not to buy big AAA games at launch.
Same. I think cyberpunk is almost done, so I’ll probably grab it when it gets down to half off. We’ll see if Starfield is any good after they finish it in 5 years or so.
Of course, it’s not just like cyberpunk. Cyberpunk had excellent writing, good pacing, and an overall fascinating story with technically good writing. It just was immersed in a game that had many issues for many people.
Star field is almost the exact opposite, it’s technically functional, with a hollowed out uncooked unseasoned potato for a story.
I wasn't saying both games are similar, but more comparing the situation both games not worth buying day 1. Developers adding new functionality, features and iron out bugs and performance issues. If I like the core gameplay and story, that's another story. But just like with Cyberpunk, I will wait for the game being worked on and buy it later for a cheaper price.
people really enjoy the boot of anti-cheat on their necks.
maybe these companies could move their cheat detection to the server where they control the code. maybe don't just send all player positions so wall-hacks become impossible. maybe use some machine learning to look at input patterns and detect when a player is sending things that don't look human.
the list of things companies could do to actually fix cheating in pvp games is long and all they want to do is pay for ridiculous anti-cheat that impacts normal users.
maybe these companies could move their cheat detection to the server where they control the code. maybe don’t just send all player positions so wall-hacks become impossible.
That’s not how video games work. If you want interpolation of positions then you have to send the positions of the players that you can’t see but are heading towards a place you can see. You could take a bunch of difficult math to do and filter out who to send the data to or not. It would create a lot of bugs. So you could just send just the people who are within X distance of you and call it good. Most, if not all game engines do it this way.
You have to have interpolation on the client side, it’s the only way you can play the game on the internet. It’s what Doom did to get multiplayer working and we’ve never been able to find anything better.
maybe use some machine learning to look at input patterns and detect when a player is sending things that don’t look human.
They already do that. It’s called heuristics.
the list of things companies could do to actually fix cheating in pvp games is long and all they want to do is pay for ridiculous anti-cheat that impacts normal users.
Yes.. honestly, imho, any game that's competitive should either embrace "cheating" and design its gameplay to be as transparent as chess (ie.. make it ok to be tool-assisted) or be designed around controlled environments that forbid using tools like that.
Anyone who doesn't want to surrender to a controlled environment (whether it's in the form of some kernel-level control or VPN / Stadia-like platform) should just look for coop games.
It's sad that FPS have evolved towards the competitive landscape... to me, the best experience in the original classic Doom was coop mode. Yet Doom Eternal, at most, only supports some wacky asymmetric team deathmatch.
One thing I realized actually is that I meant Quake which first used network interpolation. I think classic doom didn’t have networking but I am not sure, to be honest. Either way, it’s before my time.
That said I think it’s a bummer that even casual non-ranked experiences have had a large problem with cheating. Even co-op games have lots of cheating but the nature of the game means the cheating affects people who don’t want to cheat less. They aren’t directly subjected to it, it’s still a problem though, the cheating still affects things like the game economy and player perception of the game.
That said everything has gone towards the competitive because even casual versus experiences are competitive now. Super Smash Bros. was just supposed to be the silly, not-serious fighting game that now has large tournament play. Every game, no matter how casual, has gotten competitive. Our culture is so ingrained with competing that we might as well have spitting tournaments… Wait let me google. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_pit_spitting They totally have spitting tournaments. Honestly, human culture is that of competition. I don’t see a way we work around that at our evolutionary core we are competitive but I don’t see it as a good thing.
Doom did have networking, using IPX. You had to start the game with a parameter from the DOS commandline. Like Quake, the maps had special player spawn points & items for deathmatch too. The term "deathmatch" was coined by the Doom game mode.
However, there was no frame interpolation in the original Doom, instead, there might be a latency in the inputs. The game state only advances when all players have sent an update for that "tic" (1/35 of a second), so the game might be laggy for everyone if the connection from one of the players is slow.
