Yeah but every NBA game gets flooded with negative reviews and these people will buy it again next year. It doesn’t matter how many negative reviews it has if it sells well.
I always have a laugh when half of these reviews are “wow guys this poorly rated game that everyone told me is garbage turned out to be garbage. They’re making the same game every year!”, fast forward to them posting the same review next year.
I got Madden 22 for free and for awhile I was enjoying it. It was my first Madden game since the 360. So I start going to forums for the game, and every single post was about how bad the game is, highlighting ridiculous bugs, shitty AI, missing features.
Then details about Madden 23 started to come out and everyone that was tearing 22 apart was absolutely in love with every little thing that was shown.
Man I remember being on the Gamefaqs forums back in like 2005 or so, and people were complaining about this exact scenario back then. Some things never change
That’s pretty obvious from the planet surface and travel system. Apparently virtually every pixel of a planet surface is another procedurally generated map, but the UI and gameplay make them hard to access and not really useful anyway.
Most “normal” gamers dont care about the same things gamers that are more invested in the hobby do. I.e by and large, the “average” gamer isn’t voting with their wallets against the enshittening of the industry.
Poorly summarized: People have already voted with their wallets, which is why live service games and microtransactions are prevalent - They’re catering to a market that buys them.
TLDW: 8 minutes of vacuous navel-gazing which could have been distilled to the following 4 sentences:
But who involves themselves that much with games? Critics, journalists and enthusiasts. But what percentage of the whole do these people make? If you’re watching this video right now I imagine you’d be considered an outlying statistic a few steps away from the average demographic the industry continues to target.
Japan has always been notoriously avoidant of PC games. Most Japanese devs only worked on consoles and mobile games kicked off way earlier over there so the casual PC market never caught on. That much momentum is probably hard to change
Yeah, without those early days of casual PC gaming I can see how that affected the market over there. I mean, if it wasn’t for Kongregate, Newgrounds, and Miniclip idk how many Americans would be on PC gaming.
If the size of the apartments they live in is as small as media portrays them to be, they cannot fit a pc reasonably well inside (of course not everyone has mini living space)
Modern gamers are self-destructive. Nothing is good enough, and because every AAA release gets torn down and review bombed in one way or another, most and eventually all games from developers with the resources to make something of scale will become pay to win, microtransaction based garbage.
Because if they can’t please their audience and lose all passion for the craft because of it, they’ll just say fuck it go straight for the credit cards of those that do show up.
I’ve played about 70 hours so far. If you like the genre but starfield doesn’t wow you, I don’t think you’re able to be pleased. Is it perfect? No. Is it at absolute minimum an A grade? Absolutely.
I agree that we should appreciate well made games. But those are already beloved all around and praised at every turn, I don’t know how the people could be more supportive.
Think BG3, think Elden Ring. Even CP77, after a very rough release, is in a pretty good state now and about to receive a dlc + update that delivers many things originally promised; allowing the developer to recuperate a lot of the lost good will with the customers.
The point is, people still love good games. Just that starfield is pretty mediocre. Not a bad game by any means, but it feels like a lot of compromises, loading screens and reused assets.
One of the major disappointments imo is that space isn’t interesting. You only really go there for the odd ship battle to progress the plot or whatever, but you can’t really fly between planets, so you miss out on the cool side stories you get with Elder Scrolls games by walking between cities. I was hoping for Firefly the Bethesda game, but it’s just Skyrim stretched across planets that you fast travel between.
I want to find ships in distress, pirate outposts among asteroid fields, scuttled ships I can scavenge, etc. In other words, space should be a mechanic, not just a setting.
I think the planets are fine, but I’d rather have fewer, more densely populated planets. I don’t think space-colonizing people would only make 3-4 settlements per planet, there would be dozens if not hundreds of settlements before moving to the next planet. I’d rather buy a DLC to get access to more systems then current setup where everything is spread out. In fact, just give me Sol with Earth, Mars, and maybe one of a Jupiter’s moons being inhabited with the rest working like the planets in Starfield.
But no, it’s just Skyrim set it space, with fast travel between cities. That’s fine, just not particularly special. I may play it at some point, but it’s not what I’m looking for right now.
The scale is definitely too big. I’m pretty sure most of the systems are pretty much there just to fill in the star map. I’d rather have a setting where maybe interstellar FTL requires a sublight trip first so only the nearest few stars to Sol are accessible. Really I just want Everspace 2 where I can hop out of my ship occasionally and deal with fewer annoying “puzzles”.
