I don’t get all the performance complaints about Act 3. The worst lag I ever had in the entire game was the first time I walked into the druid grove, dropped to 1-5fps for like 20 seconds and then it was more or less fine the rest of the game. One crash in 160 hours of playing, and I’m still on patch 0.2 atm.
That is the full release only. It’s also less than accurate to say 5 hours a day everyday, it was more like 10-15 hours a day with some days where I didn’t play at all.
I mean it should and they didn’t set a new standard, they just brought back a old standard of having a developer and publisher actually giving a fuck about making a good, complete game.
This is the perspective that is totally forgotten and missed by most engaging in the discussion. Not to diminish Larian’s achievement, but they literally busted out the old playbook. Credit where it’s due, but BG3 shouldn’t be controversial - it should be the standard because that’s what the standard used to be.
That’s what the standard used to be, because it used to be much cheaper to satisfy. For indies, if you try to do a quarter of what Larian achieved there in production value, and your game doesn’t sell, your studio is dead. For AAA, you’ll have to fight execs/management endlessly trying to shoehorn microtransactions and/or dlc to “justify” the costs.
I’d love it to be the new standard, but this only happened because Larian is basically a huge indie imo. Which unfortunately is an anomaly.
Micro Mages is great. I haven't played it on an original SNES but I have it loaded on my modded Wii outputting a 240p signal to a Sony trinitron. It looks and plays great.
In TTRPGs encumbrance seems to be the #1 rule that players conveniently forget about and GMs only ever seem to bring up when they want to fuck with the players. It’s probably one of the more annoying, unexciting aspects of TTRPGs to keep track of. I like the approach that BG3 has taken, you essentially have an unlimited Camp inventory, but your personal inventory is limited. Is it realistic? No, absolutely not, but neither are Bags of Holding, which are basically a GM’s way of throwing up their hands to say, “Fuck it, I’m not dealing with this shit anymore.”
Absolutely, but video game designers actually amplify the issue by making so much useless shit able to be picked up and adding so many mechanics into a game, where as TTRPGs are often more focused. Starfield (or any bethesda game really) has hundreds of useless items that people can sell, random loot drops, and resources for multiple forms of crafting. It's a fantasy future where we could just let folks "teleport" to a private satellite storage facility or something similar to a bag of holding. Instead we just make gamers focus on inventory management which I doubt anyone finds "fun".
I think there's a delicate balance and I don't think we've hit it. I would love to see some data about how much time people spend doing inventory maintenance in the course of common RPGs. It's one of those modern things like making expansive worlds without fast travel that just feels unnecessary.
It’s really not any different from the mechanic as it’s been used in previous Bethesda titles. The soft limit of depleting my oxygen meter rather than hobbling my speed is a little more forgiving, particularly if I’m still picking through a free fire zone.
And once I learned that I could sell to stores directly from my ship hold, my problems kinda dried up. It’s mostly learning what things in the field are worth hauling back to town when it’s not the apocalypse and duct tape just isn’t that special.
Absolutely, but you still have to learn that and it's still work. Early on I had no idea how many credits "a lot". Their defense/damage system is arguably unnecessarily complex in a way that adds to this. Do I need more corrosion protection, radiation, airborne, or thermal? Does it even matter?
Even with some of the advances, it still like an artificial problem that doesn't actually make the game any better. It doesn't really add any difficulty or challenge, and it's certainly not "fun". There's still a lot of streamlining they could do.
It depends. There’s a fine line between managing logistic and soreadsheet grade chores. Managing logistic can be interesting and it can bring a lot to the game. But if it is merely checking boxes and numbers on a spreadsheet it’s a chore that’s better left out of the game.
Zelda has a good system for this. You need to decide which weapons, shields, and bows you keep, but you have otherwise unlimited storage. It adds a degree of realism and management, without negatively impacting the gameplay.
Sad that we went to unfinished games by moneydevouring publishers and all its errors that come along with that (overworked staff, bad salaries every here and there).
When did we leave the path that finished games should be released around the clock?
Basically, capitalism can be traced back as the reason for most decisions corporations make. Although the fact people will complain and do it anyway is something else.
Day one patch means they released an unfinished game. They haven’t done enough testing before physical production. Also fucks over the people with a slow connection.
A patch 1 year after release is fine. Some people found a rare bug which can be fixed. If the game gets patches 1 year or longer after release tells me the developers have love for their game and/or community for fixing it long after they had any obligation to.
A day-one patch is the day of the release, so it counts as included in the release in my books.
