It’s been out longer and has improved over time. I’d wait until Starfield has been out for about the same length of time, see if things even out or continue to trend down.
What needs improvement in Starfield, though, isn’t likely to actually be improved. Can’t even think of a time where a game’s story was re-written over time to be better.
They should’ve stuck with Steam instead of going exclusive through Epic Games. Epic’s predatory practice of PC exclusives makes it hard to survive something like this. If they existed on a broader spectrum of services, this would be no big deal.
I guess by making it work you mean not having a significant change outside of the introduction of tournaments and knockout ltm both of which were launched years ago. I love the game to death but Psyonix isn’t doing shit besides making cosmetics and supposedly migrating to Unreal 5 which we’ve not heard a peep about in ages.
I wish they would’ve actually kept developing the game but its a cosmetic collectathon now.
You still can’t get Rocket League on Steam on an account that didn’t already have the game bought before it was F2P. Is this the case for Fall Guys, or did they go further and stop updating the Steam version?
Because everything ran locally at a datacenter, the real killer app of Stadia would have been a super-massively multiplayer game. There wouldn't be any problems with latency between game states, (any lag would be between the server and the console.) Imagine massive wars or mediaeval battles with thousands of participants. They never developed games that took advantage of what was unique about the platform.
AFAIK, MMOs keep all the game state on the servers already. The difference is that what they send to the client is key deltas to the game state, which the client then renders. Stadia type services instead render that on the datacenter side and send the client images.
With their expertise at networking and so-on, Google might have been able to get a slight advantage in server-to-server communication, but it wouldn’t have enabled anything on a whole different scale, AFAIK.
IMO, their real advantage was that they could have dealt with platform switching in a seamless way. So, take an addictive turn-by-turn game like Civilization. Right now someone might play 20 turns before work, then commute in, think about it all day, then jump back in when they get home. With Stadia, they could have let you keep playing on your cell phone as you take the train into work. Play a few turns on a smoke break. Maybe play on a web browser on your work computer if it’s a slow day. Then play again on your commute home, then play on the TV at home, but if someone wanted to watch a show, you could either go up and play on a PC, or pull out your phone, or play on a laptop…
Larger massive multiplayer capability was one of the features Google was touting upon Stadia's launch:
Over time, Buser [Google’s director of games] says we should not only see additional exclusive games on Stadia, but also cross-platform games doing things on Stadia “that would be impossible to do on a console or PC.” Instead of dividing up virtual worlds into tiny "shards" where only 100 or 150 players can occupy the same space at a time because of the limitations of individual servers, he says Google’s internal network can support living, breathing virtual worlds filled with thousands of simultaneous players. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/6/18654632/google-stadia-price-release-date-games-bethesda-ea-doom-ubisoft-e3-2019
Sure, they claimed that, but it’s telling that nobody ever took them up on that.
Google’s internal network may be good, but it’s not going to be an order of magnitude better than you can get in any other datacenter. If getting thousands of people into the same virtual space were just a matter of networking, an MMO would have already done it.
A shard is going to be storing the position, orientation and velocity of key entities (players, vehicles, etc.) in memory. If accessed frequently enough they’ll be in the processor’s cache. There’s no way the speed of accessing that data can compare with networking speeds.
That doesn’t mean there couldn’t have been some kinds of innovations. Say a game like Star Citizen where there are space battles. In theory you could store the position and orientation of everything inside a ship in one shard and the position and orientation of ships themselves in a second shard. Since people inside the ship aren’t going to be interacting directly with things outside the ship except via the ship, you could maybe afford a bit of latency and inaccuracy there. But, if you’re just talking about a thousand-on-thousand melee, I think the latency between shards would be too great.
You’d only be able to play with people local to you, in the same Stadia datacenter. If Stadia wanted to minimize latency, they would increase the number of datacenters (thus making fewer people per instance).
Realistically it’s entirely possible it took more platform specific work to make the switch version viable than anything else.
It’s possible, but that’s wild speculation, and I think pretty unlikely.
It’s not their fault it’s lesser hardware.
It’s their fault for releasing a 70$ game on “lesser hardware” while not spending the time to get it working and looking well-enough. They didn’t have to release it.
It's not wild speculation. The CPU is 20 tiers worse than dogshit and getting anything that's even a hint of demanding to even function at all on it is a lot of work.
the point isn’t that it should cost less, it’s that it shouldn’t have been released to begin with AND it costs more than most games. the price isn’t really the problem, it just compounds on it to make it all seem worse.
