The unemotive faces is the real issue. Facial animations from bioware seem really bad.
The unemotive faces is the real issue. Facial animations from bioware seem really bad.
Except the complaints about Veilguard are about the pixar-like characters with very little expressiveness. So even if that were what he meant he's still actually not addressing the real issues
Skyrim lead designer Bruce Nesmith explained that Larian’s success is an “exception” to the last decade of gaming trends, but one that shows a shift in desire from gamers.
There's been no shift, we've just been ignored and under-served for around two decades. But, sure, keep ignoring us.
Everyone familiar with the lore knew going in that it was going to be a tragedy. Reach had to fall after all. The tricky and surprising thing was getting people to root for the team and have hope for them, knowing the planet was going to be glassed.
They turned the story of the planet into a small personal story about a very desperate situation. It isn't the best game, by any means, but it's impressive in it's own way and one of the better prequels.
These companies aren't in the business of making and selling games they're in the business of increasing company valuation on the stock market. You can't convince them not to do mass firing, it's one of the fastest and easiest ways to cut costs and rapidly increase valuation. You'd need the law to protect the employees.
Because everything made in the greyzone of "until the IP owner sends us a cease and desist" risks the console producer (sony/Microsoft/Nintendo etc) getting in trouble for allowing the content on their hardware.
Steam very much makes that 30% worthwhile with the support and features they provide for free. They can't be forced to host games, prices are set by publishers/devs, steam takes 0% of steam key sales.
The price parity is the part that might be argued, but I doubt it will go far. I'm not seeing very good arguments for this being anti-consumer, which is the key point.
We haven't won until the region sales restrictions implementation to avoid legal issues of imposing PSN is rolled back. Fellow divers got refunds, we haven't won until everyone can return to diving.
As far as I'm concerned people are far too eager to call this a win and take Sony at their word without actually caring about the result.
To head off obvious responses Steam doesn't impose restrictions on their own, the publisher is in control on sales and it takes no time at all for Steam to update. So why hasn't Sony done this trivial act already? Because they'll try this again later when they legally can.
That's not what the paper says. This is specifically COD games that this was tested with
The loosening the skill matchmaking found players leaving from the bottom and continuing as new players found themselves at the bottom. Higher skilled players liked this as they got treated as having lower skill as lower skilled players left.
Tightening it found higher skill players leaving due to longer queue times and having less lower skill players to beat on in their matches. Lower skilled players had higher retention due to being more likely to be matched with their peers.
In other words high skill players enjoy stomping noobs more than fighting each other. Noobs don't like being stomped.
It's not entire untrue to say "everybody hated it", but it also misses the point.
Obsession with character sheets comes from pen and paper and a desire to simulate every aspect of the world. Without the tools to tweak your ability to interact with the system you can pretend to be a master thief, but unless the game reinforces that with its behaviour you're just pretending. Like you can pretend to be a vampire in Skyrim, sure, but it's more fun when you've actually got the curse and the game reinforces that.
Fundamentally a stat sheet is just a way to tell the game what your character is like in a way that it understands and can reinforce that's more granular than definition by class or by what skills you've used. And every game has one, whether you can see it and change it or not.
It's why "everyone" ends up as a stealth archer in Skyrim. Because stealth and ranged attacks are something every character would try to do, Skyrim's design means if you as much as try something it makes you better at it, even if you want to be a clumbsy barbarian.
Which ironically makes it so you can't just roleplay, you have to avoid trying anything that isn't what your character is best at. It means you can't hide from a patrol you can't handle, you have to just charge in and swing, because the game will change your character otherwise and you can't tell it not to.
If you don't live in one of the 180 territories that still can't play the game
It's work safety attire. When men wear it it's "why are you wearing those work clothes" women can wear them because no one will assume they're work clothes because women don't (normally/traditionally) do those jobs.
In the same way that men don't wear suits in a casual setting they don't wear other work attire in a casual setting.
Nah, they said sorry, they didn't do anything different. They still restricted the purchase regions of the game to those that can get PSN. I expect a return of the PSN requirement for Helldivers 2 eventually.
Maybe, but it's also something very few people were looking for. The advertising I saw was basically "the old braid looked worse than you remember". OK, but it didn't have enough replay-ability to warrant a second purchase, and that's not considering all the modern indie games it's competing with.
Then there's the $20 price point, which it hasn't quite earned. It's more expensive than the Beyond good and evil anniversary edition.
Here are some other games that are similarly priced: (steam below £16, ignoring sake price)
The semblance of tactics and effort in combat. Not having rote animations. Of being able to interact with anything.
