I think what starfield is missing is full body animations that go along with conversations, seeing NPCs pick stuff up or pace around while talking and communicating through body language
They went downhill since Morrowind… it was their last game that managed to capture players on its own merits, with zero mods.
People forget that Bethesda used to be a sports and arcade game developer back in the day and that Elder Scrolls was very much uncharacteristic for them. They tried and made some interesting things for a while but once they hit mainstream they never went back to the interesting stuff. It also means I don’t think we’ll see an ES6 game worth talking about.
I actually started with Skyrim:SE, had a super silent heavy armor mage and loved it, then I made something and destroyed my save file;
[overexaggeration ahead]: A week later I was riding on a unicorn as Waluigi through a HelloKitty cave, throwing spells of NSWF towards everything. Fun times.
Morrowind was excellent, but I don’t think knocking oblivion out is totally fair. Especially when you add the expansions sans horse armor dlc. Martin Septum frowns upon you.
That was my reaction as well. I wonder if they’re just trying to reassure people since they announced today they’re discontinuing online services for Wii U and 3DS.
Its really not hard. They have the lion’s share of IPs but not a single person there can take a risk on a new mechanic or feature. Their problem is they want high ROI in an industry that is largely based on ephemeral measurements. You can’t predict the next hit, so you have to climb out on limbs and take risks to stand out.
You can predict the next hit if you understand that a good game requires good game play. Just like a good movie requires good writing. But they hired EA, the sequel factory.
You say that, but Space Station 13 never became mainstream. Mischief Maker was left to rot and never remade. Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles fucking removed the features we loved in the remake. Monster Rancher isn’t made anymore. Theres a host of IPs with great gameplay that are now lost to history. If it was so predictable companies would do it, because it makes money and companies solely exist to make money. But thats not the case. They churn out the same SaaS digital storefronts endlessly chasing the easy money. Nobody would have guessed Rainworld would have made the money it did, yet it triumphed. There is no formula for capturing the attention of apes with star-brains long enough to garner fame.
It’s times like this I wish we did things more like china. The one person who is actually responsible for this change is going to get a huge payout, but the same can’t be said for everyone else at the company whose lives are going to be completely thrown off from the incoming layoffs.
They have over 7,000 employees they need to lay people off anyway. The reason they’re not profitable is because they’ve massively overextended themselves. Why did they buy Wetter, utterly bizarre purchase choice.
If they had a sensible number of employees and didn’t buy random companies every 5 minutes they’d be profitable.
That process is typically part of the class action suit/settlement. It often comes with a binding agreement that by participating you are waiving your right to seek compensatory damages individually.
Ugh. I can’t believe we waited all this time just for them to lie about local play, add a premium cash store where one skin can cost over the price of the game, and LOOTBOXES in a premium game. What a disappointment.
I wish they’d make the drive an optional add-on that you could buy later if you decide that digital only isn’t for you, instead of using it as product segmentation. But that would be pro-consumer, so not gonna happen.
That’s problematic because you can resell disks. I suppose they could sign disks independently and then only allow one digital owner, but then you’d need a formal process every time you resell, or worse, disallow reselling, and the cost for producing disks would go away up (not to mention returns would be a headache).
Another benefit of having an external disk drive is that you can replace it if yours goes bad. I’m not sure what’s going to “end in tears,” it would work just like any other USB device, you plug it in and the console could load games from it.
But yeah, an all digital console makes no sense to me, unless it’s an interesting form factor like a handheld or an arcade cabinet. So the only console I have is a Switch, and everything else is on PC.
I was all for physical copies for years. And I get why people still would be because they have massive collections. But honestly now I’ve got the disc drive ps5 version and it hasn’t been used at all. Granted I only play like 3 or 4 games at a time for a long time, but every game I’ve bought has been digital.
Plus, your point of being able to replace the drive is huge (to me atleast) because every console I’ve had the drive went first; they were also super out of warranty. So I get why people want built in drives but it’s just one less port that’s going to breaks that also less and less people are going to want or need.
Lastly cause im like weighting a thesis or something haha but I bought a 4tb external hard drive that’s plugged in the back of the ps5 that holds everything I could want if the internet went dark. And I can throw that in the microwave incase of a solar storm so
Will that drive still work on the PS6? Will it work in 20 years? Can you buy more games after a Sony has shutdown the digital store? Can you sell your digital purchases if you don’t want them anymore?
