Probably why Lethal Company, a game made by one person with little experience, is the 9th highest selling game on Steam.
I hope this happens more often and AAA studios realize they can also make small experimental games with small budgets and few staff. They don't need to spend 10 years doing nothing but work on their next monolithic title. Give some passionate staffers a chance with their unique idea and release smaller games along the way.
Give some passionate staffers a chance with their unique idea and release smaller games along the way.
Naah, I'd rather see those devs find a way to break away from the major studio and actually get rewarded for their work. I think I would hate to see a single-dev labor of love end up owned by a mega-publisher without having to compensate the dev properly (and I have zero faith in the mega-publishers doing so voluntarily).
So I partially agree with you, but there is something to be said about doing it under a financially secure company. The company could eat all the risk and let the devs make what they want without fear of failure meaning they don't eat. They could work full time on the project and if it doesn't work out then they can move onto the next thing. Sure, the company is going to take some of the profit, but the ideal model for this would be they use the profit to mitigate risks for the devs, not to just make themselves rich.
This isn't going to happen with any of the existing large game dev companies obviously, but if a smaller studio runs as a coop (or similar employee run business) and becomes successful I could see it happening.
All excellent points. My comment was definitely colored by imagining current mega studios and I'd hate to see them rake in millions after paying a dev a regular salary to single-handedly conceive and develop a game.
Some sort of indy d3v incubator or co-op would be great -- spread out the risk, but also the reward. I'm not opposed to a financial backer receiving a slice of the pie, just not the entire pie in exchange for a meager salary.
It is disingenuous to say that the lethal company dev (zeekers) has little experience. He already has like 5 games on steam and some of them got very popular.
And the only options for mobile games nowadays are gachas! Rip gaming
Truth. I have a decent amount of spare Google Rewards credit to spend on games but there are no good games to get. (any recommendations?)
Polytopia if you like strategy. You can buy tribes if you want to, but the basic 4 they give you have the "strongest" in the game, there's no p2w. I've ended up buying all the tribes and am well on my way to all the skins (they only have one extra skin for some of the tribes at the moment) but that's because I play it a ton and have for years, so it's just to support the dev.
Dev is active and makes improvements regularly, just released a long anticipated update that had some significant game play changes so it feels fresh, and the changes seem to make it more interesting / balanced so far.
There's also a very dedicated fan community on discord that sets up frequent tournaments or team games if you find you like it.
I can second Polytopia. It doesn't need an internet connection either.
Nope, not unless you're playing online against randoma or friends.
I actually considered going back to Polytopia and grabbing a tribe or two. Can you recommend any specific one if you were to choose only one?
Hmmm. I'd say if you want to try some very different gameplay, one of the "special" tribes. Cymanti or Polaris can be quite fun. Aquarion used to be fairly weak but they're a lot better following the update, elyrion was actually pretty weakened by the update but devs know this and are working on ways to make them a bit stronger.
If you just want good music, I like Yaddak and ai mo. Quetzali are fun as well. Lux is versatile but they're more expensive than any other tribe just as a joke about their in game culture lol so buy them late imo. Wouldn't recommend vengir till later also, swords are cool but can be hard to play since their econ takes time to develop.
I was in the same boat and stumbled on Dawncaster. It's the best mobile game I've ever played. I'd honestly play it on PC too, but it's strangely mobile only. You could compare it to Slay the Spire, but I have found Dawncaster much more satisfying and fun for me personally. Also very active devs who are opposed to micro-transactions.
Spaceflight simulator. Good stuff. Free for the basic stuff, you pay for extra components, planets and building space
Even some PC Games are Gachas now, disgusting.
I wouldn't say the only option
You can run Winlator and play indie games and older games (runs Fallout 3 and Oblivion)
The industry at large has gone to shit, but there are positives. Game dev tools are more accessible now than they've ever been. The indie market is thriving and has recently produced games that are some of the most creative and interesting I've ever seen
Share some gems? :)
Dredge, Lethal Company, and Against the Storm from last year. Less recently I'd say Vampire Survivors, Sifu, Yuppie Psycho, and Hollow Knight. There are many more I'm blanking on I'm sure
I don't play multiplayer games really, is Lethal Company fun alone? I saw it all over YouTube.
If you like story focused games:
Outer Wilds
Disco Elysium
Omori (TW very dark game, haven't finished it yet)
If you need a good gameplay with it:
Katana zero
Sanabi
Furi
Hollow knight
This meme is giving "I have only played Ubisoft/ea/actizard titles for the past 4 years" and I mean do whatever you want but it seems silly to complain about games you continue to buy no?
I loved Pokemon, but it hasn't really changed in like 20 years. I'll play some romhacks, maybe I'll "try out" a newer pokemon game, but I haven't bought one since like omega ruby/alpha sapphire. The point I'm making is if we stop buying repetitive garbage, we can bring the small devs up and let them determine the course of game design moving forward.
Or I mean you can just.... Keep playing assassin's creed: (insert vague cultural name here) I guess
This meme is giving "I have only played Ubisoft/ea/actizard titles for the past 4 years" and I mean do whatever you want but it seems silly to complain about games you continue to buy no?
Mate, the first line says it's talking about AAA games.
I mean there are good AAA games. From soft still puts out bangers, CD projekt red makes some good stuff (the cyberpunk launch was pretty rough though), larian is pretty good. Most AAA studios are dog shit, but you can still find a few diamonds in the rough.
the twist is that several of the points in the meme are about The Witcher 3 specifically. Between that and Cyberpunk I'm not ever trusting anyone about a CDPR game being good again.
Maybe I'm just a fanboy but I'm not seeing much in this list that applies to Witcher at all except maybe the crafting, and the tiddies, but to that point if you're going to dunk on a game for having good graphics then I don't understand you. Same for Cyberpunk. They were both genuinely pretty damn good games that I enjoyed a lot.
CDPR makes amazing graphics and nobody can take that away from them. However, neither game's story hooked me, the gameplay in both felt frustrating and clunky to me, I hated both Geralt and Silverhand (particularly the latter, his nagging was the last straw), I didn't care for any of the supporting cast, every cutscene felt twice as long as it needed to be, the physics in both are hilariously bad, and so on and so forth. And both of these have been shoved at me from all sides, hailed as the best game ever or whatever, and I couldn't stand playing them.
I can understand having different taste. What I don't understand is the weird need people have to whiteknight for popular games when people don't like them for reasons.
I actually agree about both games feeling clunky as fuck to play, and struggling to engage with the stories. I always thought I was insane because everyone tells me how good the Witcher is.
I actually had Cyberpunk in mind because my friend is currently obsessed and acts like the issue is that I failed at liking it and need to be fixed by having it crammed down my throat. I'm a brokeass with very few dollars to vote with but hard agree on "stop giving big studios money for making franchise shovelware", especially those three you mentioned and also bethesda.
If you played the 2.0 version and didn't like it, then fair. However, if you played the older version, it might be worth giving it another go. I had low expectations and was extremely pleasantly surprised, plus it looks amazing.
If I still have to put up with Johnny Silverhand then no sale, I had issues with the game beyond the bugs and emptiness of the world.
I can understand not liking Johnny that much, but I can't understand hating him to the point that you think the gaming industry has fallen. That's not really a make or break thing.
whoa whoa whoa, who in the fuck said "Johnny Silverhand means the game industry is over"? CDPR's trash writing and poor design decisions aren't killing any industry.
Might be wrong but you made it seem like Cyberpunk killed your faith in the games industry, so my bad if I'm wrong. Either way, don't really think Johnny counts as trash writing, but you do you.
yeah but as like a "last straw" kind of thing about even bothering with big budget games, but everyone in here seems to want to frame everything i say in the most extreme way possible for some reason
To be fair, you've been saying BG3 looks tedious to play despite it being genuinely one of the absolute best games to come out in the last decade just because it's turn-based, so not quite sure I think our tastes align.
... bro I'm allowed to think it looks tedious and awful, because that's how tastes work. I don't have to pretend to like something because it's popular or other people think it's "the best". I'm fine with turn-based games. What I don't like is extended cutscenes, generic fantasy settings, or TTRPG gameplay, particularly DnD. It's a kind of game I don't care for in the first place, based on a game that I find to be 100% pure tedium, in a type of setting that I am very weary of.
What baffles me the most is why its fans seem so keen on assuming the shallowest take possible and putting words in my mouth because I said their favorite game looks terrible to me. Grow up.
I said our tastes are different, not that you're wrong. You're surprised that people disagree with you making a blanket claim about one of the most beloved games in recent years, AAA or not, and that's your choice to have that opinion and it's not wrong.
I do think you're overreacting to what I'm saying.
you try getting dogpiled for 12 hours for saying how a game based on a game you don't like in the first place looks to you and see how cool your replies are
Hey that's fair, cyberpunk is a very "safe" game in the rpg genre.
Honestly you might just not be into RPGs at all, and that's totally fine. Don't let other people tell you what to play ya know?
There are good games out there, but the big studios are not making them. Except maybe from soft and larian (imho)
I'm fucking vocal about not liking RPGs, specifically fantasy games, and specifically DnD. Now observe everyone in this thread trying to cram BG3 down my throat, despite the fact that i went and watched a video for them and thought it looks fucking dreadful.
I think the issue that people are responding to is that you're comparing it to Diablo, which is fundamentally a different game. Diablo is a hack and slash game with rpg elements and a god awful loot system. Bg3 is pretty much just playing DND on a computer without a dungeon master. They're just two completely different games. You can't even hack or slash in bg3, it's turn based and tactical.
That said, if you don't like the aesthetic of fantasy games, then clearly none of this will matter to you.
Frankly, it seems like you mostly care about the aesthetics of a game (no shade, just saying) so I'm kind of curious what your favorite game is?
well that came later in the discussion after the cramming had begun and hey i was definitely wrong for that but it does look basically the same until you look close. telling me "go look up a video" was probably the worst way to explain what he meant so thanks for clearing up what that other person was trying to say. I hadn't looked into this game before but I already didn't think it sounded very interesting, and now I'm certain I don't want to play it.
I don't mind a fantasy aesthetic as a strict rule but the genre staples have been done to death, everything is stale dollar store middle-earth (with some le edge and gritte because GoT did well so gotta copy that) and I'm pretty over it. if it's got personality that's one thing but fantasy games almost never do anymore, it all sinks into that low-effort stock setting and medieval camp.