No, it is wild speculation. Turning off graphical effects etc. until you get acceptable frame rates isn’t hard and doesn’t take long, definitely not as long as implementing them for the other consoles.
You don’t need to rebuild the game because the CPU is slower.
Graphical effects have never been the problem. They're completely irrelevant and not even sort of part of the discussion.
CPU performance is exactly the entire problem, and yes, you absolutely do have to make fundamental changes to make it functional. The CPU is the reason the majority of last gen games are straight up impossible to port in any context, and current gen games are much worse.
Graphical effects have never been the problem. They’re completely irrelevant and not even sort of part of the discussion.
What? This whole topic is about the lower quality of MK1 on the switch. How is the CPU involved in the graphics of MK1? You’ll need to share a source that this is the problem.
CPU performance is exactly the entire problem, and yes, you absolutely do have to make fundamental changes to make it functional. The CPU is the reason the majority of last gen games are straight up impossible to port in any context, and current gen games are much worse.
Please share a source, or at least a detailed description of what exactly the CPU is too slow for to run MK1 with higher quality. It sure as hell isn’t involved in shader execution, which is where most of the graphical fidelity comes from (if you’re developing a game post 2000).
The lower graphics quality is because the GPU can't do math. There's no way to mitigate that.
It's also absolutely none of the work involved in a port. The work on a port is entirely making the actual mechanics function on a CPU that was terrible for mobile years before the switch launched.
The lower graphics quality is because the GPU can’t do math. There’s no way to mitigate that.
Yes, which is why the CPU isn’t the problem. It’s the GPU.
It’s also absolutely none of the work involved in a port. The work on a port is entirely making the actual mechanics function on a CPU that was terrible for mobile years before the switch launched.
Please share a source for this. A game like MK1 doesn’t need a lot of CPU power, because there just isn’t anything complicated happening. It’s all GPU that’s missing.
I spent like 15 minutes looking up and comparing the minimum requirements on PC for mortal Kombat 1 (a game I have no intention of ever playing) and the CPU and GPU of the switch, pointing out that the GPU and CPU of the switch are both so far below even the minimum requirements on PC (which are pretty low tbh)
Am not an expert but i think particles and physics are both calculated by the CPU. Both very intensive tasks. Graphic wise, from looking at the screenshot above, it seems they only lowered the quality of model and it looks awful because they went for realism. The not so easy fixable problem is the characters design, Switch games look cartoonish for a reason.
Physics are calculated by the CPU, but a game like MK1 doesn’t have many physics to calculate - almost everything is pre-made animations. Particles are updated by the CPU, but rendered by the GPU.
And yeah, that’s why my point was that it’s not the CPU that is limiting the graphics.
What's your point? It's absolutely possible to make fun games that are simple and not demanding.
It's also extremely limiting. The vast majority of recent games can't possibly be made to run on anything anywhere close to as underpowered as the Switch.
I am just annoyed when people say the switch hardware is shit. It’s not shit, it’s just a completely different approach, that’s all. Also it’s annoying you’re using one of the shittiest ports ever to push this idea. They could have built this game from the ground up for switch and had something that looked and ran good. But that wasn’t their plan. The plan was a half assed port.
But it actually is obscenely underpowered, even for mobile, and the CPU is a massive limitation that keeps the vast majority of last gen games from being possible.
It changed the space by showing low end open world games on handheld were possible, but it hit its ceiling extremely quickly. There's a reason most AAA games didn't support it, and it's because it isn't capable.
Yeah I am a switch owner and also play on my Mac and on Windows with virtual machines, and the majority of switch ports are just garbage and should not have been released. I paid for the outer worlds on switch and it was awful, just a loading screen simulator.
Yes in a world that expects hardware to always get better and software to always be written sloppily and/or assuming those constant improvements I guess it makes sense to be angry at one of the greatest game consoles ever created
Remember when games used a few KB of memory and they did smart things to make that work? No you probably don’t because you’d be angered by that hardware’s existence
Right which is why first-party titles, which are built for the stupidly underpowered hardware found in a switch, run and look pretty damn good for the hardware inside. They are building the entire game around a singular shitty-ass chip. It can be optimized perfectly for just that.
But a developer creating a game for PC, Xbox, Playstation, potentially other platforms, AND Switch isn’t going to change the design of the entire game to accommodate the Switch’s dinky-ass hardware.
