RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS - CON SEASON

[SonicMage117]

I thought it was the same engine all these years lol I thought that was the main spokes for modding and to be modder friendly but man, I can't complain when I look at Skyrim Vanilla vs Skyrim SE Vanilla, they do look like different emgines were used

 

Or FO3 vs FO4.

[Vitalis]

I thought it was the same engine all these years lol I thought that was the main spokes for modding and to be modder friendly but man, I can't complain when I look at Skyrim Vanilla vs Skyrim SE Vanilla, they do look like different emgines were used

 

Or FO3 vs FO4.

It is the same engine, but every game Todd It Just Works Howard states they have a "brand new never seen before" engine.

[Orogun01]

 

I thought it was the same engine all these years lol I thought that was the main spokes for modding and to be modder friendly but man, I can't complain when I look at Skyrim Vanilla vs Skyrim SE Vanilla, they do look like different emgines were used

 

Or FO3 vs FO4.

It is the same engine, but every game Todd It Just Works Howard states they have a "brand new never seen before" engine.

 

It was funny to see respected games journalist Jason "Shrieker" trying to explain what a game engine is and how it was semantically a different engine, whilst completely obfuscating the point that the engine has carried the same bugs into 5 or 6 different games now.

But don't worry; mods will fix it.

[injurai]

They basically just build out the new features that they need and update some of their engine extensions to keep their code-base somewhat competitive with the wider market. The core architecture is long been locked in on the Gamebryo side, evident by the data mesh, texture, and animation rigs all being constants. Plus the well known nature and open documentation of Gamebryo have facilitated modders delight. Bethesda have tuned their maps construction logic to efficiently build scenes out of memory cheap assets, and have made some improvements to the render (which is usually one of the easier parts to make custom modifications to as you just push your data out into the GPU and let a GPU kernel pump out the pixels to the video buffer.) The creation engine's big change was an improvement content publication pipeline that interfaced with the Steam Workshop.

 

The core of Gamebryo is an ECS which is what any great game engine worth it's salt would use anyways. It's the whole coupled structure of an engine designed to be licensed and fitted with custom extensions making for a cumbersome architecture, mixed with Bethesda's own mountain of cruft and deeply seated architectural logic that leaves each "new engine" feeling more like the last than anything truly different. It's the same reason why strafe-jumping and bunnyhopping from 1996's Quake is still around in TF2 and GS:Go even if in drastically curtailed forms. The games code is intricately coupled to the underlying architecture.

[Orogun01]

They basically just build out the new features that they need and update some of their engine extensions to keep their code-base somewhat competitive with the wider market. The core architecture is long been locked in on the Gamebryo side, evident by the data mesh, texture, and animation rigs all being constants. Plus the well known nature and open documentation of Gamebryo have facilitated modders delight. Bethesda have tuned their maps construction logic to efficiently build scenes out of memory cheap assets, and have made some improvements to the render (which is usually one of the easier parts to make custom modifications to as you just push your data out into the GPU and let a GPU kernel pump out the pixels to the video buffer.) The creation engine's big change was an improvement content publication pipeline that interfaced with the Steam Workshop.

 

The core of Gamebryo is an ECS which is what any great game engine worth it's salt would use anyways. It's the whole coupled structure of an engine designed to be licensed and fitted with custom extensions making for a cumbersome architecture, mixed with Bethesda's own mountain of cruft and deeply seated architectural logic that leaves each "new engine" feeling more like the last than anything truly different. It's the same reason why strafe-jumping and bunnyhopping from 1996's Quake is still around in TF2 and GS:Go even if in drastically curtailed forms. The games code is intricately coupled to the underlying architecture.

I'm not a programmer; although I do know how to script, maybe you can explain some of the bugs in detail. I just ask because there is one in particular that seems has more to do with laziness than actual engine limitations. The bug had to do with the game having the wrong address for the NVIDIA folder and having to jump back to their root folder to look for the file; I recall this as it caused an issue in F:NV where there would be screen tearing any time you moved the camera. I recall reading that Bethesda had NVIDIA fix it on their driver for each of their games, as F:NV was developed by Obsidian the bug was present.

 

I just ask because it seem like Bethesda gets away with doing the bare minimum on each new game and just poaches from modders.