I'm not going to mention any particular game as my favorite because this is still basically reddit, and I am talkig to gamers, and my experience informs me that if I say what I like it will definitely be weaponized against me. But I do like platformers, driving games, turn-based strategy, spaceflight, and the odd RPG that manages to hit that rare sweet spot where it's not flavorless stock narrative but not incomprehensibly up its own ass either.
Yeah for sure, gamers get so fucking sweaty and cringey about people who like different shit. It's annoying. I'll take the heat and just say windwaker is my favorite Zelda game.
If you like platformers, I highly recommend spark the jester 3, it's like a good new sonic game. Also I guess Ghost runner is like a platformer/action game that's supposed to be good? Haven't played it yet but it looks cool.
Anyway I wish you luck in your search for good new games, and I hope you continue to be a chill ass viber
I mean, none of the items on your list I would contribute to BG3.
But since nobody knows you hate BG3 and it is a well received RPG that recently released, of course people are going to mention it.
It is fine if you don't like it. But please don't claim it is worthless when it just isn't your type of game.
How can I hate a game I haven't played? All I've said it that it looks like a chore and I can't see myself playing it. I'm sorry you're butthurt someone else isn't impressed but don't go putting words in my mouth.
So you don't have an informed opinion, but are fast to judge a book by its cover.
Do you just hate it because it is popular and are envious of others people fun and want to shit on it to make yourself feel better?
Why do you feel the need to whiteknight for a game when someone takes a good look and concludes it's not for them and they wouldn't enjoy it? Don't you have better things to do than try to strawman and shame someone on the internet into complying with your opinion about a video game?
Can you recommend some good open world indie games?
Sure!
Valheim is fantastic, Kenshi is brutal and unforgiving but very fun, outward is similarly difficult and fun, also very unique.
Open world is kind of a huge genre, so I'd even say games like Subnautica, terraria, etc might be up your alley.
Edit: I can't believe I left out no man's sky and hyper light drifter! Highly recommend them both, no man's sky is such a good space life sim and hyper light drifter is kind of like a throwback to the first Zelda game, but obviously updated and with some different intentions to the gameplay/story. Happy gaming!
Love me some outward. I still want to play that game. Magic system is super weird in particular. Can never talk friends into it though, it's the static map that scares them I think
One man's repetitive garbage is another man's wealth of treasure (or a mix of gold and junk).
One of the best things about Pokémon imo is the music. Most generations, they hit it out of the park, even if the gameplay is similar. Sometimes people are so used to the formula that it's hard to have it change. (This is reminding me I need to continue Legends Arceus.) For the record, I was so disappointed by Pokémon Sun due to it being closer to a movie than a game that I ditched the franchise until Legends Arceus and S/V.
However, I think we need to be doing better to recommend alternatives to Pokémon If so many people are dissatisfied with the direction of the franchise. Whenever I search Pokémon alternatives, I get listicles of Pokémon games or maybe romhacks. What about other RPGs somewhat similar to Pokémon but different? The only close thing I've actually played was Fossil Fighters Frontier, and that was because a friend already was playing games in that series.
It's pretty sad that I can't tell if this list was made yesterday or four years ago. If people are able to have fun despite a stagnant industry, all power to them, but I haven't seen a good game out of AAA in a long while.
I really hope one day business schools will start teaching people that trying to blindly follow trends in art has literally never worked. Hasn't worked for all the film studios trying to make their own cinematic universes, hasn't worked for game studios trying to chase the new live service dragon, but still we get braindead suits getting senior level positions approving derivative drivel.
Alright, new theory:
You guys don't play too many games, right?
For the record, the best selling games of this year had fewer live service games than last year and the year before. The top of the charts was consistently single player games without microtransactions and this is one of the main GOTY candidates of 2023 following trends from "business schools" straight into... eh... a climactic absurdist musical number.
I'd tag that as spoilers if I could because, as I said, it's increasingly clear you guys haven't been playing this stuff.
You're right, the best selling games have been single-player focused. So why has Ubisoft, EA, Square Enix, ActivisionBlizzard, Warner Bros, and Sony Interactive been pushing to jump on the recent extraction shooter trend? Hell, find me a triple A publisher that does not have a live-service game being maintained, I'll wait.
If you're argument is that AAA is not wasting millions of dollars on chasing trends, you'll have to find more evidence than all their projects being failures.
Larian
That just proves other strategies have success. AAA bullshit and good games can both be successful.
Uhhh… k? BG3 is not a AAA game?
It's AAA in a sense, but it isn't bullshit. In fact, indie games can be bullshit in the form of asset flips, knock offs, and uninspired crap. Budget doesn't directly determine bullshit, it's just that AAA bullshit is a more noticeable issue.
Regardless, great media makes money alongside trash media. That's how it's always been, we just don't remember the trash as much.
Because they're not all failures, they're also making single player games and you're assuming that the one example of publishers wanting to tick a box in their lineup is somehow all they (let alone the entire industry) are producing.
The fact that people are making extraction shooters doesn't mean they're not making anything else. Warner's biggest game this year is a narrative RPG. EA's biggest game is (as always) a sports game, and their highest reviewed games are a Star Wars single player action game and a single player horror game. Sony's biggest game is an open world superhero action game. I don't know about Ubi's sales off the top of my head, but what they've shipped recently is a 2D metroidvania and a throwback to classic Assassin's Creed.
I don't understand why you want publishers to be judged by what they don't make, as opposed to what they make. Major publishers are billion dollar companies that put out many games. I have zero problems with EA running Apex Legends if I get to play Dead Space. I have zero problems with Sony trying to get a live service game going if they keep making insanely refined narrative action games. I don't enjoy every game people make, but I don't hate that people make games that are not for me if there are also games for me happening at the same time.
Baldur's gate 3 wasn't the top earning video game this year, just the top selling one. The business school cronies only care about the profit, not the quality.
Different metrics, though.
I do have to disagree that this chart proves what you say it proves, though. Arguing that Rockstar in particular does not care about quality is... a sizzling hot take.
Look, there are plenty of grifters in gaming, particularly those coming from the tech side of things (not "business school" so much, honestly). And yeah, there's a lot of money to be made and the majors are going to want a piece of that pie. Which is fine, because I want them to have money to also go after the big flashy triple-A single player stuff.
But it's obviously not true that all you get from the games industry is cookie cutter GaaS stuff. It's less true by the minute. Which is not to say I want online games to go away, either. I will actively play some of the games on that list. On purpose. I don't want them to be the only thing there is to play... but fortunately they're not, so... cool?
I just had someone telling me if I can't tell the new street fighter installment from the old one then i must not have eyes. It looks practically identical to the previous three installments. I think I'm done trying to interact with gamers for literally anything.
You have to take a very cursory glance to not find differences between Street Fighter 5 and 6. The gameplay systems are very different, 6 has an actually good single player mode, the net code is vastly improved. If you're just looking at the graphics, you're doing the same thing this post is criticizing but for the opposite goal. Street Fighter 6 is one of the AAA home runs, especially when you consider the disasterous launch of SF5.
it's a niche game that i know little about, have no interest in, and definitely am not going to shell out money for; he's bitter that I don't care and I'm not impressed that a franchise older than I am shat out another entry.
Do you even like video games? Judging by your comments in this thread, they make you angry and bitter, so I don't know why you bother to post about them.
I don't play a niche game franchise enough to see the difference between last year's iteration and this one, therefore I must not like games at all. It's FIFA with anime characters to me, doesn't mean I don't like other things.
"A niche game franchise" lmao Street Fighter is one of the most popular and well known game series in the world. I won't say it's the best fighting game franchise, but it is very much a household name just as much as Mario or Pokémon are.
...it's a niche genre bro. That's not the same as being obscure.
Street Fighter 1 was from 1987. Street Fighter 5 is from 2016. This is hardly a yearly franchise. Each release is a cornerstone of the fighting game genre. If you don't like them or are uninterested, that's obviously fine. But you're using your ignorance to justify hating Street Fighter. That just doesn't make sense and makes you come across as bitter. I would urge you to play the games you like, and ignore the games you don't like. You'll be generally happier.
of course it isn't annual, who said that? I never said I hated it either, I'm just not interested. it's like nobody in here understands things like hyperbole, or figures of speech, or not caring about a niche genre. weirdos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Street_Fighter_video_games also i went and checked just to see because i was curious, and it has seen near-annual releases since 1990. So like when I said anime fifa i meant like more my attitude towards it, but apparenty it's also (nearly) true the way you took it.
It's not great! 2023 games that I have really enjoyed this past year have been Tears of the Kingdom, Cassette Beasts, and Hi-Fi Rush.
Oh, man, I had forgotten those were this year.
My list also includes:
Pikmin 4
Baldur's Gate 3
Spider-Man 2
Street Fighter 6
Mortal Kombat 1
Dead Space and RE4 remake
The Talos Principle 2
And I didn't even get around to Alan Wake 2, which everybody's been raving about. Or that Dave the Builder thing. Or Lies of P. Or Jedi Survivor. And I guess I'm not counting the new Prince of Persia because that's this year, technically. And I'm not into 2D Mario games, so I'm guessing skipping Super Mario Wonder makes me a bit of an outlier.
Look, I know it feels good to be jaded and edgy and cynical, but... yeah, no, it was an all-time great year for games in 2023. And a terrible year for the games industry. But the games? So good.
... your list is basically all "20+ year old franchise/licensed property". bruh if there's that little that's fresh or origninal then I' argue that's a terrible year for games.
Talos Principle 2 does demand my attention though, the first one was stellar and still looks gorgeous.
That is a very weird take.
So let me get this straight, Street Fighter 6 is a "20 year old franchise" so not fresh and original (it is maybe the biggest redefinition of the series since SF3, but hey). Somehow The Talos Principle 2, a direct sequel to a 10 year old game... not that.
But also, Dave the Builder, Sea of Stars, Hi-Fi Rush, Life of P, Lethal Company, Terra Nil, Humanity, Against the Storm... even going by new IP alone it's been a great year. Not that I accept your premise, sequels and licensed games can obviously be, and indeed have been, fantastic and innovative.
I am very confused and you are either being disingenuous or so comitted to arbitrary requirements that any year is an equally good year.
