Random video game news... renewed!

[Sven_]

1 hour ago, HoonDing said:

Avowed will sell millions. It's not like the Xbox beggars can be choosers.

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.  
 

Edited November 23 by Sven_

[Wormerine]

9 hours ago, Sven_ said:

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.

hah Bringing BG3 as an example is an odd one, as the scale and complexity of the title makes its development cycle not that surprising - that they continue building on the same engine as D:OS, and kept studio identity didn't make it for quicker development. "D:OS reskin" complaints are complaints about creative direction, not reuse of code or assets - at least as far as reality is concerned.

I think there is something to be said for simpler titles like Mass Effect or Dragon Ages, but also there is little direct comparison between the two. And even if Obsidian gets keys to Fallout, I somewhat doubt they will suddenly pull off a massive AAA RPG - they just don't seem build to do massive productions. And in my book it's a good thing, but I am not sure how kindly wider public would take to Fallout on a scale of the Outer Worlds. Or Fallout not being moddable  - and for that Obsidian would probably need to use Bethesda's engine, might might be tricky unless Bethesda does Fallout5 first.

I also would like to mention that there was a far smaller jump from Fallout3 to Obsidian Fallout, than there would be Fallout4 to Obsidian fallout, or likely whatever Fallout5 turns out to be.

And if I was in Obsidian shoes I would also be weary of becoming "Bethesda support studio". They have their own thing going on, and I think it would be wisest course for them to keep it going. If they do Fallout, I think it would be beneficial to really differenciate it from Bethesda releases.

Edited November 23 by Wormerine

[Lexx]

Tbh, for me BG3 is too big already. Those 100+ hours behemoths are a tough sell on me now. I'd rather have a shorter game with way more story branching. Imo this is what Outer Worlds did well. Or Alpha Protocol back in the days.

[Wormerine]

18 hours ago, Lexx said:

Tbh, for me BG3 is too big already. Those 100+ hours behemoths are a tough sell on me now. I'd rather have a shorter game with way more story branching.

Did you try it? I don't think length is a problem in this case - it is a big game, but there is no padding. While Outer Worlds was much shorter, it did start to overstay its welcome for me, especially with DLCs, and in spite of many complaints I made about BG3, that is not something I can accuse them off.

I don't mean to oppose that mid size titles have a lot of appeal, and shouln't be forgoten about, just that comparing BG3 to Dragon Ages or Mass Effect is a bit riddiculous. Yes, FromSoft spend more time on their DLC to Elden Ring, than on any other DLC for their previous titles - but the end result isn't comparable either (whenever it is good or bad is another discussion).

Edited November 24 by Wormerine

[MrBrown]

7 hours ago, Wormerine said:

Did you try it? I don't think length is a problem in this case - it is a big game, but there is no padding. While Outer Worlds was much shorter, it did start to overstay its welcome for me, especially with DLCs, and in spite of many complaints I made about BG3, that is not something I can accuse them off.

The padding in BG3 was all those empty containers you had to shift through to find the ones with something in them.

Remove those, halves the game time.

[Wormerine]

2 minutes ago, MrBrown said:

The padding in BG3 was all those empty containers you had to shift through to find the ones with something in them.

You know the highlight feature tells you which ones are important - a much needed improvement from D:OS2 that would highlight every single irrelevant object.

While I never run into an issue myself of sifting through containers looking for trash, I do think it tappes into another issue I had - the Ultima inspired systemic design not quite having a point in BG3. Systemic design is only interesting if it leads to emergent gameplay - and while BG3 definitely has that, it also has fairly little of it, considering how many systems they have. All containers being physical objects that can be moved and opened is something I don't think contributed much. Yeah, you can stack them up to climb things - but there are so many easier ways of getting places - superman jump including.

[Sven_]

On 11/24/2024 at 7:32 PM, MrBrown said:

The padding in BG3 was all those empty containers you had to shift through to find the ones with something in them.

Remove those, halves the game time.

There are too much containers in there. Then again: Anybody looking in all of those containers has been conditioned too much by all the awful loot trap kind of games -- starting with Diablo back then and its awful influence. Diablo being the gaming equivalent of a coin slot machine inside of a dirty pub itself: get back to it, and you're rewarded with something. Your brain can't resist it.

