Random video game news... may the dice be with you!

[Keyrock]

7 minutes ago, Wormerine said:

Klei's new game. I used to adore these guys, but I just didn't connect with their last two releases (ONI and Griflands). At least they don't repeat themselves much.. which is a shame, I would love Invisible Inc.2.

 

I didn't play ONI but I quite enjoyed Griftlands, I thought it was a quality deck builder. The first character, Sal, is the least interesting to play. Rook and Smith both have way more fun mechanics.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Keyrock

[Chilloutman]

Starfield looks okish, I mean all they showed is nice but not much mentioned about story or writing so meh. That necro trailer for D4 was horrible, complete miss from theme and atmosphere for me

[Calax]

Starfall looks exactly like A bethesda RPG, just bigger. Especially with the "I'm going to lock eyes with you, and never look away" conversation.

 

The one I'm really interested in is the Wu Dynasty game where you play a mook in the Three Kingdoms armies with all the extra fantastic mythology stuff.

[MrBrown]

3 minutes ago, Calax said:

Starfall looks exactly like A bethesda RPG, just bigger. Especially with the "I'm going to lock eyes with you, and never look away" conversation.

Bigger is the absolutely not what those games need.

[Keyrock]

17 hours ago, Calax said:

The one I'm really interested in is the Wu Dynasty game where you play a mook in the Three Kingdoms armies with all the extra fantastic mythology stuff.

After the giant pile of feces that was Dynasty Warriors 9, I'm very much tempering my excitement for anything from Koei Tecmo. Hopefully Wo Long delivers, though.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Keyrock

[Keyrock]

[kanisatha]

1 hour ago, Keyrock said:

Even a large studio like Bethesda obviously can't custom craft 1000+ planets, there's not enough manpower and hours in the world for that. Presumably, there will be a heavy dose of procedural generation.

1 hour ago, Theonlygarby said:

Not sure I'd that was responding to me, but I will just assume it was.  I'm not big on Bethesda game design, and I felt skyrim and fallout 4 were pretty empty and lifeless.  Now stretch that game design  to 1000 worlds, instead of one continent or city.  I can't imagine it won't be empty and lifeless.

I get what you guys are saying. But tbh, it never occured to me to think that when someone says you can explore even one whole planet, let alone 1000, they mean that literally.   So I'm thinking of this more as large area "levels" than "planets."

[kanisatha]

1 hour ago, LittleRose said:

They have a second showcase on Tuesday. I'm sure it's going to be there.

I would absolutely love it if you are correct about this, but my understanding is that the Tuesday show is for more in-depth exploration of what was shown today. So I was thinking a series of discussion panels and possibly interviews with gaming news media.

[Theonlygarby]

1 minute ago, kanisatha said:

I get what you guys are saying. But tbh, it never occured to me to think that when someone says you can explore even one whole planet, let alone 1000, they mean that literally.   So I'm thinking of this more as large area "levels" than "planets."

I'm pretty sure he said you can explore anywhere on the planet.  I could be wrong. 

 

I should clarify that I don't think the game will be bad.  I'm sure it will do very well, and people will like it. I just don't like Bethesdas Game design. Making the game this big, will be more of the things I dislike about Bethesda games.

[Wormerine]

1 hour ago, Mamoulian War said:

Well, Diablo Immortal should give a hint

Eh, they don't try to make an e-sport out of DIablo Immortal.

[BruceVC]

@Wormerine

Wormie thanks for posting and promoting all these Bethesda games, its much appreciated 

Does this mean you like ES games now? 

[Mamoulian War]

9 hours ago, Wormerine said:

Eh, they don't try to make an e-sport out of DIablo Immortal.

I do not believe that this is enough of an excuse to not put an excess amount of monetization into it... you know all of the pesky e-sporters have all of that money from their sponsors, which needs to be taken advantage of

On more serious note, there are already a lot of e-sport games, which have excessive monetization, like Clash of Clans.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Mamoulian War

[Wormerine]

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

@WormerineWormie thanks for posting and promoting all these Bethesda games, its much appreciated 

 

Does this mean you like ES games now? 

No? None of the games I am interested in from the showcase are from Bethesda.

Just wanted to releave@Keyrockrfrom having to post every trailer from the showcase.