The height of a boss matters, it's size, it's reach. You can run on walls. An avalanche causes physical snow not just an animation and damage numbers.
It's the little things that aren't possible with current gen tech, and might not ever be possible.
It's none of the real/explicit mechanics and all of the gaps.
It didn't, there's no children in the first game even.
This is the same guy that thought his anti-revenge story was the second coming of christ and people just didn't understand.
You'd be surprised how many people don't know about that or think everything is fine now.
Just PR, it's still not available in all the countries they said they'd restrict it from. (those that own it can play it though). So in some ways it's like they went through with it and no one cares because Sony said the magic words 'you guys win'.
Judging from how many think the helldivers are the good guys, not really.
So many did, and yet so many are also salty because they didn't see any hints and it felt like a bullshit rug pull out of nowhere.
Payday 2 and payday 3 we're made by the same dev studio, but with different producers. They own the IP, they're burning it down of their own free will.
They tried to milk payday 2 to death and it didn't work, so they tried again with payday 3 and lost their audience.
If we're just talking about analogy then the band is the game, the dev team is the roadies and management is the publisher? Still. They fucked the stage by their own choice.
I mean prior you this we also heard that tech companies tend to continuously get in the way of the development process and slow everything down then setting unreasonable deadlines.
That these two companies introduced or at least made common knowledge the idea of unreleasing a game says volumes for their ability to manage a game development process.
If we needed E3 we'd still have E3.
It doesn't help that the article takes a 90 degree turn to ramble about Nintendo IP rule34 which seems entirely irrelevant to the actual issue.
That's a damn good question
It's funny I feel this way about the amount of generic Brown-haired gruff man protagonists we got about 15 years back. Without the "they used to be novel", because they've never been novel
To be honest it's not. It's extreme and the content of the bill itself breaks the very law it describes.
Basically if you say any comment about a singled out group and anyone over heard you and takes offence you can br prosecuted.
So you're in your own home, on the phone, talking about how all black guys have massive dicks. A neighbour overhears, gets offended and reports you. Even if you don't get arrested, prosecuted or go to jail that incident goes on your permanent record.
It was almost 40 years ago at this point, so I don't expect everyone to know it, but its also something that doesn't come up without context. Whoever put that reference piece together knew what it was from.
Indie games and non-AAA games are still better than games 20 years ago that generally don't pull all that shit. There might be some grim darkness out there, but I'm just gonna chill in the sun, because it's definitely still there.
That's a fair argument and a decent case, but not one that strongly backs an anti-competition legal action.
Worth mentioning the extension that hides fandom wikis to make sure you find the fan made ones because fandom ones still often appear higher up in search ranking.
Something to note. This doesn't explicitly mention sales, just concurrent players. That isn't to say there weren't sales, but this just indicates people going back to play the games more than it does explicitly mean there was a bunch of new sales.
Their next game will be better, 5e held them back as much as its recognition boosted it's popularity. WotC will spend the next decade chasing the success of BG3 while these guys rinse and repeat as they always have.
There's no reason to believe there was anything special about BG3 other than any WotC funding and lore.
They know exactly what they're doing. They're playing the software game. Right now they've turned their development studios into marketing divisions for game pass. They don't need to do anything special right now other than let their teams make games, put them on their subscription library and watch the money roll in.
Versus Sony, which not too long ago was rabidly against anyone having crossplay with their console and is individually publishing titles.
The thing is, for the most part it doesn't matter who's holding the strings so long as good games get made available for as many people as possible at a decent and not rising price point.
The whole $70-80 free rise is being done by companies that are struggling to keep their foothold with their current MTX-based models.
Let's not pretend that MGS lore is more than a barely comprehensible fever dream. It's good, for sure, and insanely pretty for a 2004 ps2 release, but try explaining it to someone and see how far you get.
My boycott of Sony continues, I would have really liked to play that.
Really it did a few major things for fps
Until halo right-stick to turn, ads to aim on screen was a common control mechanism.
As soon as it released regenerating health, the control scheme and online multiplayer became a must-have for AAA fps. For PC it's basically just regenerating health, which was has proved to be a mixed blessing.
Not sure why you're being down voted, it's a reasonable opinion to have if you don't like their games. I feel the same about the originals. I tried them and respect them a lot, but they're just not for me.
The issue is doing DLC for an open world game is hard. The way it's been done in the past is broadly one of the following:
The solution is so some combination of the following:
Fundamentally Bethesda as discounted the latter. It's done with classes, it's not added races, or new systems or new skills in years. They can't add content throughout, that would require creating the space for the content to exist in ahead of time.
Not that it can't be done, but that they don't have the future awareness to make room for it.