[injurai]

You can write code with extremely non-deterministic behavior, but the art of programming once you know how to tell the computer to accomplish a specific thing, involves writing code that is modular in relation to how other code is used in relation to it, and further disallows improper use of these modular abstractions. Well, often times that very last bit is not accomplished so you end up with either very rigid code that is tightly coupled to other rigid code. Or you end up with highly modular code where either issues propagate, or weird corner cases arise as people interface with abstractions in ways that were overlooked. So improper use is not being sufficiently guarded against. All this added abstraction layer can hide bugs or propagate them deeply through the system. Even highly modular systems can become deeply "rigid" as the code becomes increasingly self-referential with interconnected dependencies.

 

Then the larger issue is that in maintaining a code base, you need your team to have the proper institutional knowledge to manage the code. But people leave, or forget things. So then you establish a large amount of overhead to maintain this knowledge, but that knowledge will always be out of date and incomplete. This problem plagues every old code base and is worse when the code base as so much momentum that the older work of the past is paying for the incredibly inefficient maintenance teams. IBM and Oracle are notorious for basically being drug dealers getting companies hooked on their legacy software, where they mostly sell support contracts.

 

Basically Gamebryo is old and not sufficiently modular at the levels of abstraction that matter most. Guerilla games for example if the designers need something, the engine people roll out the solution to their creative teams. Bethesda uses the extension architecture provided by Gamebryo to bolt their own extensions on, at the expense of lacking control over the abstractions themselves. All the abstraction and compatibility layers additionally build in overhead and opportunities for bugs. A large "surface area" of code means that some bugs will go forgotten or will lack any expert who would understand the system enough to fix the bug on the teams budget.

 

Bethesda really needs to hire a small passionate team to start something brand new from scratch, using the best in-house technologies of all their studios as "reference implementations" for a future engine. CDPR did this with the REDengine, it's not like it's impossible. Rockstar's engine probably share's a lot of similar issues with Bethesda's but at least that is entirely in-house. Short of building something new, unless idTech is really not suited for asset streaming in a large open-world game I'm surprised they just don't retrain up on that engine. Zeni acquired one of the finest engines in the industry and are even already sharing it among most of their studios.

 

Honestly with the amount of "content ambition" Bethesda has, and the fact they are building this all out using someone else's engine. I'm not surprised they spend most of their time on the game build on top of the engine as opposed to prioritizing the foundational tech. That was never part of that studios make up. I think it's time for it to become part of it.

[Orogun01]

You can write code with extremely non-deterministic behavior, but the art of programming once you know how to tell the computer to accomplish a specific thing, involves writing code that is modular in relation to how other code is used in relation to it, and further disallows improper use of these modular abstractions. Well, often times that very last bit is not accomplished so you end up with either very rigid code that is tightly coupled to other rigid code. Or you end up with highly modular code where either issues propagate, or weird corner cases arise as people interface with abstractions in ways that were overlooked. So improper use is not being sufficiently guarded against. All this added abstraction layer can hide bugs or propagate them deeply through the system. Even highly modular systems can become deeply "rigid" as the code becomes increasingly self-referential with interconnected dependencies.

 

Then the larger issue is that in maintaining a code base, you need your team to have the proper institutional knowledge to manage the code. But people leave, or forget things. So then you establish a large amount of overhead to maintain this knowledge, but that knowledge will always be out of date and incomplete. This problem plagues every old code base and is worse when the code base as so much momentum that the older work of the past is paying for the incredibly inefficient maintenance teams. IBM and Oracle are notorious for basically being drug dealers getting companies hooked on their legacy software, where they mostly sell support contracts.

 

Basically Gamebryo is old and not sufficiently modular at the levels of abstraction that matter most. Guerilla games for example if the designers need something, the engine people roll out the solution to their creative teams. Bethesda uses the extension architecture provided by Gamebryo to bolt their own extensions on, at the expense of lacking control over the abstractions themselves. All the abstraction and compatibility layers additionally build in overhead and opportunities for bugs. A large "surface area" of code means that some bugs will go forgotten or will lack any expert who would understand the system enough to fix the bug on the teams budget.

 

Bethesda really needs to hire a small passionate team to start something brand new from scratch, using the best in-house technologies of all their studios as "reference implementations" for a future engine. CDPR did this with the REDengine, it's not like it's impossible. Rockstar's engine probably share's a lot of similar issues with Bethesda's but at least that is entirely in-house. Short of building something new, unless idTech is really not suited for asset streaming in a large open-world game I'm surprised they just don't retrain up on that engine. Zeni acquired one of the finest engines in the industry and are even already sharing it among most of their studios.