"the nth iteration of sold-out BRAND that's older than most people reading this that belongs to a genre so niche only its dedicated fanbase can tell what the hell is even different from the last entry is at least as fresh and original as the sole sequel to a one-off game that was actually made in this century" and "looking forward to an original game you liked getting a single sequel makes you a hypocrite for not also thinking the 2893598th BRAND niche game most people can't tell from its predecessor is equally exciting" strike me as outright bizarre things to say and it's weird and sad that when you reach for "fresh and original" the thing you come up with is [moldy franchise] [#].
Too bad pretty much everyone, including Larian, Owlcat, all of these "we're doing it for the game and for the fans" adherents have also fallen for the "Rush to Market, Fix It Later" mentality. Been deep-diving Rogue Trader for the past weeks and playing through rough Beta content really isn't fun when the game is considered launched and complete. Same for Baldur's Gate 3, I binged it at launch and had to stop in Act III because most of my quests were soft-locked, or displayed incorrect information in the Journal.
You could have figured that out in the century it spent in Early Access, I suppose.
Honestly, yeah, I do think devs need to reassess what is a showstopping bug and what isn't. Not much question on that. But also, I have seen worse. I even played a ton of Cities Skylines 2 at launch. Which paid off weirdly, because once they fixed the balance (or at least improved it) my starter city is now an insane utopia.
In any case, my backlog is enormous, I can wait for games to be actually finished before I play them. In BG3's case, I think there was the one quest that didn't pop once, but I spent a hundred hours on it just fine... and then had to go live my real life, so I still have to do the last act at some point. I'll get to it.
None of that changes that this year had banger after banger, from studios large, medium and small. You can complain about many things relating to the business, but man, the skill, creativity and artistry from game developers of all stripes is nuts.
Again, too bad completion doesn't show up on that list. The games eventually being good is no excuse for shoving half-finished software out the door at full price, no matter how you cut it.
True, but that cuts both ways. Games being shipped before they are finished doesn't mean they're not good games when they're finished. Sometimes even before they're finished, because being technically sound and being a good game are different things.
The industry needs to redefine what a showstopper issue is and what ship-ready means... but the games are still good.
No, the industry needs to stop selling half-baked goods because they know they can get away with it. Having to patch a game for months, non-stop, after launch day, after it's been, as you've said, a century in Early Access, is not a misunderstanding of bug severity, it's focusing on profit more than on the product. Not taking away the games' 'goodness,' but just as an underbaked cake, you still have to swallow a lotta raw eggs with that goodness.
Wow, that took a turn, there's some tonal whiplash in going from complaining about lack of creativity in gaming to calling games "goods".
It has a lot to do with misjudging bug severity (and on PC with compatibility testing, which is its own thing). All games are under pressure to ship late in development, all studios are under pressure to clean that backlog in any way possible and all games ship with known bugs. That's all fine. The question is which bugs are a dealbreaker. The console first parties used to be more stringent about stuff, patches used to be harder to distribute and the whole thing culturally just looks at crashes as the original sin that must always be stopped but will often put a lot of pressure to fix everything else later and ship nominally on time.
It's a bad call and it needs adjustments. I'm glad that peoplpe are angry and not super understanding about it. That will help.
While I understand your point, I still tend to disagree. I've had ten years of experience working in QA, both on games and on misc. software, and the amount of bugs with which games are shipped as of late shifts the discussion from severity and prioritisation to volume - it isn't a question of what should have been fixed first when basically everything is busted. As such, it becomes a business problem entirely.
Another aspect which underlines this is the fact that, taking Baldur's Gate 3 as an example since we started with it, it's usually the latter half which is most affected. These trends taken together indicate a front-loading with QA in order to sell, then (hopefully) stealth-fixing the latter half before people get to it. Which doesn't work, because you get maniacs like me who spend 200 hours in-game during the first two weeks after launch. Same goes for Rogue Trader, for example. Game's all there, technically, first two Chapters are pretty much sterling, but how is one supposed to appreciate the creativity behind it considering half of the game may be inaccessible due to bugs (talking about soft-locking quests, busted progression triggers, busted scripting, and even more mechanical aspects which require trial-and-error with repeated reloads in the hopes that you stumble upon the right combination of actions which bypasses the bug).
In my perspective, creativity, while it is to be appreciated, becomes sort of moot in this case - it'd be like ignoring the fact that half of the painting is drafted on napkins with a big TODO stapled to it, or being sold a partly assembled phone with the promise that they'll send you the rest of the components later on down the line.
I agree that when the game doesn't work it doesn't matter how creative it is, what I'm saying is that when it's fixed and it does work that doesn't make it indefinitely worse.
The late-game thing you're talking about is a good example of why I think prioritization habits are a bit busted. I do think it makes sense to say that hey, this part of the game is only going to get seen by a small portion of players, so it's a lower priority than the parts that are going to get seen by everybody...
...but if a bug is a major showstopper that prevents any amount of players from going through the game, then it's a major showstopper, you can't just push it to a patch and call the game shippable.
I'd even make a big distinction about minor bugs... and minor bugs that do something peristent. You'd be struggling to convince the average producer to do a late fix for a minor visual glitch, but if the inor visual glitch stays there forever it makes the whole thing look unacceptably broken (which is where some of those BG3 glitched quests would fall for me, btw).
We're getting into the weeds now. The point is that yes, revenue and money are a factor, but I think the current issues with reliability and technical polish in games are coming from more places than that. There's a culture of prioritization that is looking at things that will block shipping externally or that are software-end dealbreakers where the whole game crashes. This has to do with both applying only software development logic to game creation and from having historically relied on first parties to draw the line of shippable quality and a period there in the early 2000s where people were getting very mad at eternal delays and vaporware. That culture needs to change and producers and QA need to start being rated on how clean the game ships, not just on whether it ships on time. Again, the weeds... but it's relevant that it's not as simple as "greedy publishers".
Oh, also to be clear, when I say "prioritization" that also means what gets shipped versus not fixed. That's also a prioritization choice, not just which bugs get fixed first or later. Especially if the dev cycle doesn't end at ship and instead ends five patches and several years down the line.
After Cyberpunk I decided to be done paying $50+ to take up a quarter of my disk with a highly-acclaimed game that turns out to be the same old cookie-cutter 3D game with an expensive makeover. Anymore I mostly just play small indie games that friends recommend, and generally have a way better experience for it.
After this supposed stellar update dropped that overhauled the game or when the game initially came out?
This was back when it was new - my thoughts the entire 30 hours I was playing were things like:
"Johnny Silverhand is more annoying than Jar Jar and I will do anything to not hear his stupid fucking voice anymore"
"this 'hacking' is one of the worst minigames I've ever seen"
"the setting is ripped straight from PK Dick and doesn't feel like it really lends anything to the story besides 'high tech stuff that looks flashy on screen'"
"oh the background i spend ten minutes consiering before choosing does fuckall about shit except slightly reword a few dialogs"
"my god, every single character is insufferable"
"oh wow, my inventory is full again already, and not a single thing in it is worth fuck for shit"
"these physics are just as shitty as that Witcher 3 game I wasted money on last year"
"this button feels really awkward to press when i need it but i don't feel like editing the config by hand again"
"holy shit when will this cutscene be over? There we g- DAMN IT THERE'S MORE? STFU ALREADY"
It was buggy but the bugs were the least of my worries. I came away feeling like I was promised Mexican food and then was given a cold soggy leftover Taco Bell burrito, and frankly after having basically the same experience with the super-awesome totally-finished fully-patched all-dlc-included GotY version of The Witcher 3 I really don't trust CDPR to fix shit.
Thanks for the write-up, sums up my experience with both games
I couldn't get behind Tears of the Kingdom. Idk what it was, just didn't draw me in. Couldn't keep at it. Put in 10hrs and haven't picked it up in....3 months?
Part of it for me was that the people you meet in the first game don't reference the first game. Like pyrah for example has a massive crush on link in BotW yet in TotK she acts distantly to him. Also I felt it was repetitive, especially when I've already done similar if not the same things in BotW like korok seeds.
It did really feel super samey. I think if I hadn't played BotW I would have seen TotK through to the end, but sadly I did.
The steam reviews for cassette beasts drove me away from it, what did you like about it? Also what's your in game time, if you don't mind me asking?
It's just Pokémon but if the series grew up with the fanbase instead of stagnating on the age group it did.
It's a really good "monster collector" game with solid gameplay and a mature story.
I played ~30hrs and there is still a lot to go.
That being said, it's not AAA by any means.
I'm curious considering it's currently at 96% positive, what about the reviews drove you away? For me, the game captured the feeling of playing Pokemon for the first time (Heart Gold) again. It was similar enough on a basic level to draw me in, but all the fundamentals and mechanics are totally different and bring a wave of fresh air to the stale Pokemon formula.
If you've played Pokemon on the DS and didn't like it, this game probably won't be your kind of thing. If you did though, Cassette Beasts has a lot going for it. It has creative monster designs, a cast of unique side characters with their own story quests, a very memorable soundtrack (including my most played song of 2023), a not-overwhelmingly-massive open world with plenty to do, and just a smidge of analog horror.
If this is turning into an indie/AA game recommendation thread, I highly recommend RAILGRADE. I bought it Sunday night and put in 13 hours between that and the next day and I'm only like 1/4 of the way through the campaign.
It's basically like Satisfactory meets Mini Metro and it's so goddamn addicting.
I have Railgrade on my wishlist and I have been back and forth about it. I'm a big fan of Satisfactory though.
Some of these aren't universally bad. Not every protagonist needs an arc. Not every crafting system has to be complex or function differently than a store. Not every game needs a compelling political statement. These things could actually detract from the experience if poorly implemented.
Hype trains are always bogus and can be mostly avoided by never pre-ordering and waiting for reviews before purchasing. I was excited as hell for Doom Eternal, but I waited until a week after launch before buying it. Patience is the way to go for big budget entertainment. I don't seek out blockbusters until I see the reception, and I don't buy AAA single player games until I know what I'm getting.
Small budget stuff and things you want more of should be supported, but chasing hype just isn't wise. Don't expect the world from something that doesn't exist yet.
TBH I had a pretty good time since the CRPG-resurgence.
I'm glad you're finding content to your taste, but I kind of have the opposite problem: I find RPGs exhaustingly tedious and convoluted, and every genre is infected with its worst parts - grinding and levels and crafting and loot and fetchquests and equipment - because it's the "in" thing to do. everything feels so damn confused about what kind of game it's trying to be and ends up doing nothing well.
