this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
150 points (89.1% liked)

Games

15812 readers
1195 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] amio@kbin.social 74 points 6 months ago (4 children)

These guys are getting harder and harder to take seriously. As disappointing as the game itself is, what the fuck is this? Defensively and passive-aggressively trying to argue with reviewers? Long ramblings on how unfair it is that one of the world's most significant game studios, freshly taken over by enormous capital... gets a little criticism for the flaws it its products? Do you need to be an expert Twinkie mass manufacturing engineer, really, if a new product is, let's say, a tenth of the size and tastes of sawdust?

If they're gonna insinuate it's not the obvious reasons, maybe they should've served up some less obvious reasons - I'm sure they would've been convincing.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 24 points 6 months ago (1 children)

"People have unrealistic expectations for AAA games! It's impossible to make them as good as people expect them to be!"

I remember lots of big studios saying that shit after Baldur's Gate 3 officially released. The work of a comparatively small studio with a Skyrim budget (100 million USD) did what many bigger budgets failed to do. How was that possible? Clearly, it's the fault of gamers for expecting too much!

Side note: Witcher 3's budget was around 34 million USD, with less than 13m for development proper, which is another good example of a game that even at release was already looking and playing great.

And those examples are not hard to come up with either. For example:

  • any Nintendo game
  • games with a passionate designer - "Nier: Automata* and Death Stranding come to mind
  • refined, broad market appeal sequels to popular niche games - as Elden Ring is to Dark Souls

Starfield was a mediocre rehash of their Elder Scrolls formula, but without the interesting variation that Elder Scrolls games have. And performance sucks, so you're paying a penalty for an average gameplay experience.

[–] HarkMahlberg@kbin.social 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Defensively and passive-aggressively trying to argue with reviewers?

Big "Baldur's Gate 3 is an anomaly" energy.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yup, it is an anomaly in that it feels like the quality I used to expect 20 years ago when devs couldn't just patch flaws after launch and had to actually QA their games before going gold. They rely so much on after launch patches that games often aren't finished until a year after release.

[–] pory@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

BG3 is an excellent game, but saying it's unlike the rest of games because it "does its QA before launch" is very silly. Look at the 100GB of huge patches the game's received, reading the pages and pages of patch notes for the bug fixes and also the basic RPG features added after launch like the ability to change your character's appearance.

BG3 had more bugfixes and hotfixes than Starfield did by a long shot, the difference between the two is not the absence of bugs. It's that BG3 under the bugs was a phenomenally VA'd/Mocapped game with a great story line, memorable characters, meaningful choices, and combat that doesn't become a rote chore or a numbers go up game with randomized loot.

BG3 was a complete, enjoyable experience all the way through at launch. There were a lot of patches, but those weren't as necessary as other games, like Cyberpunk 2077 and Fallout: New Vegas. For example, character customization is nice to have, but lots of games don't bother.

Starfield on the other hand, was relatively bug free at launch, but it didn't have a good gameplay loop. Outposts were repetitive, gunplay and weapon variety wasn't particularly interesting, and cities weren't very plentiful or interesting (Morrowind was way better in all three, and the game is ~20 years old).

Yeah, BG3 wasn't as solid as launches before OTA updates were a thing, just it felt a lot more like that era than most of the AAA game launches in recent memory.

[–] didnt_readit@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Have you seen the replies they’re posting to Steam reviews? Fucking hilarious(ly sad) LOL

[–] amio@kbin.social 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sad is the word. I think "um ackchyually the boredom is on purpose" was my favorite in the bunch.

[–] didnt_readit@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

WeRE thE MoOn LaNDinGs BoRInG??? 😂😂

I lost it when they made that comparison. Also, ya know they actually had a rover to drive around on the moon haha

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 points 6 months ago

Like with pretty much all things for the last decade we hit stagnation and consistent money making with low effort.

So clearly now everyone else is wrong or why are they making so much money? If they throw out garbage that people pay for and then complain about them why should they take the criticism seriously... I'm fact it's just bad people trying to ruin them because they are perfect and right.

Everyone is right all the time and everything is gold no matter how lazy. No one wants the discussion they want to be told they are right and then to move on to the next thing without stopping or asking questions.

If we can't impact their bottom lines then nothing will ever change until it collapses.