The overall philosphy though is more in line with Ultima. Where containers exist for being containers. Like in a world, rather than in a thinly veiled coin slot machine. Thus in a kitchen you'd find nothing hugely useful, whereas in the hidden lab of a magician, you may. That kind of gets you thinking before brainlessly clicking on everything. At least, that's what Larian generally seems to be going for. Whether they succeed...


The Outer Worlds was awful in that regard. In parts, the loot placement was logical, such as finding drinks etc. in an inn. But then randomly, you'd find guns on the chair next to that or on the toilet. It's as if the entire world had been crowded by AI. Generally, there's loot and containers ****ing EVERYWHERE. It also completely went against the game's fiction too, as you got absolutely showered in ammo and ressources. It's as if there was no thought put into it. Except your inner packrat being kept occupied.

Generally, gaming needs less Diablo (cheap gratification trigger). And more Ultima (world sim).  Good luck trying to hammer all that Diablo out of gamer brains after decades of conditioning though.  Whilst this may sound as if I hated Diablo: I actually do not. In itself, it can be quite fun. I think it had an influence on games it shouldn't have had though. (Much like some popular MMOs later, but that's another topic). 

Edited November 27 by Sven_

[Wormerine]

4 hours ago, Sven_ said:

There are too much containers in there. Then again: Anybody looking in all of those containers has been conditioned too much by all the awful loot trap kind of games -- starting with Diablo back then and its awful influence. Diablo being the gaming equivalent of a coin slot machine inside of a dirty pub itself: get back to it, and you're rewarded with something. Your brain can't resist it.

The overall philosphy though is more in line with Ultima. Where containers exist for being containers. Like in a world, rather than in a thinly veiled coin slot machine. Thus in a kitchen you'd find nothing hugely useful, whereas in the hidden lab of a magician, you may. That kind of gets you thinking before brainlessly clicking on everything. At least, that's what Larian generally seems to be going for. Whether they succeed...

Interesting take. Perhaps, as someone who never played Hacks&Slashes like Diablo, I was never conditioned properly enough for it to be a problem.

I think the issue BG3 runs into, is that yes, while they decided to have very systemic containers, they use them mostly as a window dressing. There are a lot of rooms, with a lot of unnecessary contenairs and it begs a question: where there a best object to put in there? Larian seemed to use boxes, barrels and pots as generic decoration to make places areas look less busy. And while it makes narrative sense to have locations with a lot of boxes, even if they don't contain that much, a lot of rooms have a lot of boxes just cause.

[MrBrown]

5 hours ago, Sven_ said:

There are too much containers in there. Then again: Anybody looking in all of those containers has been conditioned too much by all the awful loot trap kind of games -- starting with Diablo back then and its awful influence. Diablo being the gaming equivalent of a coin slot machine inside of a dirty pub itself: get back to it, and you're rewarded with something. Your brain can't resist it.

I get what you mean, but I don't think it's just Diablo where this comes from.

[MrBrown]

One of three As in AAA is having a twitter war about wokeness. Looking good for aWoked:

https://tech4gamers.com/avowed-art-director-gamers-sickos/

[Lexx]

I refuse to waste my time with reading this kind of stuff. Gamers really have nothing better to do.

[MrBrown]

7 minutes ago, Lexx said:

I refuse to waste my time with reading this kind of stuff. Gamers really have nothing better to do.

I didn't read it either, I just find it funny how this seems to happen with every game.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, Lexx said:

I refuse to waste my time with reading this kind of stuff. Gamers really have nothing better to do.

Oh man you should totally read it. 

"Elon Musk is also involved in this controversy" - Elon is butthurt and spends too much time on twitter 

It somehow completely misses a reference to an almost decade old meme because the author is so butthurt about teh pronouns

"Forced DEI in gaming" - bruh they got elves

And the cherry on top is they're still gonna stan the game.

[Melusina]

I don't see problems with pronouns. I just use she/her and romance hottest chick in game.

[Gfted1]

Baldur’s Gate 3 Patch 8, Due Out in 2025, Adds 12 New Subclasses and Loads More - IGN

[Mamoulian War]

4 hours ago, MrBrown said:

I didn't read it either, I just find it funny how this seems to happen with every game.