Boulders Gare 3 doesn't really even have a concept of grinding. There are no procedurally generated encounters and each battle can only happen once.
You could say doing all the side quests and exploring the side areas is a type of grinding but it's really just "content" IMO.
i'm glad you like it, DnD makes me actively disinterested anymore though.
What part of D&D do you not like? Depending on the specific issue, you could have fun with Pathfinder: Kingmaker or Divinity: Original Sin.
the part where you sit down at the table and it takes all night but it's 90% keeping yourself occupied while waiting around and nothing of consequence ever happens and everyone loses interest after four sessions max, and this is so predictable and dependable that in 20 years of never saying no to a TTRPG I've never leveled up a character
the part where the underlying rules systems are deeply flawed in every edition, down to the d20 being an awful choice for the skill die due to how swingy it is, to the point that you may as well make your own better game from scratch for how much you have to homebrew to make it not clunky as hell
the part where every group has been toxic as hell and defended their bigots to the person until I decided it wasn't acceptable and quit playing
the part where I would spend a month filling a binder with campaign plans and the average player does everything in their power to intentionally avoid everything I've prepared because it's funny to waste the fuck out of my time or something.
not to mention the setting is the genre equivalent of plain yogurt, it's just straight up uncompelling and done to death.
i used to LOVE the idea of TTRPGs but in two decades of "giving it a chance" it's literally never been a good experience.
The computer takes care of all the tedium, speeds the game up like 50 times compared to tabletop, and the genre is decidedly singleplayer so you never risk encountering toxic players.
Either way, there's lots of CRPGs that aren't based on anything tabletop, like Divinity: Original Sin.
Sounds like you've just had shitty friends / gaming groups.
over a dozen different groups in three cities over the course of 20 years. i don't think the issue is luck, i think it's the culture around the game.
I'd agree with your first point re: D&D ®️ esp re 5th Edition. My wife took a long time to get in to ttrpgs, something that I've enjoyed for over 30 years bc I kept trying to do the D&D®️ thing. I'd recommend you try other games that actually "play" at the table. Dungeon World is great and almost anything in the PbtA family does such a great job of driving the action forward (5e doesn't), having actual stakes and danger (5e doesn't), actually meaningful character choices (5e doesn't), not a beat-the-designer/video-gamist philosophy (5e DOES have this), and not ran by a shitty corporation that hires mercenary thugs to intimidate people, since literally anyone can make a PbtA game about anything.
Agree 💯 on the d20. I think it works in some games, notable Mörk Borg and like b/x D&D - games where if you are rolling dice, you already have fucked up
I can't speak to the groups you played with , but have you tried getting people that aren't in to the hobby in to it? I run games for new players often and they never have the baggage I think you're speaking about
Re the preparation you do, be sure to always prep situations not plots. There should be a law that states "the more prep the DM puts into a game is directly proportional to how quickly the players will force their prep off the rails". The game is a conversation, and I think D&D®️ 5e has fucked this up bc of how they format their adventures WITHOUT EVER TELLING YOU HOW TO ACTUALLY RUN A GAME! Plus, Christ they are fucking textbooks written by committee! I would say a couple things, first: look at Dungeon World as a guideline for how to format your adventures, and second: don't plan huge arcs, just plan individual moments that you want to happen. The characters will get there, even if it is a roundabout way. The Lazy DM by Sly Flourish has a lot of help here that can work for any game, and there's this blog post that talks about the literal easiest foolproof prep method.
Your last point doesn't make sense... Check out itch.io and their physical games category. There are RPGs for literally any genre or setting you can think of. TinyD6 and FAE are two really good generic games that if you can't find your setting, you just slap these bad boys in there and you have an RPG
It really is a fun and exciting hobby and I'm sorry you've had a bad time previously.
A lot of the worst experiences I've were trying to run games to get friends into it, doubly so because I have so little practical experience running a game beyond reading books and copying from them thinking I'm about to have fun, and none actually playing beyond what I described.
I've explored alternate systems such as GURPS and tried brewing a few of my own. I can criticize the rules all day but at the end it was always much the same experience trying to run those against a group that intentionally spites any prep (usually geared more toward worldbuilding and important NPCs than any specific story arc, I realize you can't force that stuff) I tried to do. Anything that I had a sheet of paper for, they would turn and walk away every single time.
As for setting... fam there's not a lot I can do when everyone i know who plays only ever wants to play vanilla DnD or their take on MtG flavored DnD, and they're not going to change what they're doing just because I'm sick to death of generic corporate fantasy worlds and waiting around for 9/10 of the time we're at the table.
after watching a BG3 gameplay video, I'd rather grind. it looks horrible to play.
I think you are depressed :/
thanks doctor i'll take that into consideration
I mean to each their own but all I've seen in this post from you is just negativity with very little knowledge. You shit on games while knowing very little about them, which is kind of sad
sorry anything short of abject praise registers as shit talk to you, up to and including subjective reactions to seeing gameplay. the game does not look to my taste and i think i would have a bad time with it. If I'm coming across negative it's because people have been trying to shove this game up my ass for 12 hours and throw fits when I say how it looks to me. not everything is for everyone and I wish we could be adults about it and let people speak their fucking minds here.
it's a niche game that i know little about, have no interest in, and definitely am not going to shell out money for; he's bitter that I don't care and I'm not impressed that a franchise older than I am shat out another entry.
This you? This was what I was referring to when I was saying you were being negative. You knew basically nothing about the franchise and yet automatically assume it's shit. For the record, neither do I, but I don't make judgements based off of zero evidence
Nowhere in that post did I say it was shit. In fact nowhere anywhere have I ever said anything about the actual quality of that game, I described the company "shitting out" another one because they do so every year and it's not a notable event in my book. Christ bro, Capcom will be fine without you rushing to their defense over someone on the internet being disinterested I promise. my god you are a thin skinned weepy bunch in here
Dude with how much vitriol you're responding to people with it's pretty clear you're the thin-skinned one.
And street fighter 5 came out 8 years ago, so I'm not really sure what you mean by shitting one out every year
That's fair actually. I was looking at a release timeline of their main entries, not including remasters or the various re-releases.
Have you tried playing CRPGs instead of RPGs? They tend to be a lot less heavy on grind and crafting, and the combat systems are usually much more fun IMO (though I totally understand if you're not into that style of combat).
Diablo 2, skyrim, oblivion, the witcher 3... all felt like having a crappy boring job where i have to interact with people i don't like all day and nothing really feels worth doing but i gotta pick something and do it anyway. it also doesn't help that 90% of the genre is indistinguishable tolkien knockoff worlds either making no effort or trying way too hard to stand out as unique and I'm beyond sick of that crap.
Those aren't CRPGs. I'm talking the likes of Baldur's Gate, Divinity: Original Sin or Shadowrun. Completely different gameplay.
I looked up CRPG because to me it mean "computer role playing game" but apparently now it refers to top-down point-and-click games under the heading "classic role playing game", like that's any more descriptive or clearly defined. Because this disjointed, confused genre needed more vaguery in the names of its subgenres.
Anyway most of these examples look like Diablo 2 so I'm going to assume that's the type of game you mean - and I think it's the same crap from a different camera angle. I don't think I could say it's "completely different gameplay" to something like Skyrim without feeling like a liar because the loop is bang on the same.
This stuff is pretty much the opposite of Diablo. Honestly insulting that you assume that I wouldn't recognize that.
I'm sorry the terminology is so vague and inconsistent, and I'm so disengaged from "gaming" culture and behind on genre labels that I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean the genre formerly known as "point-and-click adventures", like Disco Elysium?
No, I'm not talking about adventures. Just look up some gameplay videos for Baldur's Gate 3.
bruh this looks identical to diablo. no really this is my first time seeing the game and i thought i must have typed diablo into the search by mistake. What makes it a different genre?
Did you actually look at the gameplay or did you stop after the first still image showed that Diablo and BG3 both have a top-down perspective and general medieval fantasy theme?
I'm watching a video. I dont think you've ever played diablo actually i take it back, this looks way more tedious and chorelike than diablo.
Other than the perspective and some of the more general RPG features like leveling and loot, they have very little in common. BG3 is the perfect, but unfortunately rare, example of a mainstream game that deliberately doesn't follow the more toxic trends of the industry
if I had this on one screen and diablo on the other and i had to tell you which was which or i'd die, im gonna fucking die.
watching more, ok i see the difference now and wow this looks so damn tedious to play. I didn't think they could make DnD any less appealing but they somehow pulled it off.
That's worse than saying Call of Duty and Counter Strike are identical. You shoot guns and play against other people in both, but they're significantly different experiences. You can play deliberately in COD or run and gun in CS, but that isn't what each game rewards. The focus of each game is drastically different. CS doesn't have killstreaks like in COD, and Diablo doesn't have comprehensive roleplaying like in BG3.
i already said i take it back, this looks way more tedious and chorelike than diablo, I'm getting that mixture of bored and frustrated just watching it
The top-down isometric RPG experience is what it always meant, because it's a computer replication of the original tabletop RPG experience. TTRPGs were just called RPGs, and adapting them to game format added the c, therefore becoming cRPGs.
Lies, not in the 2020s where tittes are illegal :P
ITT gamers melt down and act like rowdy children when other people have opinions about games
edit: guys guys guys Larian studios will be fine, you don't need to defend them or shame me into compliance because BG3 doesn't look enjoyable to me. Jesus christ you'd think I was trying to take the game away from everyone.
edit2: guys capcom isn't going to sleep with you because you bravely defended the literally 40th Street Fighter title against some rando's disinterest and failure to hail it as a great moment in gaming or something. sheesh.
I've never been into big A games. I'll pay them if they're highly reviewed and end up on sale, but I guess sim games are my thing. NFS underground me would never believe the driving sims I do with a sim rig and vr headset.
Simple solution, do not play triple AAA games. Find newer studios, indie devs, or smaller publishers who have yet to have private equity sink their teeth in to them.
no you must be shamed into compliance with my opinion that Age Old Franchise 5 (the fifty-fourth Age Old Franchise game) was decent and acceptable therefore AAA is good.
Be glad the points aren't:
-ads
-microtransactions
people who complain about ads and microtransactions in games are confusing to me. just don't buy it -> no ads no microtransactions ezpz. people really be throwing money around every year out of FOMO and complaining about the thing they knew they were buying afterward.