I want to find ships in distress, pirate outposts among asteroid fields, scuttled ships I can scavenge, etc. In other words, space should be a mechanic, not just a setting.
The problem is that they let people skip the space parts arbitrarily often (sometimes planets make me stop to get scanned, sometimes I can go from ground to ground). All of those are encounters that happen, but if you fast travel you won’t see them. I have warped in and seen each of those, with ships in distress even landing near me to ask for help when I’m on the ground. Although the only actual pirate outpost in space AFAIK is the Crimson Fleet base and Everspace 2 does everything in space way better.
The fact that you can’t space walk without cheats is what I’m getting at. I want to be able to leave the ship to go investigate some wreckage, get into someone’s airlock to bring some needed supplies to a stranded vessel, or set up a mining outpost on an asteroid. Basically, the same feel you get when walking between towns in Elder Scrolls games, but with the unique mechanics space allows.
Starfield does a lot of things pretty well, but doesn’t really stand out in any of them. There’s a lot of elements of a great game there, but it just ends up being pretty good instead. That’s still awesome and it’ll sell well, but I am looking for that special something, and I’m basically seeing Skyrim in space. Not a lot of innovation, just a mapping of that formula into a space setting.
Try joining the FreeStar Collective, which is Wild West Scifi just like Firefly.
You’ll get the same types of stories and encounters. Including distressed ships, pirate outposts among asteroid field and scuttled ships you can scavenge.
TBH, I haven’t missed any of the other mechanics you mention. Yeah would be cool to do a space walk, but is it really necessary?
It would be more immersive, just like flying into and out of planets with no loading screen would. Their Elder Scrolls games nailed that immersion, yet Starfield went backward with a bunch of loading screens and limitations.
It’s still a pretty good game, like an 8/10 or so, but to really get that GOTY 10/10 rating, they need to excel at something. Either have better immersion, or limit the scope in some way to improve other aspects of the game.
There’s a lot of gamers out there who believe they are Bethesda fans, and this is one of the first times they’ve actually had to reconcile the game’s quality vs the developer they think consistently puts out good games. The amount of comments displaying obvious buyers remorse masquerading as defense of the game is hilarious.
I dunno, I think it's a game somewhat damned by faint praise. I hear "It's good, not great" a lot and I get it. If you like Skyrim you will like Starfield. But I'd say the big achievement is to scale up a game like Skyrim into such a big playspace.
It's certainly good quality in terms of the look and what they've technically achieved. But the actual gameplay isn't that far away from what they did in Skyrim and Fallout. I get it - if it ain't broke, don't fix it - but to be honest it feels a little dated. And No Man's Sky does alot of the non-RPG elements better.
It's been a strong year for games; and look at Baldur's Gate 3 - that game actually pushed forward narrative game play.
Starfield is huge and interesting, but ultimately a bit samey. I think the "ocean wide, inch deep" is too far and unfair but the basic concept kinda applies in a crude way. Baldur's Gate 3 is smaller in scope but so much richer and varied. Time was Bethesda was the undisputed king of RPGs, but I think CDProject Red supassed them with the story telling in Witcher 3 (and then fell back with Cyberpunk 2077) and now Larian have supassed both with Baldur's Gate 3.
It's a good game, but it's impact is dimmed a bit by what else has come. It'll make a ton of money and probably be around for years, but it doesn't feel the same huge leap forward as when Skyrim came out. But hey, hard act to follow to be fair.
It is actually a Role Playing Game as in you get to decide what role (aka character) you want to play, unlike some of the other “RPGs” out there (looking at you Witcher).
You sound like you need to play more games. Gamers generally have every right to hate AAA games these days, as they are, categorically, not A grade games.
I guess that depends on how narrowly you define “genre.” It’s a pretty good sandbox RPG, and it’ll get even better with community mods. If that’s what you’re looking for, it’s great and way better than pretty much anything else.
But if you broaden it a bit, it has a mediocre story, mediocre combat, and mediocre exploration. So compared to other RPGs, it’s really not special.
So I’d give it a B grade. It gets Cs in many areas, but the sandbox is good enough to pull it up to a B. To get to A, it needs to excel at something, like exploration (e.g. do more with the ship in space) or economy (e.g. invest in trade routes and impact the cost of goods by flooding the market). But it doesn’t really excel at anything, it’s basically the same formula they’ve had in the past with a different setting.