 

Honestly with the amount of "content ambition" Bethesda has, and the fact they are building this all out using someone else's engine. I'm not surprised they spend most of their time on the game build on top of the engine as opposed to prioritizing the foundational tech. That was never part of that studios make up. I think it's time for it to become part of it.

I never considered that, it might also explain why UE4 implemented C++ and abandoned their UScript.

 

It seems like what you propose would be feasible, I recall Rage having vast levels. It didn't have the landscape of a main Bethesda map but I don't see how they couldn't just adapt it to suit their needs. I would also imagine that having to retrain the team on a new engine factors into this and it might turn away their money cow (AKA modders)

[injurai]

Yeah, Gamebryo is already setup to favor the modder. It actually takes a lot of effort to build a proprietary engine that is partially closed off from the user, but another portion is open for easy interfacing. Engines that favor the internal team and prioritize highly tuned optimization like what id, Naughty Dog and others push above all else, are not going to be modder friendly unless the entire source is open.

 

Even with engines that have an open source like other idTechs and Unreal, you aren't getting far with any practical modifications at that deep of a level with the code base, especially not without picking the brains of the internal dev teams. Stuff like Brutal Doom is the ideal state of modification but not has that source been available forever, it's also taken a long time for those sorts of projects to get off the ground.

[Lexx]

Cars and properties

 

This is old. First, RDR2 apparently does NOT play after the end of the game, as neither John's farm, nor Arthur's grave exists in the online mode. Second, this car stuff is 100% pure speculation. Nothing has been officially confirmed at all and the RDR1 gameplay he shows is actually from a mod and not official content either. A car appears in the first game, but the player can never control it directly.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Lexx

[Orogun01]

Yeah, Gamebryo is already setup to favor the modder. It actually takes a lot of effort to build a proprietary engine that is partially closed off from the user, but another portion is open for easy interfacing. Engines that favor the internal team and prioritize highly tuned optimization like what id, Naughty Dog and others push above all else, are not going to be modder friendly unless the entire source is open.

 

Even with engines that have an open source like other idTechs and Unreal, you aren't getting far with any practical modifications at that deep of a level with the code base, especially not without picking the brains of the internal dev teams. Stuff like Brutal Doom is the ideal state of modification but not has that source been available forever, it's also taken a long time for those sorts of projects to get off the ground.

I would understand if it was a third party license, but is there any reason why engines are not open source? It doesn't seem like a developer team whose engine isn't selling would keep it to themselves, specially when the result is a vibrant modding scene that will expand the longevity of the games and give them data on player behavior.

 

Maybe the problem with Fallout 76 is that they didn't opened to the modder community; with that amount of user generated content and Bethesda moderating it, they could have had a better release. Although I do have an issue with moderation as it enforces values; I generally like to have a wider selection rather than a sanitized one.

[Vitalis]

 

Yeah, Gamebryo is already setup to favor the modder. It actually takes a lot of effort to build a proprietary engine that is partially closed off from the user, but another portion is open for easy interfacing. Engines that favor the internal team and prioritize highly tuned optimization like what id, Naughty Dog and others push above all else, are not going to be modder friendly unless the entire source is open.

 

Even with engines that have an open source like other idTechs and Unreal, you aren't getting far with any practical modifications at that deep of a level with the code base, especially not without picking the brains of the internal dev teams. Stuff like Brutal Doom is the ideal state of modification but not has that source been available forever, it's also taken a long time for those sorts of projects to get off the ground.

I would understand if it was a third party license, but is there any reason why engines are not open source? It doesn't seem like a developer team whose engine isn't selling would keep it to themselves, specially when the result is a vibrant modding scene that will expand the longevity of the games and give them data on player behavior.

 

Maybe the problem with Fallout 76 is that they didn't opened to the modder community; with that amount of user generated content and Bethesda moderating it, they could have had a better release. Although I do have an issue with moderation as it enforces values; I generally like to have a wider selection rather than a sanitized one.

Bethesda has been looking at ways to clamp down on the nodding community for years at this point going by their initial Steam Paid Mods. Since Morrowind, their games have been doing quite well on console; which explains the streamlining of many of the features; and modding has never been a viable option on console. I know Skyrim and Fallout 4 are supposed to have "mod support" on console now, but I think it may be limited to the Creation Club. The Creation Club itself is an updated version of the Paid Mods but it is only limited to Bethesda created products; with the launch of Fallout 76 we finally see Bethesda shutting out the modding community entirely for a over year leading to a perceived reliance on Creation Club. Combined combined with their overwhelming reliance on an engine that is close to 20 years old with problems detailed by those more knowledgeable we have a recipe for a great disaster.