If that makes it a 10/10 game for them thats cool. I'd check a screenshot if those animated boobs overwhelmed all the rest of the negative review.
Probably why Lethal Company, a game made by one person with little experience, is the 9th highest selling game on Steam.
I hope this happens more often and AAA studios realize they can also make small experimental games with small budgets and few staff. They don't need to spend 10 years doing nothing but work on their next monolithic title. Give some passionate staffers a chance with their unique idea and release smaller games along the way.
Naah, I'd rather see those devs find a way to break away from the major studio and actually get rewarded for their work. I think I would hate to see a single-dev labor of love end up owned by a mega-publisher without having to compensate the dev properly (and I have zero faith in the mega-publishers doing so voluntarily).
So I partially agree with you, but there is something to be said about doing it under a financially secure company. The company could eat all the risk and let the devs make what they want without fear of failure meaning they don't eat. They could work full time on the project and if it doesn't work out then they can move onto the next thing. Sure, the company is going to take some of the profit, but the ideal model for this would be they use the profit to mitigate risks for the devs, not to just make themselves rich.
This isn't going to happen with any of the existing large game dev companies obviously, but if a smaller studio runs as a coop (or similar employee run business) and becomes successful I could see it happening.
All excellent points. My comment was definitely colored by imagining current mega studios and I'd hate to see them rake in millions after paying a dev a regular salary to single-handedly conceive and develop a game.
Some sort of indy d3v incubator or co-op would be great -- spread out the risk, but also the reward. I'm not opposed to a financial backer receiving a slice of the pie, just not the entire pie in exchange for a meager salary.
It is disingenuous to say that the lethal company dev (zeekers) has little experience. He already has like 5 games on steam and some of them got very popular.
And the only options for mobile games nowadays are gachas! Rip gaming
Truth. I have a decent amount of spare Google Rewards credit to spend on games but there are no good games to get. (any recommendations?)
Polytopia if you like strategy. You can buy tribes if you want to, but the basic 4 they give you have the "strongest" in the game, there's no p2w. I've ended up buying all the tribes and am well on my way to all the skins (they only have one extra skin for some of the tribes at the moment) but that's because I play it a ton and have for years, so it's just to support the dev.
Dev is active and makes improvements regularly, just released a long anticipated update that had some significant game play changes so it feels fresh, and the changes seem to make it more interesting / balanced so far.
There's also a very dedicated fan community on discord that sets up frequent tournaments or team games if you find you like it.
I can second Polytopia. It doesn't need an internet connection either.
Nope, not unless you're playing online against randoma or friends.
I actually considered going back to Polytopia and grabbing a tribe or two. Can you recommend any specific one if you were to choose only one?
Hmmm. I'd say if you want to try some very different gameplay, one of the "special" tribes. Cymanti or Polaris can be quite fun. Aquarion used to be fairly weak but they're a lot better following the update, elyrion was actually pretty weakened by the update but devs know this and are working on ways to make them a bit stronger.
If you just want good music, I like Yaddak and ai mo. Quetzali are fun as well. Lux is versatile but they're more expensive than any other tribe just as a joke about their in game culture lol so buy them late imo. Wouldn't recommend vengir till later also, swords are cool but can be hard to play since their econ takes time to develop.
I was in the same boat and stumbled on Dawncaster. It's the best mobile game I've ever played. I'd honestly play it on PC too, but it's strangely mobile only. You could compare it to Slay the Spire, but I have found Dawncaster much more satisfying and fun for me personally. Also very active devs who are opposed to micro-transactions.
Spaceflight simulator. Good stuff. Free for the basic stuff, you pay for extra components, planets and building space
Even some PC Games are Gachas now, disgusting.
I wouldn't say the only option
You can run Winlator and play indie games and older games (runs Fallout 3 and Oblivion)
The industry at large has gone to shit, but there are positives. Game dev tools are more accessible now than they've ever been. The indie market is thriving and has recently produced games that are some of the most creative and interesting I've ever seen
Share some gems? :)
Dredge, Lethal Company, and Against the Storm from last year. Less recently I'd say Vampire Survivors, Sifu, Yuppie Psycho, and Hollow Knight. There are many more I'm blanking on I'm sure
I don't play multiplayer games really, is Lethal Company fun alone? I saw it all over YouTube.
If you like story focused games:
Outer Wilds
Disco Elysium
Omori (TW very dark game, haven't finished it yet)
If you need a good gameplay with it:
Katana zero
Sanabi
Furi
Hollow knight
This meme is giving "I have only played Ubisoft/ea/actizard titles for the past 4 years" and I mean do whatever you want but it seems silly to complain about games you continue to buy no?
I loved Pokemon, but it hasn't really changed in like 20 years. I'll play some romhacks, maybe I'll "try out" a newer pokemon game, but I haven't bought one since like omega ruby/alpha sapphire. The point I'm making is if we stop buying repetitive garbage, we can bring the small devs up and let them determine the course of game design moving forward.
Or I mean you can just.... Keep playing assassin's creed: (insert vague cultural name here) I guess
Mate, the first line says it's talking about AAA games.
I mean there are good AAA games. From soft still puts out bangers, CD projekt red makes some good stuff (the cyberpunk launch was pretty rough though), larian is pretty good. Most AAA studios are dog shit, but you can still find a few diamonds in the rough.
the twist is that several of the points in the meme are about The Witcher 3 specifically. Between that and Cyberpunk I'm not ever trusting anyone about a CDPR game being good again.
Maybe I'm just a fanboy but I'm not seeing much in this list that applies to Witcher at all except maybe the crafting, and the tiddies, but to that point if you're going to dunk on a game for having good graphics then I don't understand you. Same for Cyberpunk. They were both genuinely pretty damn good games that I enjoyed a lot.
CDPR makes amazing graphics and nobody can take that away from them. However, neither game's story hooked me, the gameplay in both felt frustrating and clunky to me, I hated both Geralt and Silverhand (particularly the latter, his nagging was the last straw), I didn't care for any of the supporting cast, every cutscene felt twice as long as it needed to be, the physics in both are hilariously bad, and so on and so forth. And both of these have been shoved at me from all sides, hailed as the best game ever or whatever, and I couldn't stand playing them.
I can understand having different taste. What I don't understand is the weird need people have to whiteknight for popular games when people don't like them for reasons.
I actually agree about both games feeling clunky as fuck to play, and struggling to engage with the stories. I always thought I was insane because everyone tells me how good the Witcher is.
I actually had Cyberpunk in mind because my friend is currently obsessed and acts like the issue is that I failed at liking it and need to be fixed by having it crammed down my throat. I'm a brokeass with very few dollars to vote with but hard agree on "stop giving big studios money for making franchise shovelware", especially those three you mentioned and also bethesda.
If you played the 2.0 version and didn't like it, then fair. However, if you played the older version, it might be worth giving it another go. I had low expectations and was extremely pleasantly surprised, plus it looks amazing.
If I still have to put up with Johnny Silverhand then no sale, I had issues with the game beyond the bugs and emptiness of the world.
I can understand not liking Johnny that much, but I can't understand hating him to the point that you think the gaming industry has fallen. That's not really a make or break thing.
whoa whoa whoa, who in the fuck said "Johnny Silverhand means the game industry is over"? CDPR's trash writing and poor design decisions aren't killing any industry.
Might be wrong but you made it seem like Cyberpunk killed your faith in the games industry, so my bad if I'm wrong. Either way, don't really think Johnny counts as trash writing, but you do you.
yeah but as like a "last straw" kind of thing about even bothering with big budget games, but everyone in here seems to want to frame everything i say in the most extreme way possible for some reason
To be fair, you've been saying BG3 looks tedious to play despite it being genuinely one of the absolute best games to come out in the last decade just because it's turn-based, so not quite sure I think our tastes align.
... bro I'm allowed to think it looks tedious and awful, because that's how tastes work. I don't have to pretend to like something because it's popular or other people think it's "the best". I'm fine with turn-based games. What I don't like is extended cutscenes, generic fantasy settings, or TTRPG gameplay, particularly DnD. It's a kind of game I don't care for in the first place, based on a game that I find to be 100% pure tedium, in a type of setting that I am very weary of.
What baffles me the most is why its fans seem so keen on assuming the shallowest take possible and putting words in my mouth because I said their favorite game looks terrible to me. Grow up.
I said our tastes are different, not that you're wrong. You're surprised that people disagree with you making a blanket claim about one of the most beloved games in recent years, AAA or not, and that's your choice to have that opinion and it's not wrong.
I do think you're overreacting to what I'm saying.
you try getting dogpiled for 12 hours for saying how a game based on a game you don't like in the first place looks to you and see how cool your replies are
Hey that's fair, cyberpunk is a very "safe" game in the rpg genre.
Honestly you might just not be into RPGs at all, and that's totally fine. Don't let other people tell you what to play ya know?
There are good games out there, but the big studios are not making them. Except maybe from soft and larian (imho)
I'm fucking vocal about not liking RPGs, specifically fantasy games, and specifically DnD. Now observe everyone in this thread trying to cram BG3 down my throat, despite the fact that i went and watched a video for them and thought it looks fucking dreadful.
I think the issue that people are responding to is that you're comparing it to Diablo, which is fundamentally a different game. Diablo is a hack and slash game with rpg elements and a god awful loot system. Bg3 is pretty much just playing DND on a computer without a dungeon master. They're just two completely different games. You can't even hack or slash in bg3, it's turn based and tactical.
That said, if you don't like the aesthetic of fantasy games, then clearly none of this will matter to you.
Frankly, it seems like you mostly care about the aesthetics of a game (no shade, just saying) so I'm kind of curious what your favorite game is?
well that came later in the discussion after the cramming had begun and hey i was definitely wrong for that but it does look basically the same until you look close. telling me "go look up a video" was probably the worst way to explain what he meant so thanks for clearing up what that other person was trying to say. I hadn't looked into this game before but I already didn't think it sounded very interesting, and now I'm certain I don't want to play it.
I don't mind a fantasy aesthetic as a strict rule but the genre staples have been done to death, everything is stale dollar store middle-earth (with some le edge and gritte because GoT did well so gotta copy that) and I'm pretty over it. if it's got personality that's one thing but fantasy games almost never do anymore, it all sinks into that low-effort stock setting and medieval camp.