But multiplayer back then was mostly for LAN parties. At least in my area. I didn't even have an internet connection at that time, personally. In fact, even during the Quake age, I was only able to play on LAN... and I still liked coop better.
Even co-op games have lots of cheating but the nature of the game means the cheating affects people who don’t want to cheat less. They aren’t directly subjected to it, it’s still a problem though, the cheating still affects things like the game economy and player perception of the game.
Yes, what I meant is that cheating becomes irrelevant in coop, not that it doesn't exist.
If a game has an economy that makes some players richer than others (like say.. in many MMOs), and you actually care a lot about being rich in that universe, then it'd starts being more of a competitive thing and less about coop... a game can be competitive and be PvE.
Even singleplayer games can be competitive if you make it about beating your friend's "score" or speed.. almost anything is susceptible to speedrunning.
I guess the question on coop vs competitive is more about what are the goals of the players. If people play games to have a fun time, or if it's because they want to have some way to prove themselves they are good at something :P
Absolutely, the goal of the player is mutable, and thus really anything, even co-op games, becomes competitive with the right player mindset. I feel like even with co-op that mindset can affect almost any game.
I wrote a snarky response because of the final insulting comment in yours but then thought better of it, going to try to address a couple of your points legitimately even after the unnecessary personal attack.
It's a lot cheaper to make your server dumb. It costs you less in programmers with deep multiplayer programming experience, it costs you less in ongoing hosting because of reduced CPU usage, and it makes the problem less "yours" as a developer.
I'm saying that's shitty that the developers will try to save money that way rather than investing in actual effective, privacy-respecting cheat prevention.
Your argument seems to be that a quake-style predictive algorithm is the only solution possible for online games. I doubt that is the case, but even if it were, using some raycasts on the server for some basic sanity checks on what data to send to players is an example of where lots of developers just can't be bothered.
If you want to dismiss machine learning as heuristics, I'm sorta ok with that, as I think they are just glorified heuristics, but even the most basic analysis isn't done by most developers. Instead, they rely on the sales pitches of various anti-cheat software and don't implement anything beyond it, even when there might be some low hanging fruit.
I am not saying developers are lazy, there's tons of stuff to work on. I am mad that this problem gets repeatedly pushed onto the users rather than the developers, though, and I think it's reasonable for me to offer some pushback when both my CPU cycles and my privacy are being abused.
I wrote a snarky response because of the final insulting comment in yours but then thought better of it, going to try to address a couple of your points legitimately even after the unnecessary personal attack.
Sorry, It’s not meant as an attack. I am simply calling it as I see it because I get a lot of gamers who think they’ve arm-chaired thought far more about my job as a networked gameplay engineer than I have. I’ve been doing this for a very long time and I know where developers cut costs. Anti-cheat isn’t just a slap-it-on and call it a good solution. There are a lot of reasons you want to trust the client and it makes the gameplay feel far better.
It’s a lot cheaper to make your server dumb. It costs you less in programmers with deep multiplayer programming experience, it costs you less in ongoing hosting because of reduced CPU usage, and it makes the problem less “yours” as a developer.
Typically, the server, especially in counter-strike’s case, isn’t dumb. In all games, the server still handles the dealing of damage which typically includes validations of that damage. In counter-strike’s case, very little data is calculated on the client. Most of it is raw data sent from input to the server.
Your argument seems to be that a quake-style predictive algorithm is the only solution possible for online games. I doubt that is the case, but even if it were, using some raycasts on the server for some basic sanity checks on what data to send to players is an example of where lots of developers just can’t be bothered.
Lots of game engines including source include and utilize ways to ensure the player is reporting sane inputs. Also, interpolation is different than extrapolation. Lastly, you don’t need to do raycasts to double-check this data. A lot of the time the raycasts are done on the server itself. In counter-strike’s case this is also true. Raycasts are done on the client typically for cosmetics only. You can see this with 3kliksphilip’s videos on sub-tick.
If you want to dismiss machine learning as heuristics, I’m sorta ok with that, as I think they are just glorified heuristics, but even the most basic analysis isn’t done by most developers. Instead, they rely on the sales pitches of various anti-cheat software and don’t implement anything beyond it, even when there might be some low hanging fruit.