It doesn’t mean « they haven’t done enough testing before physical production », it means they took advantage of the inevitable several weeks or months between start of physical printing and release.
And of course a patch 1 year after release is fine. What I’m saying is that I prefer a broken game that is fixed on release day over a broken game that is fixed 1 year later.
Except that’s not what happened in the old days, I’ve been getting PC game patches for as long as I’ve been gaming, upwards of 30 years. You’re not going to get every bug. Console games just didn’t get patched, if it was a buggy PoS it remained a buggy PoS.
BG3 had a day-one patch, and is at its 6th hotfix now. Does it make it a broken game?
With the scale of modern AAA games it is inevitable, if a studio had to wait until every bug in a game the size of Starfield was fixed to release it, it would simply never release. You have to decide at some point that the game is in a releasable state, and at this moment you start printing discs, then you keep working on it and fixing bugs and that constitues the day-one patch. And don’t worry about the expansion, they started working on it long before the release.
Having a day one patch doesn’t make a game broken, but it is a symptom of a bad internal process. Here are the patch notes for BG3 Day 1 (not sure if 100% accurate, but this is the best source I could find). To me, that doesn’t sound like anything game breaking.
I’m not saying BG3 is the gold standard for AAA game releases, I’m merely saying it’s what we should expect for an average AAA release with some being a little better and some being a little worse.
I’m not saying every bug needs to be fixed. Even older games before SW patches were a thing had a ton of bugs. I’m just saying, the game should play well even if users never patch the game. This is really important for game preservation, so you should always be able to take the game disk and install it offline and play through the whole game and have a great experience. That’s not the standard many AAA studios hold themselves to.
Look at this way, you’ve got everything you needed to fix complete. The game is uploaded the the storefront database. It’s now a week before release. There will always be bugs to fix and no game will ever be completely bugfree (especially not games at this scale). At some point you have to release the game, so why not just release what you’ve been working on since when the game launches?
I’m not saying the game needs to be perfect, but it should be a great experience beginning to end without applying any patches. As in, I should be able to take the game disk and install it without any Internet connection and play through the game with only minor bugs here and there.
This is really important for game preservation (the patch servers will eventually go offline), yet many AAA games are almost unplayable without day one patches.
I’m a huge fan of software updates for games, but those updates should merely improve an already great experience, not be the method to fix a broken game. A broken game should never leave QA.
As usual, people have no idea of the complexity of software. Games are extra complex. Games that are meant to run on an infinite variety of hardware combinations are worse. And it’s not any game, it’s an expansive RPG with hundreds of hours of gameplay and paths.
It’s impossible to ship this kind of product bug-free, and it’s quite probable that it will never truly be bug-free. A day-1 patch is obviously expected, and bugfixes in the following weeks mean that devs are closely monitoring how it goes, and are still working full-time on it. That’s commendable.
Day one patch is fine. It’s just an odd remnant of buying physically as the discs have to be pressed and shipped several months ahead of launch while the Devs carry on working. Digital owners just download the latest build on launch.
If there’s a patch and the game is still full of issues, thats another story.
So pressing unfinished games on disks is fine for you? They should release a finished game. What if the console shop or server goes offline? How can you play it then? For preservation, day one patches are a nightmare.
I’m glad to see the trend of releasing more games for pc beside their console counterpart rising. It makes preservation easier.
Pressing unfinished games is a trade-off and a lesser evil than instead choosing to distribute games digital only. One alternative would be to delay all launches until multiple months after the game is considered “ready,” but that would likely impact revenue streams in a way that the people making those decisions would never agree to. It would also upset the 80% of the market who buy games digitally - why should their release be delayed?
Would you prefer for physical releases to not be available until 3-6 months after the digital release (and more frequently, for there to be no physical release at all)?
Even if you press finished game, you still find tons of issues to fix before the release. It should be treated as bonus polishing time though, not time to finish the game.
BG3 has plenty of bugs, some of them game breaking. Look at the litany of fixes they delivered in each patch. It’s not about that. It’s about releasing a game that isn’t a “service”, and just a purely high quality game - tactical combat that works well, characters with good writing, a solid plot hook, a distinct graphical style, phenomenal voice acting and mocap (which matter more for this genre than they would in, say, a third person shooter).
Every game has bugs, that is not really what a ‘finished game’ is about. Its more about consistently working features, delivering what you promised and working on fixing things you know arent working correctly.
I’m actually quite surprised that nobody has stumbled across that 2014 “Moonlight Jelly” and discovered it was his bandcamp. This is a trove of 2010s vaporwave that I’m glad to have on my radar now!
games
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.