I'm not going to mention any particular game as my favorite because this is still basically reddit, and I am talkig to gamers, and my experience informs me that if I say what I like it will definitely be weaponized against me. But I do like platformers, driving games, turn-based strategy, spaceflight, and the odd RPG that manages to hit that rare sweet spot where it's not flavorless stock narrative but not incomprehensibly up its own ass either.
Yeah for sure, gamers get so fucking sweaty and cringey about people who like different shit. It's annoying. I'll take the heat and just say windwaker is my favorite Zelda game.
If you like platformers, I highly recommend spark the jester 3, it's like a good new sonic game. Also I guess Ghost runner is like a platformer/action game that's supposed to be good? Haven't played it yet but it looks cool.
Anyway I wish you luck in your search for good new games, and I hope you continue to be a chill ass viber
I mean, none of the items on your list I would contribute to BG3.
But since nobody knows you hate BG3 and it is a well received RPG that recently released, of course people are going to mention it.
It is fine if you don't like it. But please don't claim it is worthless when it just isn't your type of game.
How can I hate a game I haven't played? All I've said it that it looks like a chore and I can't see myself playing it. I'm sorry you're butthurt someone else isn't impressed but don't go putting words in my mouth.
So you don't have an informed opinion, but are fast to judge a book by its cover.
Do you just hate it because it is popular and are envious of others people fun and want to shit on it to make yourself feel better?
Why do you feel the need to whiteknight for a game when someone takes a good look and concludes it's not for them and they wouldn't enjoy it? Don't you have better things to do than try to strawman and shame someone on the internet into complying with your opinion about a video game?
Can you recommend some good open world indie games?
Sure!
Valheim is fantastic, Kenshi is brutal and unforgiving but very fun, outward is similarly difficult and fun, also very unique.
Open world is kind of a huge genre, so I'd even say games like Subnautica, terraria, etc might be up your alley.
Edit: I can't believe I left out no man's sky and hyper light drifter! Highly recommend them both, no man's sky is such a good space life sim and hyper light drifter is kind of like a throwback to the first Zelda game, but obviously updated and with some different intentions to the gameplay/story. Happy gaming!
Love me some outward. I still want to play that game. Magic system is super weird in particular. Can never talk friends into it though, it's the static map that scares them I think
One man's repetitive garbage is another man's wealth of treasure (or a mix of gold and junk).
One of the best things about Pokémon imo is the music. Most generations, they hit it out of the park, even if the gameplay is similar. Sometimes people are so used to the formula that it's hard to have it change. (This is reminding me I need to continue Legends Arceus.) For the record, I was so disappointed by Pokémon Sun due to it being closer to a movie than a game that I ditched the franchise until Legends Arceus and S/V.
However, I think we need to be doing better to recommend alternatives to Pokémon If so many people are dissatisfied with the direction of the franchise. Whenever I search Pokémon alternatives, I get listicles of Pokémon games or maybe romhacks. What about other RPGs somewhat similar to Pokémon but different? The only close thing I've actually played was Fossil Fighters Frontier, and that was because a friend already was playing games in that series.
It's pretty sad that I can't tell if this list was made yesterday or four years ago. If people are able to have fun despite a stagnant industry, all power to them, but I haven't seen a good game out of AAA in a long while.
I really hope one day business schools will start teaching people that trying to blindly follow trends in art has literally never worked. Hasn't worked for all the film studios trying to make their own cinematic universes, hasn't worked for game studios trying to chase the new live service dragon, but still we get braindead suits getting senior level positions approving derivative drivel.
Alright, new theory:
You guys don't play too many games, right?
For the record, the best selling games of this year had fewer live service games than last year and the year before. The top of the charts was consistently single player games without microtransactions and this is one of the main GOTY candidates of 2023 following trends from "business schools" straight into... eh... a climactic absurdist musical number.
I'd tag that as spoilers if I could because, as I said, it's increasingly clear you guys haven't been playing this stuff.
You're right, the best selling games have been single-player focused. So why has Ubisoft, EA, Square Enix, ActivisionBlizzard, Warner Bros, and Sony Interactive been pushing to jump on the recent extraction shooter trend? Hell, find me a triple A publisher that does not have a live-service game being maintained, I'll wait.
If you're argument is that AAA is not wasting millions of dollars on chasing trends, you'll have to find more evidence than all their projects being failures.
Larian
That just proves other strategies have success. AAA bullshit and good games can both be successful.
Uhhh… k? BG3 is not a AAA game?
It's AAA in a sense, but it isn't bullshit. In fact, indie games can be bullshit in the form of asset flips, knock offs, and uninspired crap. Budget doesn't directly determine bullshit, it's just that AAA bullshit is a more noticeable issue.
Regardless, great media makes money alongside trash media. That's how it's always been, we just don't remember the trash as much.
Because they're not all failures, they're also making single player games and you're assuming that the one example of publishers wanting to tick a box in their lineup is somehow all they (let alone the entire industry) are producing.
The fact that people are making extraction shooters doesn't mean they're not making anything else. Warner's biggest game this year is a narrative RPG. EA's biggest game is (as always) a sports game, and their highest reviewed games are a Star Wars single player action game and a single player horror game. Sony's biggest game is an open world superhero action game. I don't know about Ubi's sales off the top of my head, but what they've shipped recently is a 2D metroidvania and a throwback to classic Assassin's Creed.
I don't understand why you want publishers to be judged by what they don't make, as opposed to what they make. Major publishers are billion dollar companies that put out many games. I have zero problems with EA running Apex Legends if I get to play Dead Space. I have zero problems with Sony trying to get a live service game going if they keep making insanely refined narrative action games. I don't enjoy every game people make, but I don't hate that people make games that are not for me if there are also games for me happening at the same time.
Baldur's gate 3 wasn't the top earning video game this year, just the top selling one. The business school cronies only care about the profit, not the quality.
Different metrics, though.
I do have to disagree that this chart proves what you say it proves, though. Arguing that Rockstar in particular does not care about quality is... a sizzling hot take.
Look, there are plenty of grifters in gaming, particularly those coming from the tech side of things (not "business school" so much, honestly). And yeah, there's a lot of money to be made and the majors are going to want a piece of that pie. Which is fine, because I want them to have money to also go after the big flashy triple-A single player stuff.
But it's obviously not true that all you get from the games industry is cookie cutter GaaS stuff. It's less true by the minute. Which is not to say I want online games to go away, either. I will actively play some of the games on that list. On purpose. I don't want them to be the only thing there is to play... but fortunately they're not, so... cool?
I just had someone telling me if I can't tell the new street fighter installment from the old one then i must not have eyes. It looks practically identical to the previous three installments. I think I'm done trying to interact with gamers for literally anything.
You have to take a very cursory glance to not find differences between Street Fighter 5 and 6. The gameplay systems are very different, 6 has an actually good single player mode, the net code is vastly improved. If you're just looking at the graphics, you're doing the same thing this post is criticizing but for the opposite goal. Street Fighter 6 is one of the AAA home runs, especially when you consider the disasterous launch of SF5.
it's a niche game that i know little about, have no interest in, and definitely am not going to shell out money for; he's bitter that I don't care and I'm not impressed that a franchise older than I am shat out another entry.
Do you even like video games? Judging by your comments in this thread, they make you angry and bitter, so I don't know why you bother to post about them.
I don't play a niche game franchise enough to see the difference between last year's iteration and this one, therefore I must not like games at all. It's FIFA with anime characters to me, doesn't mean I don't like other things.
"A niche game franchise" lmao Street Fighter is one of the most popular and well known game series in the world. I won't say it's the best fighting game franchise, but it is very much a household name just as much as Mario or Pokémon are.
...it's a niche genre bro. That's not the same as being obscure.
Street Fighter 1 was from 1987. Street Fighter 5 is from 2016. This is hardly a yearly franchise. Each release is a cornerstone of the fighting game genre. If you don't like them or are uninterested, that's obviously fine. But you're using your ignorance to justify hating Street Fighter. That just doesn't make sense and makes you come across as bitter. I would urge you to play the games you like, and ignore the games you don't like. You'll be generally happier.
of course it isn't annual, who said that? I never said I hated it either, I'm just not interested. it's like nobody in here understands things like hyperbole, or figures of speech, or not caring about a niche genre. weirdos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Street_Fighter_video_games also i went and checked just to see because i was curious, and it has seen near-annual releases since 1990. So like when I said anime fifa i meant like more my attitude towards it, but apparenty it's also (nearly) true the way you took it.
It's not great! 2023 games that I have really enjoyed this past year have been Tears of the Kingdom, Cassette Beasts, and Hi-Fi Rush.
Oh, man, I had forgotten those were this year.
My list also includes:
Pikmin 4
Baldur's Gate 3
Spider-Man 2
Street Fighter 6
Mortal Kombat 1
Dead Space and RE4 remake
The Talos Principle 2
And I didn't even get around to Alan Wake 2, which everybody's been raving about. Or that Dave the Builder thing. Or Lies of P. Or Jedi Survivor. And I guess I'm not counting the new Prince of Persia because that's this year, technically. And I'm not into 2D Mario games, so I'm guessing skipping Super Mario Wonder makes me a bit of an outlier.
Look, I know it feels good to be jaded and edgy and cynical, but... yeah, no, it was an all-time great year for games in 2023. And a terrible year for the games industry. But the games? So good.
... your list is basically all "20+ year old franchise/licensed property". bruh if there's that little that's fresh or origninal then I' argue that's a terrible year for games.
Talos Principle 2 does demand my attention though, the first one was stellar and still looks gorgeous.
That is a very weird take.
So let me get this straight, Street Fighter 6 is a "20 year old franchise" so not fresh and original (it is maybe the biggest redefinition of the series since SF3, but hey). Somehow The Talos Principle 2, a direct sequel to a 10 year old game... not that.
But also, Dave the Builder, Sea of Stars, Hi-Fi Rush, Life of P, Lethal Company, Terra Nil, Humanity, Against the Storm... even going by new IP alone it's been a great year. Not that I accept your premise, sequels and licensed games can obviously be, and indeed have been, fantastic and innovative.
I am very confused and you are either being disingenuous or so comitted to arbitrary requirements that any year is an equally good year.
