Sven_

Judging by everything shown so far, I'm going to stay with my prediction that Obsidian will be doing Fallout spinoffs in a few years time. Even if they manage to ramp up the excitement until release -- Fallout is just another level of popularity. Obsidian't aren't averse to doing Fallout stuff. And Bethesda just cannot provide two (or rather three) IPs by now themselves anymore. Dev cycles have become a bit of a joke themselves -- even BG3 was 6-7 years in active development, bespite the "DOS reskin" meme still going 'round. Contrast to that just 12-15 years ago -- Bioware managed to pump out the entire Mass Effect trilogy PLUS two Dragon Age games PLUS DLC for a single generation of console hardware still. And they weren't alone. Even if Bethesda were to object -- master MS for sure won't. 11/11/11. Fallout 4: GOTY 2014 edition. Need I say more.

It's a 82 Metacritic overall -- which makes it barely rank in the top100 for 2024 overall. It's also a game that over 30% of critics apparently don't recommend, as aggregators have adjusted to this score inflation by marking every review under a 7.5 as "mixed". So much for the BIG RETURN OF BIOWARE. This plus there being two games with a score of below 50 is the state of game reviews. It's not merely IGN by the way. That's a red herring. But according to the video's logics, IGN shouldn't use the lower grades for Hollywood movies as well -- which they do. And as argued, nobody reviews amateur and indie movies uploaded to the internet as well. The movies that see coverage and marked as mediocre to stinkers are noteable productions, and not comparable to garage indies publishing their first game on Steam. Germany's biggest (PC) mag is Gamestar. They officially have games scoring in the 70s range as "good" ones, 60s range as "ok" ones, 80s score as "getting the best out of their genre", and 90s as "exceptioinal games anybody should experience". Now I'm a fan of CRPGs -- but pretty much any major one got at least high 80s scores from them, both Pillars games 90s scores, Pathfinder WOTR as well -- and of course BG3. I still think that's rather generous (and I've enjoyed most of those). Meanwhile, in general, take a look at which bigger RPG-likes at all were ranked lowly in many many years. I can tell you two: Fallout 76 (50s Metascore) and Alpha Protocol (60s Metascore). Tellingly two titles that were perceived as having severe issues upon launch. Game reviews are pretty technical in general -- as argued, Michael Bay should consider doing movies. Technically, you can hardly rip him to shreds the way he is by movie critics. Unfortunately, movies as well, aren't but technology. Meanwhile, games can hardly "fail", unless they're bugged to crap.

What does this industry need an award show for though? And what is it still worth? Genuinelly asking. Becuz: In 2024, Hollywood have reached new heights of envious even without any awards. As unlike them, the gaming industry has found a way of eradicating mediocre to stinker product pretty much altogether. In fact, it's only producing the goods. Or so it seems. Metacritic lists 400 games as to 2024. That's obviously not all games released in 2024, with thousands of garage indies on Steam alone -- we're talking Hollywood here being envious, after all. Big stuff. 250 of those games hold at least a Metascore of 75. Less than 100 one below 70 (a 6/10 is still supposed to be an "okay" game according to most review policies). 2 (TWO) one of below 50, but barely. I was thinking of that also recently with the "access journalism controversy" surrounding the Veilguard -- publishers doing their earnest to get all of their games high review scores on launch day are actually doing themselves a disservice. Because high grades in gaming are so common, they are almost meaningless by now. And Michael Bay, Disney, Roland Emmerich et all should consider rather spending millions on making video games ASAP, as then they'd easily escape the wrath of their more demanding critics. And as to game makers, they should rather pitch their product on unique, exciting and emotionally engaging ideas. Even if their product ends up being rated favorably -- so will be their competition. And the competition of their competition. Which brings me back to Avowed... What's like the ACTUAL deal about it?

It's not about trying to put things into boxes. It's getting sold people on an exciting idea. So far, the only people I'd guess to be at least some invested in this would be Obsidian regulars and like the two blokes who played Deadfire (like @Wormerine and me). And even us, we don't know actually why. Compare this to Warhorse, who are really pushing what's actually unique about KCD II -- or Larian last term promoting the (very D&D) idea of a game where (almost) anything would be possible. Or heck, anything! It's almost as if Obsidian are still wondering themselves at this point. Given that the game was supposed to come out this month already, that'd be curious.

I still don't understand the elevator pitch of Avowed. I mean, obviously, it was "Pillars, but like Skyrim" at some point. But after the reboots it obviously was scaled back and changed. But changed to,... what? Another Action/RPG-Like power fantasy, this time taking place in the same universe as that CRPG you had never played if you aren't me? Pillars, but like The Outer Worlds? If I wouldn't be following Obsi -- if this wouldn't be an Obsi / Eternity game -- I probably wouldn't have it bookmarked at this point.

