BananaTrifleViolin
- 0 Posts
- 17 Comments
It’s how hyped it was and expectations set by Skyrim. Starfield was seen as the next step on from Skyrim in terms of game scale, and Bethesda hyped it up as their biggest and best game ever. It’s neither of those things.
Also frankly in terms of RPGs, it feels dated. Witcher 3 set a new bar for what an RPG should be, but Starfield doesn’t seem to have learnt those lessons. Baldurs Gate 3 has also set a high bar for RPGs this year, and Cyberpunk 2077 (for all its own flaws) also set a high bar for RPGs.
Starfield is an ok game but when it’s hyped as it going to be the greatest game ever from Bethesda and going to be biggest game of the year, I’m not surprised it’s being shat on when it turns out it’s not.
But hopefully Starfield will be an important bump on the road for Bethesda. Bigger is not necessarily better and hopefully that lesson will carry in to Elder Scrolls VI.
Yeah reptuational is part of the issue but there is also a big financial issue too. Delaying a game is financially difficult as it affects financial projects for each year with shareholders (who only care about share price growth). If you release a game in a poor state you get to hit some of the financial targets which benefits the publisher particularly, but for the developer it means longer terms sales are much lower as reviews and feedback come in that the game is crap. You then have to patch and repair the game.
Patching has allowed publishers and developers to get away with this releasing of games in bad states, but it doesn’t change that fundamental issue which disproportionately affects the developer. Dev studios often only have 1 game being worked on at a time. An unready early release which is poorly recieved can be an existential crisis. For publishers, a poorly recieved game is a disappointment but generally have other many other games also on release so they can move on and not care as much.
No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk are high profile exceptions. The gaming world is littered with abandoned flops, often due to not being ready for release.
Ironic for a company that published indie hits like Terraria and fresh mainstream games like A Tale of 2 Sons.
This does not reflect the whole gaming market but rather the failure of publishers to innovate well and make new things people like. Big publishers are risk averse and it’s a common path them as they get bigger, and care more about shareholder value or venture capital. They won’t take risks, and can’t accept failures so they retrench. It’s not a recipe for success as that end of the games market is already dominated by big publishers churning out annual versions of their mass market games.
A publisher like 505 r ally only has two possible futures on this road - go bankrupt as they can’t compete or get bought out by a big fish who want their IP.
It doesn’t say much abou the games market as it’s actually very large, vibrant and varied. A publisher like 505 is not on the vanguard of the games market and like most people I had to look them up to even see which games they had published. This is just yet another company being mismanaged into oblivion and well beyond its hey day.
I suspect the real problem is that Unity’s revenues and profitability don’t match whatever targets have been set by it’s investors. Unity Technologies lost $921m last year on revenues of $1.39bn. That’s not a great position to be in for a 19 year old company, and with supposedly 2bn people a month supposedly using a Unity powered game every month.
They’re either earning too little, spending too much or both. They’ve tried to increase income, controversially, and now they’re trying to cut costs. Question really is, can this company actually be profitable or is their business model just fundamentally flawed.
I think that’s true but South Parks humour has also changed over time. That’s the nature of satire - it lampoons human folly and vice, including the ideas of offence and moralising which are so often borne out of hippocracy.
You mention taboo topics like 9/11 as if it’s a no go area but actually that has been a rich source of comedy and satire due to the level of hippocracy displayed around it. The hippocracy of Uber patriotism, religious nationalism, racism (you mention people having to be careful about the target and culture of jokes, but many groups found the exact opposite after 9/11 - certain ethnic and religious groups were all tarred with the same brush, particularly in the US) and more. Even the idea of self censorship out of fear of causing offense. Some of this is being replayed right now with a contemporary conflict.
South Park is in a similar tradition to other satire such as Private Eye in the UK, or The Onion, or various other TV shows. South Park is just a sometimes more extreme version more willing to be deliberately offensive. But satire moves with the times like any other type of humour.
Also a bizarre comparison. Cities 2 is a simulation game - they are very CPU intense games. The graphics are nice but it’s likely it’s problems with balancing the CPU demand and the graphics that is the problem, rather than the graphics themselves. Simulation bottlenecks will drop the FPS drastically, regardless of the graphics engine.
From what I’e seen of the game on Twitch, I think the performance issues aren’t game breaking. It seems the game runs fine if you reduce settings; while it’s far from ideal it looks playable.
But it will be damaging for the game. Mods won’t launch until after the game is launched, and that may be delayed further by time taken fixing the game post launch. For a game that suceeded in a very large part due to user content that may really harm the game’s success.
The articles take is still out of kilter with a lot of opinions. He’s focused on the empty procedurally generated content but then talks about how “phenomenal” the main quest is?
The main quest is ok. I wouldn’t say it’s “phenomenal”. I’m not seeing the depth of gameplay and writing that I saw in Baldurs Gate 3 or Cyberpunk 2077 or The Witcher 3. Starfield is not a bad game, but it’s also not phenomenal. It’s ok. I’m more excited by the next CD Projekt Red or Larian game than I am about the next Bethesda game at this point.