Heuristics haven’t been done by developers in a long time. A lot of that is actually done in Valve’s case by Overwatch. Also, Valve makes it’s own anti-cheat called VAC. They aren’t getting sales pitches.
I am not saying developers are lazy, there’s tons of stuff to work on. I am mad that this problem gets repeatedly pushed onto the users rather than the developers, though, and I think it’s reasonable for me to offer some pushback when both my CPU cycles and my privacy are being abused.
Frankly, I feel like it’s wrong for you to say that the problem is pushed onto users when you don’t understand the code and effort the developers are writing to solve this issue specifically with counter-strike. VAC is probably the anti-cheat with the least amount of client code. It rests almost entirely on the server. One thing VAC does do is lock down the client on Windows to prevent modifications. One thing you can easily do is replace assets for walls with transparent textures to see through walls. That’s why things like the code and assets can’t be tampered with. Most game engines only send updates to the positions of actors in a network bubble. Maybe Counter-Strike’s network bubble is too large at the time but that’s not an argument you made.
Frankly, I feel like it’s wrong for you to say that the problem is pushed onto users when you don’t understand the code and effort the developers are writing to solve this issue specifically with counter-strike
You are the one who continues to make assumptions about what I do and do not understand about the code that makes this work in various games.
I don't really feel like getting into the nitty gritty here in comments, but if your experience is what you say, I'm very surprised at some of your unqualified statements.
Your comments are enough to see where your knowledge of what a networked gameplay engineer does at Valve lies. Especially since you make assumptions that the developers aren’t doing things when very clearly there are proof and industry standards that say they do those things. If you are Andrew Burke who works at Valve as an Animator, I would recommend talking to the engineers there.
Edit: Who I am shouldn't matter to you. Addressing the idea that you can shift some or all anti-cheat to the server is something you should try to engage with directly rather than appealing to authority. For what it's worth, I've spent time as a programmer in the game industry in a handful of different roles and your search will eventually find me if you keep going down that road. My experience isn't what I am arguing here, though.
It’s not really an assumption if I say “if”. I can agree with you that shifting as much data as possible on the server is best. Valve already does that pretty well for counter-strike. Far more than other competitive FPSs. They still keep shot registration on the server whereas most competitive shooters now have that on the client to have the correct gameplay feel. The big balance between keeping stuff on the server and putting some authority on the client is the gameplay feel. Counter-Strike has been and still is notorious for getting shot around a corner when you don’t see who shot you. This is because of server authority rather than client authority.
Unfortunately considering how many of these gamers are willing to pay extra $30€ just to get 1 week earlier access to a game, I'm afraid you are wrong in this regard and we're going to see prices go up even more. Piracy is also dying, either because of groups disbanding or getting sued, or because of DRM getting better and more widespread, and once that is gone it's going to let publishers jack the price even higher up.
I'm pretty much resigned to just play indie and AA games at this point, there's no way I'm paying 60 or more for these broken, bloated and often overpriced products. There are few exceptions but even they will be driven to higher prices eventually.
I pretty much exclusively buy AA at this point, with the rare AAA nintendo 1st party title that I'm happy to pay $60 for. Most AAA games though just aren't worth it. Some of those games coming out you couldn't pay me to play.
There are so many tbh, really depends on what type of games you're interested in. I've really enjoyed remnant 1 and 2, owlcat pathfinder games, VRising, Riftbreaker, Timberborn, Against the Storm for example. All made by good dedicated studios that deserve your money more than EA, bioware, actiblizz or other corpos like that. Of the older titles, FTL, Into the Breach, Stardew Valley, Hollow Knight, Factorio, Project Zomboid etc are classics - polished games made with love that put pretty much every AAA title to shame in comparison.
The right calls people snowflakes and then loses their mind when someone offers an option for pronouns. An option. You can still pick cis pronouns. Gtf outta here.
gaming
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.