Thanks, gonna try it when I have upgraded my PC. Speaking of which, found an analysis of Gothic that was uploaded today. Game makers back in the day: "Let's let people forget that they're just playing a damn video game!" Game makers today: "Screw that. If we're lucky, the 2,000 bucks GeForce hardware will do the job we can't."

Is Cyberpunk the same? I thought it was kinda like Deus Ex-lite. It's curious. But coming from games like Drova, whenever you're guided this heavily, it feels mundane and mechanical too. Like your to-do list at work: "Next go here and finish that. After that move over here and do precisely this." It's a passive experience, sure. But it's still something entirelly different from just watching a movie unfold. Whereas with something that lets you actually explore on your own and does it well, you're actually getting lost in that world. And be allowed to flee the mundane, mechanical and laundry listing for a while. Like, have an adventure! Kinda like when you were a kid playing in the forest. [It seems Nintendo have still realized this some with Zelda as well]. Of course, despite companies being afraid of players getting lost, "BIGGER IS BETTER!" is still the mantra for the worlds they build. How about simply going smaller if you're scared chicken? A NO-GO for them. Neither Drova nor the original Gothic are particularly huge (really, it takes like four minutes on foot to get from one of the major factions to the other). But apparently BIGGER NUMBERS are still meant to wow. And thus for Starfield, even the skies of the entire galaxies aren't the limit anymore. And rather than breaking records in square miles, it's LIGHT YEARS now. Overall, I'm having fun now in Witcher 3, mind. And I'll play it to the end!

Henry's coming home baby. And it's Europe's that's keeping bigger budget RPGs interesting. On that note, I've restarted The WItcher 3... and this is the first time it clicked. I had a beef with so much of the quests being railroady, the simple systems/combat, and all that. Additionally, Ciri isn't really properly introduced (never read the books), but still made the hook of the story, the damsel to hunt after. Never really worked much for me. This time I focused on the side content, adjusted the difficulty and skilled differently (which made combat more tactical) -- and even found a few alternative solutions to a quest here and there that wasn't spoilt by markers. (F'r instance, you can find the bandit hideout in Novigrad simply by listening to dialogues and following the clues, as opposed to doing what the quest log encourages you to do, step by step... so much more immersive!) I'm in now truly though. Novigrad looks like I'd always pictured Riva in my head way back on my Pentium 75.

The entire Dragon Age series is a mirror image of Bioware's existence. Which is one of following market trends. Origins (initially announced as Dragon Age in 2004) was pitched as a "back to the roots" project. Not late into their careers, like an aging Rock band would. But rather barely two moons after Throne Of Bhaal had shipped. Why is that so? Because the only thing consistent with Bioware games is/was their authors. Everything else was up for grabs, targeting whatever's currently hot. Neverwinter Nights? Multiplayer. Jade Empire? Console action-adventures. Mass Effect? Gears Of War. The Old Republic was clearly meant to be a World Of Warcraft Killer -- and Inquisition went bigger becuz Skyrim. And even BG wore its RTS influences on its sleeve (in particular Warcraft 2 at that time, which James Ohlen et all were big fans of). "We want Call Of Duty's audience" is one of the most infamous quotes in RPG history -- as if id Software would announce to target (or at least try hard to not alienate) Monkey Island fans next.

I'm the same with any game that treats me like a tool -- or as if Looking Glass had never existed. Yeah it's a mockup, but you probably know by looking what I mean. Unless it's something I really wanna play. It's funny how studios spend gazillions on photo realistic visuals. There's entire task forces dedicated to hairdos alone. And then it's all down the toilet as you're either reminded constantly you're playing a damn video game and/or you can't touch anything without being told when, how and if to do so. Waste of time, people and money -- doubly so if you consider the ridiculous dev cycles mainly caused by visual fidelity. Speaking about which, Drova is scary. I'm hesistant to post my playing hours, because the game must scratch an itch that hadn't been scratched recently much. And reading about the devs, I know which one it is. Aside of the obvious Gothic1+2 inspirations, what really drove them forward was the desire to make a game where you get to explore and figure things out for yourself. I think I may revisit some of these thereafter...