 

 

We will see what happens with Elder Scrolls 6, but I wouldn't be too optimistic at this point.

[SonicMage117]

 

https://youtu.be/2it5J3q_ErM

Cars and properties

This is old. First, RDR2 apparently does NOT play after the end of the game, as neither John's farm, nor Arthur's grave exists in the online mode. Second, this car stuff is 100% pure speculation. Nothing has been officially confirmed at all and the RDR1 gameplay he shows is actually from a mod and not official content either. A car appears in the first game, but the player can never control it directly.

My bad, You're right. Tried looking fir confirmation news for you but couldn't find anything. Personally I hope there is no cars because it will really make it look silly. Just doesn't fit in my opinion and horses are a big part of the experience... Well, I mean, they put so much depth into the horses that having a car would cheapen the experience imo.

[marelooke]

You can write code with extremely non-deterministic behavior, but the art of programming once you know how to tell the computer to accomplish a specific thing, involves writing code that is modular in relation to how other code is used in relation to it, and further disallows improper use of these modular abstractions. Well, often times that very last bit is not accomplished so you end up with either very rigid code that is tightly coupled to other rigid code. Or you end up with highly modular code where either issues propagate, or weird corner cases arise as people interface with abstractions in ways that were overlooked. So improper use is not being sufficiently guarded against. All this added abstraction layer can hide bugs or propagate them deeply through the system. Even highly modular systems can become deeply "rigid" as the code becomes increasingly self-referential with interconnected dependencies.

 

Then the larger issue is that in maintaining a code base, you need your team to have the proper institutional knowledge to manage the code. But people leave, or forget things. So then you establish a large amount of overhead to maintain this knowledge, but that knowledge will always be out of date and incomplete. This problem plagues every old code base and is worse when the code base as so much momentum that the older work of the past is paying for the incredibly inefficient maintenance teams. IBM and Oracle are notorious for basically being drug dealers getting companies hooked on their legacy software, where they mostly sell support contracts.

 

Basically Gamebryo is old and not sufficiently modular at the levels of abstraction that matter most. Guerilla games for example if the designers need something, the engine people roll out the solution to their creative teams. Bethesda uses the extension architecture provided by Gamebryo to bolt their own extensions on, at the expense of lacking control over the abstractions themselves. All the abstraction and compatibility layers additionally build in overhead and opportunities for bugs. A large "surface area" of code means that some bugs will go forgotten or will lack any expert who would understand the system enough to fix the bug on the teams budget.

 

Bethesda really needs to hire a small passionate team to start something brand new from scratch, using the best in-house technologies of all their studios as "reference implementations" for a future engine. CDPR did this with the REDengine, it's not like it's impossible. Rockstar's engine probably share's a lot of similar issues with Bethesda's but at least that is entirely in-house. Short of building something new, unless idTech is really not suited for asset streaming in a large open-world game I'm surprised they just don't retrain up on that engine. Zeni acquired one of the finest engines in the industry and are even already sharing it among most of their studios.

 

Honestly with the amount of "content ambition" Bethesda has, and the fact they are building this all out using someone else's engine. I'm not surprised they spend most of their time on the game build on top of the engine as opposed to prioritizing the foundational tech. That was never part of that studios make up. I think it's time for it to become part of it.

 

I take it Bethesda doesn't have any control over the GameBryo engine? In which case looking for alternatives might be a good solution if outright buying GameBryo isn't an option (might be a rather good investment given how tied to it they are).

 

As someone who (currently) works on rather old and large applications I shudder each time someone casually suggests just throwing something out and starting over. Depending on the state of the codebase refactoring is usually way more cost effective than tossing everything out (and leaves you with a working, usable codebase while you're doing it), especially since a lot of knowledge tends to be embedded in old code (starting over in 99% of the cases means relearning the hard lessons that were already encoded in the old codebase all over again). Not to mention losing all the tooling and knowledge built around the engine, both inside the company, but (especially in Bethesda's case) also outside the company.