It’s still a good game, it just doesn’t stand out in any particular way. For everything it does, another game does it better, and it really needs to be the best at something to get an A from me.
I’m primarily a console peasant, but my Steam account goes back to 2007. I don’t remember the specifics, but I know I opened it after getting a physical copy of The Ship from Target. Never played it much, though.
Personally I’d give it like a C or maybe B- at the top. It’s fine, but there are so many missing basic quality of life features that should be there.
My biggest gripes are all focused on outposts though. Outposts seemed to be one of the focuses from the marketing material, but they’re a pain in the ass to actually use. There’s somehow no list of the outposts you have, let alone a way to view what they’re producing. Outposts need to be linked together, but there’s no way to sort or auto-delete items, so it all eventually will get clogged up with lead, or whatever other resource doesn’t get used often. You’ll have to manually go through your containers to remove the clog and just dump it on the ground, where it’ll remain for the rest of your playthrough. There’s no snapping for anything except storage containers and the habitation modules. Everything else has to be placed by hand with manual rotations, so nothing is ever lined up. The alignment will also change after you place an object, so literally nothing will ever be aligned.
I have issues with many other parts of the game too, but outposts seem so incomplete, and somehow generally worse than what we had in FO4. Yet, outposts were prominent in their marketing. How?
They were certainly Bethesda games. I'm not even remotely fond of multiplayer fallout. But for 4, it's a marvelous modding world that I've sunk over a thousand hours into.
Oh, so you ARE aware of their other games and you were just cherry picking the ones that weren’t as popular? Now with that brought to light, you’re changing the date parameters to suit your narrative?
Technically Skyrim has also been published in the past decade, and even more recently than Fallout 4. In fact it's been released 5 times since Fallout 4.
I've never played 76, but 4 is one of my favorite games of all time. I think most people who didn't like it were going into it desiring for it to be something it wasn't. What it was impeccably good at was being a scavenging looter shooter with addicting weapon and armor modification and a fun outpost building system that wasn't for me, but did let me make my own little home.
Definitely not Bethesda's strong suit and not what I go to their games for. Their NPC interaction is made up of tons of awkward TMI introductions and dialogue too quirky to take seriously most of the time. That's a valid criticism, I would not say Fallout 4 is well written. I think it has some interesting premises like the whole synth idea, but not a well executed story.
The only overall story I really thought was good in that game was Paladin Danse's quest chain.
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you filthy Imperial? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in House Telvanni, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Black Marsh, and I have over 300 confirmed farm equipment kills. I am trained in Dunmer warfare and I’m the top battlemage in the entire Vvardenfell armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision spells the likes of which has never been seen before in this realm, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across Cyrodiil and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the ash storm, scrib. The ash storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with conjuration. Not only am I extensively trained in alchemical combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Sixth House and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn N’wah. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
My guilty pleasure is to install Morrowind again and commit to replaying it, but to instead do another Skyrim playthrough because I just have more fun for some reason.
There’s something about the newer Bethesda games. I’ll go and install legacy games from other companies all the time for the sense of nostalgia, but despite having beaten almost all of them going back to Arena, if I want a Bethesda game I always end up playing Skyrim or FO4. And now (I presume) Starfield
It’s another subpar Bethesda game in a long line of subpar Bethesda games. Lifeless bland NPCs, tons of glitches, bad gameplay issues, and the same “shallow ocean” criticisms we’ve been going over since Skyrim.
It’s clear to me that Bethesda thinks Skyrim was peak Elder Scrolls, when I think Morrowind was peak Elder Scrolls. Unfortunately, it seems too much to ask for a decent story and interesting side content.
So I just don’t buy Bethesda games anymore. I was disappointed in Skyrim, and Fallout 4 wasn’t really my thing. It also doesn’t help that I don’t like the leveling mechanics of RPGs either and tend to prefer ARPGs like Ys and Zelda where leveling isn’t a major part of the game loop. I know what Bethesda offers, and it’s just not what I’m looking for these days. I play RPGs for story and immersion, not for graphics, character builds, and mods, and Bethesda seems to be more interested in the latter than the former.
But that’s what I appreciate from Bethesda. They’re pretty consistent at delivering a certain experience, it just so happens that it’s not for me.