And yes old consoles and games used clever tricks to run well on slower hardware and it was amazing. But I guarantee that every single title you could think of as an example was either a first-party title, or in the case of something like Crash Bandicoot, was exclusive to that console.
You’re delusional if you think that third-party devs should be able to meet Nintendo’s level of polish on their console while creating graphically demanding games for current gen.
And yes it makes sense to be angry at “one of the greatest game consoles ever made” (okay fanboy) when that console was underpowered when it launched 6 years ago, has TERRIBLE controllers (joy cons are literally the least enjoyable controllers I’ve used, ever, and have serious drift issues), and has held back game development and caused headaches like the situation at hand for devs - they’re essentially in a no-win situation here.
Who's angry? It's not game developer's fault that it has 10% of the power needed to run a modern game.
There is no amount of optimization that could make most modern games run on the switch. It has nothing to do with laziness. If you were a first party making games built from the ground up to be comparable to other modern games, it could not be done.
There's a reason Nintendo leans hard into simple physics and extremely arcade style sports games, and it's not just to be more accessible to casual fans. It's because it's literally all the hardware can do.
There’s a reason Nintendo leans hard into simple physics and extremely arcade style sports games, and it’s not just to be more accessible to casual fans. It’s because it’s literally all the hardware can do.
Yeah when they chose the type of games they’d be known for in the 80’s, it sure was specifically because their crystal ball told them:
They chose that hardware because Nvidia was offloading it dirt cheap, so they could make big margins on it.
Yeah when they chose the type of games they’d be known for in the 80’s, it sure was specifically because their crystal ball told them
Nintendo’s shift towards simpler games has absolutely coincided with their consoles being less powerful than the competition. And since we’re name-calling like children (bc some of us are fanboys who can’t accept valid criticism)… this has been apparent for the last 20 years, and I made the observation as a child during the Wii era, numbskull!
Nintendo is currently not known for their 80s catalog of titles beyond generally being associated with Mario and Co. - they are known for the games and systems that most people grew up with - and statistically, that’s overwhelmingly Wii/DS and newer.
During which time their hardware has consistently lagged behind other systems, and rather than focus on graphics, like Nintendo once did - when they were pushing the hardware envelope - with titles like Super Mario 64, Nintendo has shifted focus and decided to use commodity hardware for their consoles.
Now, as a shift in strategy, I’m not saying it’s necessarily wrong, but don’t try and deny what’s going on.
They absolutely chose the hardware for the switch because it was cheap. There isn’t anything particularly special about that Nvidia chip, it had been commercially available for two years by the time the switch came out, so yes it’s reasonable to assume Nvidia was offloading it cheaply.
Use your brain and maybe put away the Nintendo kneepads.
Yeah, the physics on botw and totk are so simple. It hurts my brain how basic those games are.
Two of the highest rated games of all time.
On switch
The most underpowered console of our generation.
But yeah mortal kombat couldn’t make the game look even slightly better because it can only be as good at totk. That really basic shitty looking extremely popular and highly rated game.
Yeah, the physics on botw and totk are so simple. It hurts my brain how basic those games are.
Half Life 2 had physics like that 20 years ago.
Also totk is a stuttering mess when anything sufficiently complex happens unless you overclock the switch, which just proves the point of how underpowered the switch is.
Also also, art style CARRIES those games’ graphics. Running those games at higher res (or just on a TV) really shows the constraints they had to work within to get the games to run.
Two of the highest rated games of all time.
Yeah, and I’m sure the loyal Zelda/Nintendo fanboys have nothing to do with that.
Don’t get me wrong, they’re fantastic games, but I don’t think they’d be nearly as popular/well-received if they weren’t Zelda titles.
If you need an example in the opposite direction, I don’t even need to look up which Pokemon game it was that looked like dogshit on the switch bc you know exactly what I’m talking about.
Your claim about half life 2 is bold and would need backing up. Im not going to just accept your assertion without proof. That’s not how this works.
Totk has some frame rate issues here and there, but when you give playes the power to do whatever they want with a set of tools, you will always overload a game engine. Name any sandbox game that players haven’t been able to overload and cause frame rate drops.