 

 

 

Yeah, Gamebryo is already setup to favor the modder. It actually takes a lot of effort to build a proprietary engine that is partially closed off from the user, but another portion is open for easy interfacing. Engines that favor the internal team and prioritize highly tuned optimization like what id, Naughty Dog and others push above all else, are not going to be modder friendly unless the entire source is open.

 

Even with engines that have an open source like other idTechs and Unreal, you aren't getting far with any practical modifications at that deep of a level with the code base, especially not without picking the brains of the internal dev teams. Stuff like Brutal Doom is the ideal state of modification but not has that source been available forever, it's also taken a long time for those sorts of projects to get off the ground.

I would understand if it was a third party license, but is there any reason why engines are not open source? It doesn't seem like a developer team whose engine isn't selling would keep it to themselves, specially when the result is a vibrant modding scene that will expand the longevity of the games and give them data on player behavior.

 

Maybe the problem with Fallout 76 is that they didn't opened to the modder community; with that amount of user generated content and Bethesda moderating it, they could have had a better release. Although I do have an issue with moderation as it enforces values; I generally like to have a wider selection rather than a sanitized one.

Bethesda has been looking at ways to clamp down on the nodding community for years at this point going by their initial Steam Paid Mods. Since Morrowind, their games have been doing quite well on console; which explains the streamlining of many of the features; and modding has never been a viable option on console. I know Skyrim and Fallout 4 are supposed to have "mod support" on console now, but I think it may be limited to the Creation Club. The Creation Club itself is an updated version of the Paid Mods but it is only limited to Bethesda created products; with the launch of Fallout 76 we finally see Bethesda shutting out the modding community entirely for a over year leading to a perceived reliance on Creation Club. Combined combined with their overwhelming reliance on an engine that is close to 20 years old with problems detailed by those more knowledgeable we have a recipe for a great disaster.

 

 

We will see what happens with Elder Scrolls 6, but I wouldn't be too optimistic at this point.

 

 

Imho Bethesda (Game Studios) lives and dies by their modding community. Their games simply aren't good enough to stand on their own. Their insistence on sticking with GameBryo is, imho, proof of that. Switching engines and rebuilding their internal tooling and knowledge base would be costly and painful, but perfectly doable. But switching engines and destroying all the built up community knowledge is what would really set them back decades.

 

If they have any semblance of an intellect they might try to nab some of the modding profits (which they are doing), but outright shutting off modding in their single player games would be economic suicide.

[Lexx]

Bethesda owns Gamebryo. It's their engine since years.

[Mamoulian War]

 

Yeah, Gamebryo is already setup to favor the modder. It actually takes a lot of effort to build a proprietary engine that is partially closed off from the user, but another portion is open for easy interfacing. Engines that favor the internal team and prioritize highly tuned optimization like what id, Naughty Dog and others push above all else, are not going to be modder friendly unless the entire source is open.

 

Even with engines that have an open source like other idTechs and Unreal, you aren't getting far with any practical modifications at that deep of a level with the code base, especially not without picking the brains of the internal dev teams. Stuff like Brutal Doom is the ideal state of modification but not has that source been available forever, it's also taken a long time for those sorts of projects to get off the ground.

I would understand if it was a third party license, but is there any reason why engines are not open source? It doesn't seem like a developer team whose engine isn't selling would keep it to themselves, specially when the result is a vibrant modding scene that will expand the longevity of the games and give them data on player behavior.

 

Maybe the problem with Fallout 76 is that they didn't opened to the modder community; with that amount of user generated content and Bethesda moderating it, they could have had a better release. Although I do have an issue with moderation as it enforces values; I generally like to have a wider selection rather than a sanitized one.

Because giving away things for free, would heavily interfere with player engagement and recirring monetization of live services why would you download your horse armor for free, if you can buy it for 5 bucks

[marelooke]

Bethesda owns Gamebryo. It's their engine since years.

 

Right, I was wondering about that. It wasn't really clear from the GameBryo website, though admittedly I didn't dig particularly deep.

 

In that case it's a matter of priorities I imagine, and the right ones not being set...

[Lexx]

Apparently the grind in Red Dead Online is very real. Everything is super expensive and you gain little cash. Also weapons, horses, etc. are all level locked. Pretty much the same as GTAV Online. Such a damn turn-off.

[Gfted1]

I ask this sincerely; players squeal at grinding, then they squeal at other players paying real world money for things (while pretending to being worried for the children), so whats the solution? The game being fully unlocked and leveled up at install?

 

This isn't aimed at you Lexx, you just made me think about it.