[Sarex]

 

Had no idea this was a game done by a Serbian dev house. Color me impressed.

[BruceVC]

13 hours ago, Theonlygarby said:

I'm pretty sure he said you can explore anywhere on the planet.  I could be wrong. 

 

I should clarify that I don't think the game will be bad.  I'm sure it will do very well, and people will like it. I just don't like Bethesdas Game design. Making the game this big, will be more of the things I dislike about Bethesda games.

https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/theres-no-way-all-1000-explorable-planets-in-starfield-are-actually-interesting/

Here is another link that criticizes the whole " 1000 explorable planets ". 

But I think those unhappy with this statement may be overlooking some things that could  include

• like in ME you can explore planets for resources and or mining. They dont need to have any living creatures to be worthwhile 
• having a 1000 planets and some of them being empty doesnt make them boring. Thats part of the fun of exploring, you not guaranteed to find activity in every planet which is what I would want 
• And then the best reason for boring and empty planets is we will  see some amazing mods that will populate those planets with cool things like hardcore alien Romance interactions and  ancient ruins to explore and places like smugglers bases. Endless possibilities  for modding 

So I hope these points change peoples minds because 1000 planets should be seen as a good thing even if they dont have cities and lots of activities 

 

[Chilloutman]

I... I don't even want to know what 'is' hardcore alien romance interaction..

[Mamoulian War]

Well, still no Bruce, if the dev has an issue at making 1 small area in Maryland not boring, I have my doubts, that they will be able to deliver us nonboring 1000 planets

Edited June 13, 2022 by Mamoulian War

[kanisatha]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/theres-no-way-all-1000-explorable-planets-in-starfield-are-actually-interesting/

Here is another link that criticizes the whole " 1000 explorable planets ". 

But I think those unhappy with this statement may be overlooking some things that could  include

• like in ME you can explore planets for resources and or mining. They dont need to have any living creatures to be worthwhile 
• having a 1000 planets and some of them being empty doesnt make them boring. Thats part of the fun of exploring, you not guaranteed to find activity in every planet which is what I would want 
• And then the best reason for boring and empty planets is we will  see some amazing mods that will populate those planets with cool things like hardcore alien Romance interactions and  ancient ruins to explore and places like smugglers bases. Endless possibilities  for modding 

So I hope these points change peoples minds because 1000 planets should be seen as a good thing even if they dont have cities and lots of activities 

Interesting.

But to @Theonlygarby's point, I agree there is no way physically to allow a person to explore the whole of even one small-sized planet let alone 1000. Even a planet like Mercury's surface area is vast enough to make it impossible within an open world game to allow the exploration of every square inch of Mercury's surface. So "go anywhere" on any of these planets, to me, does not literally mean we can explore every square inch of that planet's surface. It will still be about exploring specific discreet locations on that planet. This is why the very term "open world" is something I've always had a huge issue with, because it is obviously a giant exaggeration and a misnomer.

[kanisatha]

To ease the burden for @Keyrock

Also, this game has gone through a restructuring of sorts over the past several months, which you can read about in their recent Steam updates:  https://store.steampowered.com/app/919360/Alaloth_Champions_of_The_Four_Kingdoms/

 

[melkathi]

 

[Malcador]

https://www.pcgamer.com/arma-4-devs-reflect-on-finally-leaving-behind-its-20-year-old-engine/

Arma 3's absurdly nuanced stance system that'd let you contort your body into a dozen different postures is also gone—just left and right leaning now.

Shame.

[kanisatha]

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/theres-no-way-all-1000-explorable-planets-in-starfield-are-actually-interesting/

Here is another link that criticizes the whole " 1000 explorable planets ". 