Also, there are AAA games that struggle with frame rate drops on PC, PS5, and Xbox series X. Which i guess just proves the point of how underpowered those are… obviously, the switch is the lower end of these. Im not deluded. But claiming some stuttering in totk when players have set up chaos means it proves the switch is underpowered is just incorrect. Any game that gives you a set of tools and the instructions ,“go” stutters when there’s too much going on.
The switch is 6 years old, im not suprisdd its showing its age now. I am suprised its remained relevant and has games that are rated to highly.
So art style carries the games? So what? Isn’t that just ingenuity? And dorsnt it prove the .ain point of this thread? That Mortal Kombat could have looked good with a tweaked art style for switch but was just a bad port? If the product looks bad on the switch, then dont release it on Switch, i guess.
Ok, but if there are zelda/nintendo fan boys it follows that nintendo are consistently making great games and that zelda games are consistently great… you dont keep enough people gushing over your games by releasing trash game after trash game. Also fan boys wouldnt be enough alone to get a game that highly rated. Remeber that this game only released on switch, meaning it didnt have all the pa5 and xbox owners to help boost its numbers.
So whilst im sure the fanboys had something to do with it, its likely that the fact that the game is good played a kuch bigger part.
People bought a switch when these games came out just because they saw how good they were and wanted to play…
Sorry i think i know what you mean but i dont play the pokemon games. Is it the one with the shit textures, was it online like an mmo, i seem to recall one like that. Didnt interest me because it looked shit compared to so many other games ive played on switch.
lmfao have you never heard of the source engine? Garry’s mod? HL2 was just the first game running Source that really showed some of the physics and creativity off.
While the physics on totk are cool, and the crafting system is impressive, especially for the hardware it’s running on, nothing it does is exactly revolutionary. Plenty of games have been doing similar stuff for a very long time, on much older hardware.
Not exactly the same, and they certainly deserve credit bc what totk has is impressive, but acting like totk was some revolution in videogame physic and one of the best games ever is a bit of a stretch IMO. It’s a fun, well-made, complete open-world game, that builds on the previous title’s map.
Also, there are AAA games that struggle with frame rate drops on PC, PS5, and Xbox series X
Yeah but their stuttering is dropping from 60FPS to 50FPS, or 180FPS to 100FPS, and because they’ve got actually capable hardware, they also support freesync, which greatly reduces how jarring FPS drops feel.
But claiming some stuttering in totk when players have set up chaos means it proves the switch is underpowered is just incorrect
Any game that can barely run at 30FPS (totk relies heavily on dynamic resolution scaling in denser areas, even without player contraptions) and drops to 20FPS when loaded with stuff built in game is a stuttering mess. Be it on PC, Xbox or Switch. Switch doesn’t get a break on a game being a stuttering mess because it’s weak.
That’s literally the whole reason ppl are criticizing the switch. It makes games like totk a stuttering mess, instead of allowing people to enjoy incredible games like that at a nice smooth 60 or 90FPS
My two-year-old phone can run games at beyond 1440P, 120FPS, with better graphics than a Switch.
Any game that gives you a set of tools and the instructions ,“go” stutters when there’s too much going on.
Yes every game is gonna have a limit to the physics it can crunch. TOTK’s limit before stuttering is pretty damn small, relatively speaking.
And dorsnt it prove the .ain point of this thread? That Mortal Kombat could have looked good with a tweaked art style for switch but was just a bad port?
No. Because that would have required the devs to literally create new textures for every single asset in the game, with new art style, which especially in a game that people are often very competitive in can cause massive headaches for the devs.
Ok, but if there are zelda/nintendo fan boys it follows that nintendo are consistently making great games
Andrew Tate is a good person bc he has a lot of fanboys, right? If that logic doesn’t follow, why would it follow for videogames? Fanboys are known for irrational support, not rational criticism.
fan boys wouldnt be enough alone to get a game that highly rated.
Remeber that this game only released on switch, meaning it didnt have all the pa5 and xbox owners to help boost its numbers.
Wow, REALLY?? Nintendo didn’t release Zelda on Xbox??? 🤪
So whilst im sure the fanboys had something to do with it, its likely that the fact that the game is good played a kuch bigger part.
I never said it wasn’t a good game. It’s a great game. Not my speed, but it’s great. I don’t think it’s anywhere close to top 10 tho, and the only reason it’s even in that discussion is because of fanboys who are okay with Zelda becoming just another open-world RPG with towers to climb and now crafting shit.
I have a PC, PS5, and Switch, and never felt like the Switch was underpowered. Samewise, my phone doesn’t feel underpowered compared to my laptop, because I recognise they’re completely different devices.