[Orogun01]

I ask this sincerely; players squeal at grinding, then they squeal at other players paying real world money for things (while pretending to being worried for the children), so whats the solution? The game being fully unlocked and leveled up at install?

 

This isn't aimed at you Lexx, you just made me think about it.

Do you remember a time when difficulty was geared towards entertainment instead of profit? No; good, because it didn't exist.

Since the times of Arcades difficulty was a way to get more money out of you.

Rather than them focusing on a single element I would like that they address the main issue and that is that games now are a lot of fluff and no real content. The solution is someone designing an actual pleasant experience, instead of representatives of the board making sure that you hit all the checkmarks on elements they believe will make a game good/profitable. At this point  I don't who to blame; the developer or the publisher, it seems like they're melding into this hideous amorphous corporate entity.

[ShadySands]

Depends on the game but what comes to mind for me is the NBA 2K series. They started stretching out the game to add grind and then added the microtransactions to then skip the grind they purposefully added to the game. Then to take it even further they started removing features from the offline game so you had to play online, where they push you towards spending money, to play the fully featured game that you used to get out of the box for your 60 bucks.

 

I'll counter that with an example where I think the mtx works or used to before the new lootboxes, Lord of the Rings Online. As a MMO is was always kind of grindy and always had deeds where you had to kill hundreds of something to finish but when they went free to play they added deed accelerators that allow you to finish those objectives in half the time. Add to that it's very easy to earn decent amounts of cash shop currency in game and both the lootboxen and keys to open them were landscape drops and deed rewards.  Here the game plays almost exactly as it did before even if you don't spend a dime and spending money lets you speed things up from normal as the devs didn't slow the base game down to push you to spend as they did with NBA 2K.

 

So, I guess the difference is if it feels exploitative 

Edited November 28, 2018 by ShadySands

[Malcador]

I ask this sincerely; players squeal at grinding, then they squeal at other players paying real world money for things (while pretending to being worried for the children), so whats the solution? The game being fully unlocked and leveled up at install?

 

This isn't aimed at you Lexx, you just made me think about it.

 

 

Well there's grinding and then grinding.  I just miss the days when you didn't have a progression system tacked on to things other than an (MMO)RPG

[Tale]

I ask this sincerely; players squeal at grinding, then they squeal at other players paying real world money for things (while pretending to being worried for the children), so whats the solution? The game being fully unlocked and leveled up at install?

A game that's fun to play at install. And, if there is a leveling system, it doesn't require repetitive tasks.

[Vitalis]

I ask this sincerely; players squeal at grinding, then they squeal at other players paying real world money for things (while pretending to being worried for the children), so whats the solution? The game being fully unlocked and leveled up at install?

 

This isn't aimed at you Lexx, you just made me think about it.

No one is arguing for things to be fully unlocked at install. What they're arguing is that the grind exists to force you to use the microtransactions. If it takes 200 hours to get $250k but you can spend $15 to get $1 million; what is the point of playing 200 hours?

 

Yes, that's hyperbole but at this point it's where the industry is headed if it's not here already.

[Keyrock]

I ask this sincerely; players squeal at grinding, then they squeal at other players paying real world money for things (while pretending to being worried for the children), so whats the solution? The game being fully unlocked and leveled up at install?

 

The problem with microtransactions existing in a game that allow players to skip some or all of the grind is that there will always be the question, was the grind designed to be excessive as a way to encourage the player to spend money to skip it?  Did microtransactions influence the game design? 

Yes.  The answer is always yes.  You don't implement a money making system in a game if you don't intend players to use it.  Of course you're going to design the game in a way so as to push the players toward making purchases, otherwise, why even have microtransactions in there?

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by Keyrock

[Lexx]

Honestly, I'm not even mad at whales spending the coin on micro-transactions. Hell, I'd do the same if the only alternative is to tediously grind the same mechanics for 50 hours. Doesn't change the fact that it's a distasteful game mechanic. It's lazy, uncreative, and unattractive. Really wish it'd be possible to punish such companies more, but sadly the majority will still give them money for the next game.

 

Right now I'm just so very disappointed in the huge wasted potential of RDO. Instead of doing something new, they did what Rockstar always does-- take their old formula and reskin it with a new story. RDR2 got praised so hard for being slower and different than other games and then for the multiplayer they decide to make a copy of GTAV online with a different look? Seriously? Come on, how lazy is that.