Anything is better than No Man Sky, after a trillion updates they still haven’t fixed the one issue the game has. There is only a single planet but a million copies of it with different colors.
Yes but planets like that are realistically quite common. The ones with special features and biomes however are few but quite well done. Really not comparable.
There’re definitely roster updates and other little stuff that gets added and tweaked in the new versions as much as people like to meme about “same game”. The old versions don’t update so that’s how they get new sales. Kinda bullshit but that’s what it is.
PC gets a special short straw though and is the last gen version of the game despite PC being on par or better than the new consoles. 2K knows where they make the money and do the least everywhere else. That part is definite bullshit.
Sports games are one of the few genre where it might make sense as a gaas approach. Make 1 game for the console generation and sell roster updates every year. Add in micro transactions for the dumb stuff and it seem to be a win win all around. The game gets cheaper meaning more people will likely buy it. No one has to complain it's the same game every year because it would be by design. And devs wouldn't have to crunch every year to get the game out.
Totally agree. Shoot, even when I was still buying them I’d wait til they dropped to like $20 mid-season. It’s more of a DLC at that point which makes more sense considering what we get
Many people do. Yes, there are those that buy every year but I genuinely think they are the minority. You gotta think, even if only 1/3 of all the 2k NBA fans buy every three years, that's... still a lot of sales.
Is that really the only important aspect? That it has the NBA or Madden or FIFA brand? Does the actual game not matter at all? Because if so, I think sports gamers made their decision and have no right to complain about it’s results.
It’s the definitive basketball game and objectively does the job when it comes to that. It has its quirks for sure but the popularity speaks for itself. And given the choice, people would rather play as Lebron James as opposed to some random generated Jebron Lames; they want the real thing as seen on TV.
Now, 2K being dicks about having last-gen on PC after so many years. That’s definitely something to complain about and the reviews are deserved.
Wasn’t NBA 2K20’s trailer disliked to hell because it dedicated more time to show off the roulette wheel, pachinko and slots than basketball? That really doesn’t look like the definitive basketball game, dude. Multiplayer seems to work well enough but most of the complaints are over single player features, at least you can play a different game for that aspect.
I didn’t really encounter all that when I played and I stuck to the single player. But I don’t think that detracts from the core concept: 2K is THE basketball game when you ask most any fan or even NBA players. These guys are coming in for face scans and concerned for their in-game rating so yeah, popularity speaks for itself.
That said, the micro transaction stuff is terrible but it’s more of a thing that got slapped onto the game out of greed. I wouldn’t say it defines the game itself. Hence the complaints; mine included.
Blitz the League came out at a different time, Madden was still a beloved series by this point. You have two sports games, both are good, but one of them has the NFL license and the other doesn’t. I wouldn’t fault anyone for looking at Madden as a no brainer in such a situation.
Times have clearly changed, how many times did Angry Joe made videos ripping the Madden of the year into pieces? If the game is really that bad, giving up on the roster seems like a good compromise if it means a good game. But according to Madden players roster comes first, so I don’t know what they are complaining about.
I get that a good sports game that has the players you know and support isn’t much to ask but it’s what it is.
Never met a sports ball fan? This shit isn’t negotiable. Having working multiplayer (last years always get shut down) and up to date accurate rosters is crucial.
EA/2K got these people by the balls because there is no competition due to exclusivity. It’s really fucked up and sad for sports ball fans.
I’m a nba fan though, and I just stopped playing basketball games because I got tired of paying for roster updates. And now monetization is even worse so genre is dead to me. So as a former fan of 2k I don’t understand having to play the games so badly that people keep paying for it every year.
That applies to any game or franchise. If it gets bad enough that I detest it I’d just move on from it even if no option pops up. Especially one so predatory on top of being an annual release.
I just miss the sport games of 10-20 years ago. They were just fun. Of course they weren't perfect but we didn't care. Now microtransactions have ruined everything....
Mine’s 15 now, but back in the day I used those bootlegged Steam clients that allowed me to run Garry’s Mod for free. Those were the hackey, piratey times of 700MB aXXo DVD rips that took 1 hour to download.
Probably not so much COVID and instead trying to coordinate 27 different outsourced studios. Why not just make it mostly inhouse like before??? If we’re talking scale issues; why introduce these by aiming for deluge of samey procedurally generated worlds instead of the one quality handmade world you’re already known for?
games
Najstarsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.