You don’t get a Switch to play the latest God of War, you get it to play Mario and Zelda games, and cute lo-fi indie games
Right… I’m not sure what your point is exactly with that, doom came out in 1993 and had extremely low requirements and looks as dated as it is. Of course it can run on machines like fridges or ATMs or calculators in more recently made devices because the power of the chips in these machines are better then PCs back when doom released.
Yeah I looked and idk what to say - it looks like a switch game.
If you bought a switch, which was an extremely underpowered when it was released 6 years ago, and then get upset when AAA games releasing on current gen consoles look like dogshit… You have nobody to blame but yourself.
Isn’t a PS5 vs Switch comparison kind of like a PS4 vs Wii comparison? They’re not even the same hardware generation, it’s a wonder they’re even dedicating resources to this.
It doesn’t look like a hardware issue. Yes, the less powerful hardware is what forced graphical changes, but it looks like an art direction problem.
The changes mostly fail to capture the essence of the original design. The characters look like they were ripped from the SIMs.
No one is expecting the same lighting, textures, or poly counts, but they do expect something that looks like Mortal Combat. That isn’t an unreasonable expectation.
You’re right that this may be a budgeting issue of sorts, but if they can’t set aside enough resources to make it look like some sort of Mortal Combat game, then maybe they shouldn’t have made the port.
Has this writer never used Steam or is he just unaware how many people buy games they don’t actually play
Firstly: If you had ever used Steam, you’d know that Steam differentiates between “have game in the library” and “have previously played a game”. A bought game that was never launched, doesn’t show up in these stats.
Secondly: It’s clear you did not bother to read the article. “The numbers take into account players on Xbox, as well as those playing the Game Pass/Windows Store version of the game on PC.” The 25% number isn’t even from Steam.
So what about people who do want to use they/them? Adults could install software like this for their kids and use the mod to deny their kid the right to choose what pronoun they want to use.
People are welcome to mod games in whatever way they want, but Nexusmods has zero obligation to host anything, let alone content that violates their TOS.
It’s not the first time they banned mods like this. Nexus had the same shit storm last year when they banned Spiderman mods that tried to remove pride flags. It’s mentioned in the same article here as well.
The only reason it is getting this much outrage is because of the same reason last time, this is the hottest game on the market right now, just like Spiderman was when it came out for the first time on PC.
Huh, just considering practicality, how many new characters would one have to create in order to save rather than waste downloading this? Given the time required to download, read, and set up, I’d guess somewhere in the range of 20-30 characters.
Speedrunners might download a mod to skip setup entirely, not a single option. Of the millions who purchased starfield, perhaps a few dozen might use this ergonomically. Neat.
Practice mods are occasionally used if, say, there’s a tricky section 1.5 hours in. With route highlighting or landscape deemphasizing, if necessary. Speedrunning has slowed to a crawl in the last decade so that seems unlikely.
It is not a big deal. It doesnt have to be. Its just a small mod with a small change that some people apparently wanted for their experience. They didnt demand to change the game. I dont see problem with choosing pronouns, but I also dont see a problem with changing pointless stuff in your game.
Just pick your pronouns when you create your character. These are people getting their panties in a twist because they are being reminded that other people can choose different pronouns.
These are people getting their panties in a twist because they are being reminded that other people can choose different pronouns.
That’s nothing new. The vast majority of far-right reactionaries know exactly zero trans people. They’re getting upset because a stranger, who exists entirely in their imagination, may have an opinion about their own body that the far-right have not approved as “okay to have”.
Of course, there’s probably deeper reasons that they won’t say out loud. What if they accidentally find a “man” attractive? What if they have to treat a casual acquaintance with basic human decency?
I'd imagine for some, the problem is being reminded they too can choose. And they've had the option to choose for a long time.
Honestly, that was my biggest issue the idea of asking other people their pronoun was sort of a trend (at least according to the rightwing media? idk; I've never once seen a person ask another person their pronouns in IRL). For some reason I never wondered why I, as a "cis man", I'd be afraid of such a question (especially since I was the type to like when people mistook me for being gay, so it wasn't like I was afraid of having my "masculinity questioned" or was anti-LGBT).
Anyone who engages in item duplication will have their account actioned? Wtf. Imagine if they took away your Pokemon cartridge just for duping an item.