Those are the kinds of problems physical media solves.
I buy digital media on my PC and physical media on my consoles, because PC games aren’t hardware specific whereas console games are.
I fear more and more games will become like BG3, digitally exclusive. I asked for it for my birthday and was told the game didn’t exist for PS5. I was confused, as I most certainly have been reading reviews, then I found out it’s only digital and thats why no one saw a copy.
Imo the anger is a bit misdirected. Making a toned down version of the game takes equal the amount of resources, if not more compared to other ports. Performance wise the switch always has been a toaster, even compared to the last gen of consoles. There probably are now phones with more graphical power, so ports to hardware that is so far behind is difficult.
I’ve ported games to switch and there is a lot of extra loops to go through to make it even remotely run at decent frame rates.
The publisher could have made the switch version cheaper, but they probably invested more resources into it than porting it between xbox and playstation, so i can kind of understand why they didn’t.
The argument “it looks worse so it should be cheaper” is kind of questionable, when the console they are buying it for just doesn’t allow for much better considering the art direction. If the switch was as powerful as the ps5 or current xbox, they would have made the game look as good as it is on all the other platforms.
A valid question is if this needed a switch port at all, and considering the backlash, the publishers are probably asking themselves the same question.
Aren’t most Switch games still $60, though? Just flipping through the US E-store, the only game I saw at $70 was Tears of the Kingdom, and this version of Mortal Kombat is not going to compare favorably to that.
But typically publishers are not making the price on release based on what platform you run it on. It looks worse, but that isn’t really the game’s fault. It has the same amount of cost attached to it as any other port of the game, if not more. On the other hand, from the consumer perspective, I can 100% understand why someone wouldn’t want to spend $70 on this.
In the end, will it be worth the money they put in to port this game to less-than last gen? I have no idea.
The argument “it looks worse so it should be cheaper” is kind of questionable, when the console they are buying it for just doesn’t allow for much better considering the art direction.
I disagree.
When you have to pay the same or more for something less then that's simply not justified for the consumer. If the console can't handle anything better and is that expensive to port over, then you should simply not port your game over to it. If that's a general Switch problem, then the Switch maybe shouldn't be a thing either. I thought that's how markets are supposed to work, no?
But it’s not something less, it’s something less, in your device. That’s the distinction.
If the console can’t handle anything better and is that expensive to port over, then you should simply not port your game over to it
If enough people want to play it on the switch, the investment is worth it.
I thought that’s how markets are supposed to work, no?
Well, if it were up to you maybe, but if there’s enough people that will buy it just to play it on the switch, then the markets are working as intended.
The Switch is also a whole generation older than the PS5 and latest X1 Series X (or whatever it’s really called). Important thing to factor in when understanding why the Switch port is so compromised. They aren’t scaling games down from more powerful consoles of the same generation anymore, they’re porting games from much more powerful consoles of the next generation.
I’m not a lawyer, but this seems illegal, they can’t retroactively change licenses, imagine Microsoft decides that starting January 1st you need to pay them 20¢ each time you open the file explorer or each time you boot windows. They can’t just decide to change their pricing strategy for an existing product that people have already agreed to. They could make it that starting from version X that would be the price, because people with games already released or in the works can keep the current terms with the downside of not being able to update the engine, or even have a page where people can contact them to tell what is their current project so that projects that started before this date are not affected. But the way it’s being done feels like it should be illegal.
Somebody’s already asked some lawyers and they’ve already said it is illegal. Now we’re just waiting for somebody to sue them, but it’ll probably take a while because getting all of that paperwork sorted will take some time.
GTA Online was the best part of V (the campaign is just meh, especially compared to IV and San Andreas) so as long as they don’t make it too grind-y (and actually give solo players something fun to do in free mode) then I’m sure it’ll turn out fine.
What do you like about online? Because honestly I have never been able to accomplish anything because some asshole frags me before I have time to pick a lock or look at my map real quick. It gets super boring. I wish they added mechanics where fragging other players became a more risky thing to do. Like your a police informant for a while and if someone kills you they automatically get four stars. Or I wish they focused more on stealing from other’s business. So you need to put more work into defense.
Idk, maybe those things exist once you get some money. But it’s nearly impossible to progress in the game as a noob without friends in the same server.
games
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.