"the nth iteration of sold-out BRAND that's older than most people reading this that belongs to a genre so niche only its dedicated fanbase can tell what the hell is even different from the last entry is at least as fresh and original as the sole sequel to a one-off game that was actually made in this century" and "looking forward to an original game you liked getting a single sequel makes you a hypocrite for not also thinking the 2893598th BRAND niche game most people can't tell from its predecessor is equally exciting" strike me as outright bizarre things to say and it's weird and sad that when you reach for "fresh and original" the thing you come up with is [moldy franchise] [#].
Too bad pretty much everyone, including Larian, Owlcat, all of these "we're doing it for the game and for the fans" adherents have also fallen for the "Rush to Market, Fix It Later" mentality. Been deep-diving Rogue Trader for the past weeks and playing through rough Beta content really isn't fun when the game is considered launched and complete. Same for Baldur's Gate 3, I binged it at launch and had to stop in Act III because most of my quests were soft-locked, or displayed incorrect information in the Journal.
You could have figured that out in the century it spent in Early Access, I suppose.
Honestly, yeah, I do think devs need to reassess what is a showstopping bug and what isn't. Not much question on that. But also, I have seen worse. I even played a ton of Cities Skylines 2 at launch. Which paid off weirdly, because once they fixed the balance (or at least improved it) my starter city is now an insane utopia.
In any case, my backlog is enormous, I can wait for games to be actually finished before I play them. In BG3's case, I think there was the one quest that didn't pop once, but I spent a hundred hours on it just fine... and then had to go live my real life, so I still have to do the last act at some point. I'll get to it.
None of that changes that this year had banger after banger, from studios large, medium and small. You can complain about many things relating to the business, but man, the skill, creativity and artistry from game developers of all stripes is nuts.
Again, too bad completion doesn't show up on that list. The games eventually being good is no excuse for shoving half-finished software out the door at full price, no matter how you cut it.
True, but that cuts both ways. Games being shipped before they are finished doesn't mean they're not good games when they're finished. Sometimes even before they're finished, because being technically sound and being a good game are different things.
The industry needs to redefine what a showstopper issue is and what ship-ready means... but the games are still good.
No, the industry needs to stop selling half-baked goods because they know they can get away with it. Having to patch a game for months, non-stop, after launch day, after it's been, as you've said, a century in Early Access, is not a misunderstanding of bug severity, it's focusing on profit more than on the product. Not taking away the games' 'goodness,' but just as an underbaked cake, you still have to swallow a lotta raw eggs with that goodness.
Wow, that took a turn, there's some tonal whiplash in going from complaining about lack of creativity in gaming to calling games "goods".
It has a lot to do with misjudging bug severity (and on PC with compatibility testing, which is its own thing). All games are under pressure to ship late in development, all studios are under pressure to clean that backlog in any way possible and all games ship with known bugs. That's all fine. The question is which bugs are a dealbreaker. The console first parties used to be more stringent about stuff, patches used to be harder to distribute and the whole thing culturally just looks at crashes as the original sin that must always be stopped but will often put a lot of pressure to fix everything else later and ship nominally on time.
It's a bad call and it needs adjustments. I'm glad that peoplpe are angry and not super understanding about it. That will help.
While I understand your point, I still tend to disagree. I've had ten years of experience working in QA, both on games and on misc. software, and the amount of bugs with which games are shipped as of late shifts the discussion from severity and prioritisation to volume - it isn't a question of what should have been fixed first when basically everything is busted. As such, it becomes a business problem entirely.
Another aspect which underlines this is the fact that, taking Baldur's Gate 3 as an example since we started with it, it's usually the latter half which is most affected. These trends taken together indicate a front-loading with QA in order to sell, then (hopefully) stealth-fixing the latter half before people get to it. Which doesn't work, because you get maniacs like me who spend 200 hours in-game during the first two weeks after launch. Same goes for Rogue Trader, for example. Game's all there, technically, first two Chapters are pretty much sterling, but how is one supposed to appreciate the creativity behind it considering half of the game may be inaccessible due to bugs (talking about soft-locking quests, busted progression triggers, busted scripting, and even more mechanical aspects which require trial-and-error with repeated reloads in the hopes that you stumble upon the right combination of actions which bypasses the bug).
In my perspective, creativity, while it is to be appreciated, becomes sort of moot in this case - it'd be like ignoring the fact that half of the painting is drafted on napkins with a big TODO stapled to it, or being sold a partly assembled phone with the promise that they'll send you the rest of the components later on down the line.
I agree that when the game doesn't work it doesn't matter how creative it is, what I'm saying is that when it's fixed and it does work that doesn't make it indefinitely worse.
The late-game thing you're talking about is a good example of why I think prioritization habits are a bit busted. I do think it makes sense to say that hey, this part of the game is only going to get seen by a small portion of players, so it's a lower priority than the parts that are going to get seen by everybody...
...but if a bug is a major showstopper that prevents any amount of players from going through the game, then it's a major showstopper, you can't just push it to a patch and call the game shippable.
I'd even make a big distinction about minor bugs... and minor bugs that do something peristent. You'd be struggling to convince the average producer to do a late fix for a minor visual glitch, but if the inor visual glitch stays there forever it makes the whole thing look unacceptably broken (which is where some of those BG3 glitched quests would fall for me, btw).
We're getting into the weeds now. The point is that yes, revenue and money are a factor, but I think the current issues with reliability and technical polish in games are coming from more places than that. There's a culture of prioritization that is looking at things that will block shipping externally or that are software-end dealbreakers where the whole game crashes. This has to do with both applying only software development logic to game creation and from having historically relied on first parties to draw the line of shippable quality and a period there in the early 2000s where people were getting very mad at eternal delays and vaporware. That culture needs to change and producers and QA need to start being rated on how clean the game ships, not just on whether it ships on time. Again, the weeds... but it's relevant that it's not as simple as "greedy publishers".
Oh, also to be clear, when I say "prioritization" that also means what gets shipped versus not fixed. That's also a prioritization choice, not just which bugs get fixed first or later. Especially if the dev cycle doesn't end at ship and instead ends five patches and several years down the line.
After Cyberpunk I decided to be done paying $50+ to take up a quarter of my disk with a highly-acclaimed game that turns out to be the same old cookie-cutter 3D game with an expensive makeover. Anymore I mostly just play small indie games that friends recommend, and generally have a way better experience for it.
After this supposed stellar update dropped that overhauled the game or when the game initially came out?
This was back when it was new - my thoughts the entire 30 hours I was playing were things like:
"Johnny Silverhand is more annoying than Jar Jar and I will do anything to not hear his stupid fucking voice anymore" "this 'hacking' is one of the worst minigames I've ever seen" "the setting is ripped straight from PK Dick and doesn't feel like it really lends anything to the story besides 'high tech stuff that looks flashy on screen'" "oh the background i spend ten minutes consiering before choosing does fuckall about shit except slightly reword a few dialogs" "my god, every single character is insufferable" "oh wow, my inventory is full again already, and not a single thing in it is worth fuck for shit" "these physics are just as shitty as that Witcher 3 game I wasted money on last year" "this button feels really awkward to press when i need it but i don't feel like editing the config by hand again" "holy shit when will this cutscene be over? There we g- DAMN IT THERE'S MORE? STFU ALREADY"
It was buggy but the bugs were the least of my worries. I came away feeling like I was promised Mexican food and then was given a cold soggy leftover Taco Bell burrito, and frankly after having basically the same experience with the super-awesome totally-finished fully-patched all-dlc-included GotY version of The Witcher 3 I really don't trust CDPR to fix shit.
Thanks for the write-up, sums up my experience with both games
I couldn't get behind Tears of the Kingdom. Idk what it was, just didn't draw me in. Couldn't keep at it. Put in 10hrs and haven't picked it up in....3 months?
Part of it for me was that the people you meet in the first game don't reference the first game. Like pyrah for example has a massive crush on link in BotW yet in TotK she acts distantly to him. Also I felt it was repetitive, especially when I've already done similar if not the same things in BotW like korok seeds.
It did really feel super samey. I think if I hadn't played BotW I would have seen TotK through to the end, but sadly I did.
The steam reviews for cassette beasts drove me away from it, what did you like about it? Also what's your in game time, if you don't mind me asking?
It's just Pokémon but if the series grew up with the fanbase instead of stagnating on the age group it did.
It's a really good "monster collector" game with solid gameplay and a mature story.
I played ~30hrs and there is still a lot to go.
That being said, it's not AAA by any means.
I'm curious considering it's currently at 96% positive, what about the reviews drove you away? For me, the game captured the feeling of playing Pokemon for the first time (Heart Gold) again. It was similar enough on a basic level to draw me in, but all the fundamentals and mechanics are totally different and bring a wave of fresh air to the stale Pokemon formula.
If you've played Pokemon on the DS and didn't like it, this game probably won't be your kind of thing. If you did though, Cassette Beasts has a lot going for it. It has creative monster designs, a cast of unique side characters with their own story quests, a very memorable soundtrack (including my most played song of 2023), a not-overwhelmingly-massive open world with plenty to do, and just a smidge of analog horror.
I have ~30 hours in it iirc.
If this is turning into an indie/AA game recommendation thread, I highly recommend RAILGRADE. I bought it Sunday night and put in 13 hours between that and the next day and I'm only like 1/4 of the way through the campaign.
It's basically like Satisfactory meets Mini Metro and it's so goddamn addicting.
I have Railgrade on my wishlist and I have been back and forth about it. I'm a big fan of Satisfactory though.
Some of these aren't universally bad. Not every protagonist needs an arc. Not every crafting system has to be complex or function differently than a store. Not every game needs a compelling political statement. These things could actually detract from the experience if poorly implemented.
Hype trains are always bogus and can be mostly avoided by never pre-ordering and waiting for reviews before purchasing. I was excited as hell for Doom Eternal, but I waited until a week after launch before buying it. Patience is the way to go for big budget entertainment. I don't seek out blockbusters until I see the reception, and I don't buy AAA single player games until I know what I'm getting.
Small budget stuff and things you want more of should be supported, but chasing hype just isn't wise. Don't expect the world from something that doesn't exist yet.
TBH I had a pretty good time since the CRPG-resurgence.
I'm glad you're finding content to your taste, but I kind of have the opposite problem: I find RPGs exhaustingly tedious and convoluted, and every genre is infected with its worst parts - grinding and levels and crafting and loot and fetchquests and equipment - because it's the "in" thing to do. everything feels so damn confused about what kind of game it's trying to be and ends up doing nothing well.