It’s the standard Blizzard approach to do that, they used to do the same thing in WoW. I hope they do look at how many times someone’s done it. If they’ve only done it once (or maybe twice), maybe just give them a warning. If more, then consider banning them.
It's pretty common for online games that have player-to-player trading systems. The developers are usually very protective of their in-game economies, because while they don't officially support grey markets, they know that the existence of grey markets is the sole reason a huge chunk of players (often whales) play their game in the first place. It's in Blizzard's best interest to ensure that there isn't in-game inflation.
Yes, and he’ll do the old “force austerity to temporarily drive up profit margins for a quarter or two, then once it’s clear the next quarter will be crap, sell all of the stock that was awarded (auspiciously with a very short vesting window, if not just given outright)”
Typical bs, probably worth shorting this stock over the next year or so
He has 0 salary, he isn’t getting paid for any of this. Hence the end of the letter. You obviously didn’t even read it.
I expect everyone to roll up their sleeves and work hard. I’m not getting paid, so I’m either going down with the ship or turning the company around. I much prefer the latter.
No shit, he’s an activist that bought in and turned the company around when it was being run into the ground by consultants working for short sellers. He owns about 15%
Now compare that to executives with no personal stake in their company, making millions in salary and not giving a fuck about anyone else
Reminder that whales in Korea had soo much power, they had a round table meeting to force Nexon of Korea to bend to their demands due to Nexon lieong about the “randomness” of line stat generation in maplestory, cauaing them to essentially refund 2 years worth in materials.
Seriously steam really needs to add a quality gate, the amount of garbage they have in the store is absurd and eventually it’s not going to be worth the tiny fee they make from these games.
I dunno. I kind of remember when it was hard to get on steam. I wonder how many cool games we have now that we wouldn’t have had of they had to go through some sort of arbitrary checkpoint. There always seemed to be some controversy over who and what got in.
Do those trash games even matter? I feel like I basically never see them unless I go looking for them specifically. Steam is far, far better at content discovery than Google Play is, despite both platforms having an abundance of shovelware.
The content discovery on steam is being built up by massive community effort. It’s maybe difficult to find the most egregious asset flips, but it’s trivial to find tons of rpg maker games or similar, especially with the discovery queue.
I disagree. They’re pretty good about not shoving shovelware in your face. I don’t think games should be prevented from entry to the store just because they’re perceived low quality. Where would you draw the line?
Then find a way to purchase or otherwise create 2 out of every 10 assets you do use. You likely need some level of customization to make your idea a reality.
I feel you, I’m not denying a correlation between free assets and shovelware but why punish good quality games using free assets? Steam has a pretty generous (relatively speaking) refund policy letting you refund games you’ve bought in the past week that you have played for less than two hours. I feel like most games and especially shovelware games you can know if they’re shit in under two hours. Better to let too many shitty games in and not risk keeping a good one out and let folks get refunds for shitty games than to potentially keep good games out because they don’t meet some weird criteria they can’t quite meet.
Adding minimal requirements isn’t going to block any indie game the average gamer has heard of. In fact blocking asset flip games may actually help devs get more exposure in the new release lists. Heck just banning people that upload only asset flip garbage would probably be a big help.
They do have a $100 submission fee, which the developer can recoup once they have $1k in sales. So that alone cuts out a lot of the nonsense since low selling games won’t make enough to be worth the effort.
Maybe there’s an argument that the fee should be higher, but at a certain point you’re just making releasing a passion project impractical.
My dream is a fallout game set in New Orleans, but made by Obsidian.
Give them permission to have greenery in the game as you run around a massively overgrown swamp (there's some lore from unpublished games about an over-abundance of GECK testing in the area,)
Helping people actually build new shit from the abundant trees. The people would be that fun mix Creole and Americana.
We could have new enemies, like snakes and gators and shit. Maybe assassin vines and man eating trees.
My dream enemy would be a splinter group of Caesar's legion and remnants of the Enclave.
As for music, dig deep into New Orleans history. There's more than enough to put together a kick-ass soundtrack.
Microsoft has bought up both Obsidian and Bethesda so it is technically possible for them to make another Fallout game. But at the same time they already announced Outer Worlds 2, and I’m not even sure the key people are necessarily still around.
Before that’s a cause for alarm, however, many of these remaining 20 were key people in New Vegas’ development, and Obsidian also has Leonard Boyarsky and Tim Cain on board, even though both are on Outer Worlds (2), and Leonard and Tim are the original creators of Fallout.