But I think those unhappy with this statement may be overlooking some things that could  include

• like in ME you can explore planets for resources and or mining. They dont need to have any living creatures to be worthwhile 
• having a 1000 planets and some of them being empty doesnt make them boring. Thats part of the fun of exploring, you not guaranteed to find activity in every planet which is what I would want 
• And then the best reason for boring and empty planets is we will  see some amazing mods that will populate those planets with cool things like hardcore alien Romance interactions and  ancient ruins to explore and places like smugglers bases. Endless possibilities  for modding 

So I hope these points change peoples minds because 1000 planets should be seen as a good thing even if they dont have cities and lots of activities 

I agree with you here, @BruceVC. And I profoundly disagree with that pcgamer article's pov. In particular:

"Without an excess 990 planets or so, Starfield could shroud what it has in mystery. Let me spend hours poring over every tiny detail on a few incredibly detailed planets; let me imagine and speculate about what else is out there. Wondering what's out there is the single greatest thing about space travel and science fiction. The worst is discovering that the answer, 99% of the time, is "another boring rock.""

and: "Maybe I'd be less pessimistic if Starfield's aesthetic didn't seem to be a more grounded, far less colorful take on what No Man's Sky has already been doing for years. The montage of planets at the end of Bethesda's footage made me retroactively appreciate No Man's Sky's pulp sci-fi cover (opens in new tab) art style even more."

are things I completely disagree with. Todd Howard has repeatedly claimed Starfield is in part a NASA space exploration simulator. That is exactly the huge draw of this game for me. I *want* to play in a NASA "open star system" sandbox. I *want* that realism very much. I want that for every one planet I discover with vibrant life there are a hundred other planets that are empty and dead. And I absolutely do not want that ridiculous pulp sci-fi art style, and love how things look in this game.

I want this game to be a space exploration sim, just as much as I want it to be an RPG. And as such, I want it to be as realistic as possible.

[BruceVC]

9 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

I agree with you here, @BruceVC. And I profoundly disagree with that pcgamer article's pov. In particular:

"Without an excess 990 planets or so, Starfield could shroud what it has in mystery. Let me spend hours poring over every tiny detail on a few incredibly detailed planets; let me imagine and speculate about what else is out there. Wondering what's out there is the single greatest thing about space travel and science fiction. The worst is discovering that the answer, 99% of the time, is "another boring rock.""

and: "Maybe I'd be less pessimistic if Starfield's aesthetic didn't seem to be a more grounded, far less colorful take on what No Man's Sky has already been doing for years. The montage of planets at the end of Bethesda's footage made me retroactively appreciate No Man's Sky's pulp sci-fi cover (opens in new tab) art style even more."

are things I completely disagree with. Todd Howard has repeatedly claimed Starfield is in part a NASA space exploration simulator. That is exactly the huge draw of this game for me. I *want* to play in a NASA "open star system" sandbox. I *want* that realism very much. I want that for every one planet I discover with vibrant life there are a hundred other planets that are empty and dead. And I absolutely do not want that ridiculous pulp sci-fi art style, and love how things look in this game.

I want this game to be a space exploration sim, just as much as I want it to be an RPG. And as such, I want it to be as realistic as possible.

I like how you framing your expectations  for this  game when you say 

" That is exactly the huge draw of this game for me. I *want* to play in a NASA "open star system" sandbox. I *want* that realism very much. I want that for every one planet I discover with vibrant life there are a hundred other planets that are empty and dead. And I absolutely do not want that ridiculous pulp sci-fi art style, and love how things look in this game " 

That does sound compelling and fun, dont get me wrong I love the whole ME and Star Wars design but I like the idea of exploring 10 or so planets and finding nothing and then planet 11 has something worthwhile 

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by BruceVC

[Lexx]

41 minutes ago, Malcador said:

https://www.pcgamer.com/arma-4-devs-reflect-on-finally-leaving-behind-its-20-year-old-engine/

 

 

Shame.

Wrong. Up/Down stance is now done with CTRL+Mouse wheel. It actually allows even more height changes + they are permanent. So if you bend down a bit and walk forward, you will stay in that height and not revert back to full standing.

The only thing missing is those height changes from crouching to prone, but who knows, maybe it'll be back some day. It's certainly not impossible to implement.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Lexx

[kanisatha]

8 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I like how you framing your expectations  for this  game when you say 

" That is exactly the huge draw of this game for me. I *want* to play in a NASA "open star system" sandbox. I *want* that realism very much. I want that for every one planet I discover with vibrant life there are a hundred other planets that are empty and dead. And I absolutely do not want that ridiculous pulp sci-fi art style, and love how things look in this game " 

That does sound compelling and fun, dont get me wrong I love the whole ME and Star Wars design but I like the idea of exploring 10 or so planets and finding nothing and then planet 11 has something worthwhile

My term for games like this is 'reality RPG.'