I'm like a dozen hours in, and still didn't join one. Couldn't decide yet (but I think I've made my decision). Even got a super high level weapon in my pockets by luring a guy LEAGUES above my level in front of a camps' guards and looting him after they had ripped him. Don't have the required attributes to use it though, for which you eventually have to join a faction. Exploration is so much fun, it's a joy (and clearly the biggest strength). Lots of biomes, even some early game critters appear later with a "twist". Optional caves, lore pieces, etc. Plus night time in the woods or exploring caves and mines can be even a little creepy, the sound design sells a lot of that. Got robbed blind by a bunch of bandits though in the woods more recent. They beat me into unconscious and took like half my money. Ooooof. Playing the Iron mode that only updates one (auto-)save. So whenever **** happens, it happens (except for game overs, of course). I wanted it that way. I know where the ****ers are hiding now though. Just you wait when I got my faction gear and armor. JUST YOU ****ERS WAIT. That said, I recently watched somebody playing with the player position showing on the map enabled. I actually think this spoils the (intended) experience. Tbh, I didn't even buy the more detailed world map and still own the one that Asmus haphazardly draws for you in the beginning...

Never thought that would ever be the case way back in 1999, when I was spending on GPUs, CPUs, sound cards and Gaming's Next Visual Blockbusters like there'd be no tomorrow... or 2024. But all I actually need in 2024 are apparently pixels (Drova - Forsaken Kin). Earlier this year, there was SKALD too, after all.

Not sure if it's an exploit, but there's a way which I found after trying. Yeah, at least the beginning area is a bit Gothic-like. However, Obsidian also lock the map geographically. There's the mountain range in the middle of the map, which makes the definite way through basically an U. Here as well, you can go everywhere from the start. At least if you stick to the roads and run. However, the faction location/s are (partially) locked. Gothic is basically like this: You arrive as a total nobody into a world (and it treats you as such). You discover that there's factions. To get better equipment (and advance the plot), you eventually need to join one of those. Combat is also fairly tactical, as it was in Gothic. Enemies visibly (and audibly) enter a threat mode where you can still pull back (or make them come to you), and they have attack patterns which are telegraphed via cues. And you need that, as in particularly early, most of the enemies can either one-shot you or kill you in a few direct hits. Every progression is thus felt, be it stats or gear. Even the mere act of discovering an axe after looting a bandit camp becomes an event. That's how Elex worked even years later, though they lost quite a bit of what made the original form special. In particular as to exploration. Elex was done by a team of no more than ~30 people, and yet they went with a massive world (which is harder to fill and get that hand-crafted feel from). I've been playing Drova for a good chunk of hours and seen most of the overworld (it's not HUGE, just reasonably big, Gothic-like), and exploration is still fun. I even went back to the starting area and found new stuff I'd missed before. No markers, no BS, just you out to try to surive. There's in-universe maps and chalk you can buy to mark them. So many details too. Even the small stuff, like enemy bodies don't despawn, they even rot. NPCs in general are "persistent" and don't despawn. There's a guy you meet early that gives you a few directions, however says he couldn't lead you to a certain place as he'd still have an appointment. I later discovered that you can actually follow his walk all over the map, and "witness" that appointment. That's not something I personally expected out of a 2d pixel game made by a core of 6 people, in 2024 or otherwise. Can see the possible annoyance with the lack of Z-axis though @MrBrown. You can't jump or climb (nor swim). I'd personally wished there were more distinct "classes" and playstyles, but they pretty much seem to lock you into a melee guy with magic and range as support options early. (Magic is said to be more of a thing much much later.) My biggest tripe is stealing though, which seems too easy (so not doing it).

That's Gothic, baby. Enemies act as barriers where you can go. That was prior to Oblivion ruining everything, basically. That said, I was able to walk very far into the map by sticking onto the road (and fleeing from enemies) in Drova so far. And the full release is a different thing to the teaser I played... in a good way. Turned off the player position on the map and tutorials immediately. Also went with the single autosave format and no starting bonus. Gonna play KCD II next year as "hardcore exploration" as can also. There's surelly gonna be an option again.

The teaser to Drova - Forsaken Kin -- a heavily Gothic inspired pixel-art game. That is, Gothic, the game. Not Gothic, Robert Smith's hairdo. According to the devs, that teaser (still available on ich.io) is still from the early stages ("Proof of conept"). Plays quite nice though. Is missing some of the features though that got me intrigued from reviews, such as NPC schedules, people reacting to you walking into their houses at night, drawing weapons, theft, etc. And, of course, this: Our Inspirations Games like “Morrowind” or “Gothic” inspired us to make a game like this ourselves. We think there’s a lack of games that take players seriously and an overload of games that tell players what to do at all times. That's such a valuable promise that this winter only Warhorse seem to be aiming to fulfill with KCD II. Again.