Josh Sawyer, the director of New Vegas, is still there as well and has said he is open to working on Fallout again.
Lots of samesy stuff. Travel to a side quest, same looking area, same enemies, same thing.
I feel like they spent most of the resources trying to rebuild a working functional engine for themselves, rather than do what they do best, which is create stories. Because there was some serious amazing sparks of creativity like being able to skip a whole story chapter with a single dialog option.
Like Mass Effect 1 - very flawed but lots of potential. But then Mass Effect 2 became a masterpiece.
So I have high hopes for Outer Worlds 2 being incredible.
While I would kill for an actual remake, there is a fan-made remake in the F4 engine that has been many years in the works. The devs are pretty active on Discord and still plugging away at it. Who knows if it ever actually gets finished, but I think at this point this is the best hope for a somewhat-modernized New Vegas.
This is actually one of those things that bothers me the most. So many projects that are at risk of getting taken down are announced way before they are ready, whether it be on purpose for them to knowingly get taken down before anything ever becomes playable and gets released because they never had any intention of actually releasing it they just wanted the fame for it with no intentions of delivering on it, or because they didn’t think they would get taken down and get completely surprised by it like it’s never happened before. If you are going to make something awesome, wait until you release it to announce it.
I wonder what would happen if Bethesda gave a few of the best modders full access to the game's code and to the latest version of the engine. I bet they could come up with a current gen remake in under a year without the involvement of a single Bethesda dev.
I think you’re severely underestimating how much time, effort, and resources game development takes. Especially when the devs aren’t doing it full-time.
Are we talking about a whole engine re-write or just bringing the game into modern times graphically? Because you could do the latter much easier and with less time (still time consuming yes, but not as much) with just basic modding and not even need the source code.
Well, in such a scenario I'm also making two assumptions:
That the modders are indeed being paid by Bethesda to work full-time on it since it's meant to be sold when finished (not unlike Skyrim Special Edition, only made by modders)
There's a way to add code and assets from existing mods to their remake. If they have to make it all from scratch then yeah, a year is not enough.
Is this article written by AI? It has all sorts of strange errors and repeated words. Like the sentence at the end of this paragraph. I know it is popular to call out everything as AI right now but this article is suspicous.
You know its weird, here people are downvoting me for agreeing its great. On another post I’m being downvoted for saying its okay. Y’all just don’t know and thats okay. If you know what you need and you are just unfamiliar with a library, ChatGPT can explain it fine if your prompt is concise.
If you have no idea what you are doing and know nothing about programming, its not going to help you. I am currently using it to assist with small tasks using Excel.Interop and it basically spat out a working program for me to tweak. Don’t really know what to tell you about that but I can post it to GitHub I guess.
Its fine with programming so long as you know to take it with a grain of salt and give it detailed prompts. Like for instance, if you don’t specify it usually defaults to Row 1 when dealing with ranges, thats fine, because I know what row I need.
I mean you have to verify it as much as any answer on Stack Overflow. Lets not act like dudes haven’t been ripping code from there and just flying with it.
Never ask it for advice period. It is always confident because that's the most believable way to present information on the internet. It is usually wrong because it is not actually intelligent.
There is a wierd amount of generative-learning articles on game/tech Lemmy. I keep seeing these articles from publications that I’ve never heard of and I get excited because “Oo new people in the space” then halfway through the article I feel duped.
I’m not “impatient”. I just think it’s dumb to have announced it so early. No one needs to know about development of such a far off project. It’s pointless.
if a scumbag billionaire wants to do it and feels like they can get away with it, they’re going to do it.
if a dozen or so executives at a corporation think they can get away with it, they’ll do it. That’s why there’s microtransactions in $80 games. I still remember hearing about the first $60 games with microtransactions in them and now these fuckers are trying to charge over $100 for an unfinished game where the only things that work in it are from microtransactions.
The wild thing is, people still buy them. “The gameplay is derivative and insipid, it was delivered buggy and unfinished, it’s barely different than the last one they published, and the business model is outright predatory.”
I will never understand. I for myself simply ignore games with micro transactions at this point with the only exception of games that have exclusively cosmetic stuff as micro transactions. Fuck pay to win!
But I’m not going to buy any of the fallen order games for at least 2 years. the bugs will be worked out and the deluxe versions will be a much lower price by then
games
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.