Essentially the engine is more modern, the graphics are nicer, and the simulation seems to be better. It is also hopefully a better base for newer mods.
I love CS1 but the engine is 8 years old and PC gamers in particular have been hitting the engines limits in multiple ways for years. There were also some fundamental design decisions which limited the scope of what could be done with the game going forward - it is definitely time for a sequel.
To be fair though, CS1 is going nowhere and has a massive amount of content available for it (including the massive free community content). It will probably take a couple of years before CS2 surpasses it. Although for Console gamers it’ll probably quickly surpass what CS1 was and is able to offer.
I get where you’re coming from, but in fairness the model can work. Cities Skylines 1 DLCs did mostly add substantial content to the game which over time built it to what it is today. At launch CS1 was a good game, far better than the premium Sim City 2013. I have over 1000hrs in the game so for me I think it was good value; and a lot of people bought the game over the years on heavy discount with a lot of the DLCs bundled.
The downside with this model is when they release half baked games and withhold core game mechanics to engineer DLC. From what they’ve released of Skylines 2 that doesn’t seem to be the case - it seems to be a fully featured city builder with more at launch than CS1 had. Obviously it will depend what the game is actually like and launch and there are obvious hooks for DLC already.
I compare that to a game like Sim City 2013 - that released as a premium game, with a shitty reduced game scope, basic missing features and an always on-line DRM requirement, 1 crappy expansion and then completely abandoned by EA in a crappy state despite selling 2 million copies.
If I had to pick a model I’d pick Paradox’s.
I think they want to be vendor neutral to reap the benefits regardless of where people bought the game (i.e. not be limited to steam workshop)
I’m more bothered by the Mods being for Console and PC. I worry that PC modding is going to be held back by the inherent limitations of modding on and for consoles.
I think this is the real problem with the gaming industry. Development studios are treated as if they’re sources of IP when in fact it’s more about the people working for them.
A good dev team is the people who made the games. A team gets bought out by a big publishing giant and it seems they inevitably lose the people who made them great.
That’s not to say big publsiher owned studios can’t make great games but I’d argue the best games are coming from the indy studies whether that by one man bands like ConcernedApe or big independent studios like CD Projekt Red.
Also CD Projekt Red was highly motivated to fix Cyberpunk as it’s a smaller studio, and pretty much their entire future business needed it to be fixed and work. They need and want to make more Cyberpunk games. Microsoft has zero motivation to fix Redfall - it was a commercial failure in a big coroportation; they will just dump it and move on but also be more averse to trying to make new IP.
To be fair I think Polygon have misunderstood the email.
Calling it “second run Stadia PC RPG” implies Microsoft thought it was going to launch as a Stadia exclusive for it’s first run. This was back in 2020 when Stadia was still a thing, and trying to sign up exclusives.
That doesn’t mean Microsoft underestimated it, but that it thought it’d already have had a run on Stadia which would make it less likely to be an important title for Microsoft.
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.
No; it depends on the individual package whether it is open source of nor. Ubuntu uses a lot of Open Source software (including the Linux Kernal) and packages but is not entirely open source. It derives it’s own package base from Debian, and then adds it’s own flavour to things as well as commerical tools it pushes.
Linux Mint is an Ubuntu derivative; its sounds like the Indian Government would be doing the same thing. Basically like Mint, they would use Ubuntu and it’s packages as the basis of their system and rely on most of it to be updated & maintained by Ubuntiu’s teams upstream, but then build their own repositories that contain other software or their own perferred modified versions of things originally taken from Ubuntu. They can build a version of Linux that they control including what software is installed, and when it is updated.
They would not have to make their distribution freely available, but if they modified any open source packages they would have to make those available as open source packages (depending on the license of the open source software). However that can be very difficult to inforce, and if it’s done in a closed military system you’d never even know a modified version of the software exists if they chose not to share it.
Although Ubuntu contains a lot of “open source” software, it doesn’t mean the Indian Governments version would necessairly be open source. But the big benefit to India would be potential complete control of any part of the software chain, and no reliance on big tech companies like Microsoft for the OS and core software like Office. That saves a lot of money and is also potentially more secure (in a national security sense), depending on how much people trust the US government not to interfere in american Tech companies. There has been talk of forcing backdoors into US software in the past which would make any big nation nervous about being reliant on their software.
I used to have a clam phone when I was a kid and I love the idea of a foldable phone now.
But I wouldn’t buy one any time soon - the idea of a hinged phone and screen just sounds far to vulnerable to wear and tear. As soon as you start adding moving parts you increase the risk of failure.
It’s a great concept but at the moment it’s a superfluous luxury and as they’re so expensive then the cost of a breakage is just too much to tolerate. As the technology and manufacturing improves and/or becomes cheaper I might get one. But at present I don’t want to risk buying a very expensive phone that could break in such a basic way as a hinged phone and folding screen could.
Yeah it’s a nonsense. Argentina and Turkey have atrocious economies, with inflation at crazy levels. Turkey’s is at 60% and Argentinas is at 143% currently, on a background of years of terrible economic decisions. Their local currencies are effectively trash so it makes absolute sense for Steam to move to dollars if they’re going to continue bothering trading in those countries.