Boulders Gare 3 doesn't really even have a concept of grinding. There are no procedurally generated encounters and each battle can only happen once.
You could say doing all the side quests and exploring the side areas is a type of grinding but it's really just "content" IMO.
i'm glad you like it, DnD makes me actively disinterested anymore though.
What part of D&D do you not like? Depending on the specific issue, you could have fun with Pathfinder: Kingmaker or Divinity: Original Sin.
the part where you sit down at the table and it takes all night but it's 90% keeping yourself occupied while waiting around and nothing of consequence ever happens and everyone loses interest after four sessions max, and this is so predictable and dependable that in 20 years of never saying no to a TTRPG I've never leveled up a character
the part where the underlying rules systems are deeply flawed in every edition, down to the d20 being an awful choice for the skill die due to how swingy it is, to the point that you may as well make your own better game from scratch for how much you have to homebrew to make it not clunky as hell
the part where every group has been toxic as hell and defended their bigots to the person until I decided it wasn't acceptable and quit playing
the part where I would spend a month filling a binder with campaign plans and the average player does everything in their power to intentionally avoid everything I've prepared because it's funny to waste the fuck out of my time or something.
not to mention the setting is the genre equivalent of plain yogurt, it's just straight up uncompelling and done to death.
i used to LOVE the idea of TTRPGs but in two decades of "giving it a chance" it's literally never been a good experience.
The computer takes care of all the tedium, speeds the game up like 50 times compared to tabletop, and the genre is decidedly singleplayer so you never risk encountering toxic players.
Either way, there's lots of CRPGs that aren't based on anything tabletop, like Divinity: Original Sin.
Sounds like you've just had shitty friends / gaming groups.
over a dozen different groups in three cities over the course of 20 years. i don't think the issue is luck, i think it's the culture around the game.
I'd agree with your first point re: D&D ®️ esp re 5th Edition. My wife took a long time to get in to ttrpgs, something that I've enjoyed for over 30 years bc I kept trying to do the D&D®️ thing. I'd recommend you try other games that actually "play" at the table. Dungeon World is great and almost anything in the PbtA family does such a great job of driving the action forward (5e doesn't), having actual stakes and danger (5e doesn't), actually meaningful character choices (5e doesn't), not a beat-the-designer/video-gamist philosophy (5e DOES have this), and not ran by a shitty corporation that hires mercenary thugs to intimidate people, since literally anyone can make a PbtA game about anything.
Agree 💯 on the d20. I think it works in some games, notable Mörk Borg and like b/x D&D - games where if you are rolling dice, you already have fucked up
I can't speak to the groups you played with , but have you tried getting people that aren't in to the hobby in to it? I run games for new players often and they never have the baggage I think you're speaking about
Re the preparation you do, be sure to always prep situations not plots. There should be a law that states "the more prep the DM puts into a game is directly proportional to how quickly the players will force their prep off the rails". The game is a conversation, and I think D&D®️ 5e has fucked this up bc of how they format their adventures WITHOUT EVER TELLING YOU HOW TO ACTUALLY RUN A GAME! Plus, Christ they are fucking textbooks written by committee! I would say a couple things, first: look at Dungeon World as a guideline for how to format your adventures, and second: don't plan huge arcs, just plan individual moments that you want to happen. The characters will get there, even if it is a roundabout way. The Lazy DM by Sly Flourish has a lot of help here that can work for any game, and there's this blog post that talks about the literal easiest foolproof prep method.
Your last point doesn't make sense... Check out itch.io and their physical games category. There are RPGs for literally any genre or setting you can think of. TinyD6 and FAE are two really good generic games that if you can't find your setting, you just slap these bad boys in there and you have an RPG
It really is a fun and exciting hobby and I'm sorry you've had a bad time previously.
A lot of the worst experiences I've were trying to run games to get friends into it, doubly so because I have so little practical experience running a game beyond reading books and copying from them thinking I'm about to have fun, and none actually playing beyond what I described.
I've explored alternate systems such as GURPS and tried brewing a few of my own. I can criticize the rules all day but at the end it was always much the same experience trying to run those against a group that intentionally spites any prep (usually geared more toward worldbuilding and important NPCs than any specific story arc, I realize you can't force that stuff) I tried to do. Anything that I had a sheet of paper for, they would turn and walk away every single time.
As for setting... fam there's not a lot I can do when everyone i know who plays only ever wants to play vanilla DnD or their take on MtG flavored DnD, and they're not going to change what they're doing just because I'm sick to death of generic corporate fantasy worlds and waiting around for 9/10 of the time we're at the table.
after watching a BG3 gameplay video, I'd rather grind. it looks horrible to play.
I think you are depressed :/
thanks doctor i'll take that into consideration
I mean to each their own but all I've seen in this post from you is just negativity with very little knowledge. You shit on games while knowing very little about them, which is kind of sad
sorry anything short of abject praise registers as shit talk to you, up to and including subjective reactions to seeing gameplay. the game does not look to my taste and i think i would have a bad time with it. If I'm coming across negative it's because people have been trying to shove this game up my ass for 12 hours and throw fits when I say how it looks to me. not everything is for everyone and I wish we could be adults about it and let people speak their fucking minds here.
This you? This was what I was referring to when I was saying you were being negative. You knew basically nothing about the franchise and yet automatically assume it's shit. For the record, neither do I, but I don't make judgements based off of zero evidence
Nowhere in that post did I say it was shit. In fact nowhere anywhere have I ever said anything about the actual quality of that game, I described the company "shitting out" another one because they do so every year and it's not a notable event in my book. Christ bro, Capcom will be fine without you rushing to their defense over someone on the internet being disinterested I promise. my god you are a thin skinned weepy bunch in here
Dude with how much vitriol you're responding to people with it's pretty clear you're the thin-skinned one.
And street fighter 5 came out 8 years ago, so I'm not really sure what you mean by shitting one out every year
Their average is more than one a year but okay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Street_Fighter_video_games
That's fair actually. I was looking at a release timeline of their main entries, not including remasters or the various re-releases.
Have you tried playing CRPGs instead of RPGs? They tend to be a lot less heavy on grind and crafting, and the combat systems are usually much more fun IMO (though I totally understand if you're not into that style of combat).
Diablo 2, skyrim, oblivion, the witcher 3... all felt like having a crappy boring job where i have to interact with people i don't like all day and nothing really feels worth doing but i gotta pick something and do it anyway. it also doesn't help that 90% of the genre is indistinguishable tolkien knockoff worlds either making no effort or trying way too hard to stand out as unique and I'm beyond sick of that crap.
Those aren't CRPGs. I'm talking the likes of Baldur's Gate, Divinity: Original Sin or Shadowrun. Completely different gameplay.
I looked up CRPG because to me it mean "computer role playing game" but apparently now it refers to top-down point-and-click games under the heading "classic role playing game", like that's any more descriptive or clearly defined. Because this disjointed, confused genre needed more vaguery in the names of its subgenres.
Anyway most of these examples look like Diablo 2 so I'm going to assume that's the type of game you mean - and I think it's the same crap from a different camera angle. I don't think I could say it's "completely different gameplay" to something like Skyrim without feeling like a liar because the loop is bang on the same.
This stuff is pretty much the opposite of Diablo. Honestly insulting that you assume that I wouldn't recognize that.
I'm sorry the terminology is so vague and inconsistent, and I'm so disengaged from "gaming" culture and behind on genre labels that I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean the genre formerly known as "point-and-click adventures", like Disco Elysium?
No, I'm not talking about adventures. Just look up some gameplay videos for Baldur's Gate 3.
bruh this looks identical to diablo. no really this is my first time seeing the game and i thought i must have typed diablo into the search by mistake. What makes it a different genre?
Did you actually look at the gameplay or did you stop after the first still image showed that Diablo and BG3 both have a top-down perspective and general medieval fantasy theme?
I'm watching a video.
I dont think you've ever played diabloactually i take it back, this looks way more tedious and chorelike than diablo.Other than the perspective and some of the more general RPG features like leveling and loot, they have very little in common. BG3 is the perfect, but unfortunately rare, example of a mainstream game that deliberately doesn't follow the more toxic trends of the industry
if I had this on one screen and diablo on the other and i had to tell you which was which or i'd die, im gonna fucking die.
watching more, ok i see the difference now and wow this looks so damn tedious to play. I didn't think they could make DnD any less appealing but they somehow pulled it off.
That's worse than saying Call of Duty and Counter Strike are identical. You shoot guns and play against other people in both, but they're significantly different experiences. You can play deliberately in COD or run and gun in CS, but that isn't what each game rewards. The focus of each game is drastically different. CS doesn't have killstreaks like in COD, and Diablo doesn't have comprehensive roleplaying like in BG3.
i already said i take it back, this looks way more tedious and chorelike than diablo, I'm getting that mixture of bored and frustrated just watching it
The top-down isometric RPG experience is what it always meant, because it's a computer replication of the original tabletop RPG experience. TTRPGs were just called RPGs, and adapting them to game format added the c, therefore becoming cRPGs.
Lies, not in the 2020s where tittes are illegal :P
ITT gamers melt down and act like rowdy children when other people have opinions about games
edit: guys guys guys Larian studios will be fine, you don't need to defend them or shame me into compliance because BG3 doesn't look enjoyable to me. Jesus christ you'd think I was trying to take the game away from everyone.
edit2: guys capcom isn't going to sleep with you because you bravely defended the literally 40th Street Fighter title against some rando's disinterest and failure to hail it as a great moment in gaming or something. sheesh.
I've never been into big A games. I'll pay them if they're highly reviewed and end up on sale, but I guess sim games are my thing. NFS underground me would never believe the driving sims I do with a sim rig and vr headset.
Simple solution, do not play triple AAA games. Find newer studios, indie devs, or smaller publishers who have yet to have private equity sink their teeth in to them.
no you must be shamed into compliance with my opinion that Age Old Franchise 5 (the fifty-fourth Age Old Franchise game) was decent and acceptable therefore AAA is good.
Be glad the points aren't:
-ads
-microtransactions
people who complain about ads and microtransactions in games are confusing to me. just don't buy it -> no ads no microtransactions ezpz. people really be throwing money around every year out of FOMO and complaining about the thing they knew they were buying afterward.
If that makes it a 10/10 game for them thats cool. I'd check a screenshot if those animated boobs overwhelmed all the rest of the negative review.