Well, some of the guy tweets/blues were not most diplomatic, and I can understand, why it might not only the "hardcore anti-woke", but also the Average Joe, who is a little bit conservative, but some of the games, which he enjoys does not give him an option to pick choices, which would represent a little bit more of his worlds view. Such Average Joe is then very easily convinced, that these "anti-woke activists" can have a point. Which is bull****... But when you are advertising your game as inclusive for all audiences, but in the end you do not offer few simple choices for a significant portion of demographic, and then you point using derogatory terms at everyone, who even in good faith might be asking why is that the case. Well such a game is then everything, but inclusive... This is not black and white issue, some shades of grey might expand your audience and in the end show a middle finger to the "hardcore anti-woke" crowd... In this case, the easiest solution would be to offer a toggle near the pronoun field. Liberal people would be able to choose, whatever would suit their playstyle, the conservative people would be able to turn this feature off. But unfortunately, we live in the world, where everything has to be turned into hyperbole, and then calling the people with different world view either bigots or groomers, with no chance at all to find at least a little bit sane middleground

[Lexx]

Damn, MW5: Clans is already on sale. Didn't it came out just recently?

[MrBrown]

53 minutes ago, Lexx said:

Damn, MW5: Clans is already on sale. Didn't it came out just recently?

Frostpunk 2 is as well, and it came out two months ago, and is generally reviewed well.

(MW5clans came out a month ago).

[Wormerine]

6 hours ago, MrBrown said:

I didn't read it either, I just find it funny how this seems to happen with every game.

Pfff, hardly surprising with a small industry manufacturing and feeding of such "controversies".

[majestic]

2 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

In this case, the easiest solution would be to offer a toggle near the pronoun field. Liberal people would be able to choose, whatever would suit their playstyle, the conservative people would be able to turn this feature off. But unfortunately, we live in the world, where everything has to be turned into hyperbole, and then calling the people with different world view either bigots or groomers, with no chance at all to find at least a little bit sane middleground

Are you suggesting to create a safe space for Joe Somebody the Slightly Conservative snowflake so they (*snicker*) don't get triggered by an option in a game?

Sorry, but that makes no sense in the context of a silly toggle that lets you set your pronouns in the game. It already is a toggle, and everyone is free to keep the default pronouns for their picked character gender.  In all the games I have played so far that have a pronoun option, it was pre-filled with the default for your picked gender, and it is entirely optional to switch between the usual sets, i.e. he/him, she/her, they/them. It changes nothing else about the dialogue because that really just puts your choice into placeholders in the dialogue files that already have to be there to account for your character's gender choice.

No dialogue was hurt in making the feature.

Edited November 27 by majestic

[Mamoulian War]

Well how much will it hurt, if you gave an option to someone, who does not understand this kerfuffle, to completely turn it off?
 

First the people have been offended by other people asking for gay romances in games, now are people offended by other people asking for straight romances? Where is the sense in this? The more options you allow in your art, the more people will feel included in it Or you can call all these people bigots and are wondering, why your sales plumetted, or why Trump defeated Harris

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, majestic said:

Are you suggesting to create a safe space for Joe Somebody the Slightly Conservative snowflake so they (*snicker*) don't get triggered by an option in a game?

Sorry, but that makes no sense in the context of a silly toggle that lets you set your pronouns in the game. It already is a toggle, and everyone is free to keep the default pronouns for their picked character gender.  In all the games I have played so far that have a pronoun option, it was pre-filled with the default for your picked gender, and it is entirely optional to switch between the usual sets, i.e. he/him, she/her, they/them. It changes nothing else about the dialogue because that really just puts your choice into placeholders in the dialogue files that already have to be there to account for your character's gender choice.

No dialogue was hurt in making the feature.

Look, we need to have enough toggles so everyone can have a curated reality. Ya gotta have pronouns and no pronouns, gore and no gore, bombing hospitals and not bombing hospitals. 

[Chilloutman]

heh. I watched it yesterday and didn't wanted to be the 'first anti-woker'. Funny Avallone is now involved as well calling for lawsuit against Obs xD

[majestic]

1 hour ago, Mamoulian War said:

Well how much will it hurt, if you gave an option to someone, who does not understand this kerfuffle, to completely turn it off?
 

First the people have been offended by other people asking for gay romances in games, now are people offended by other people asking for straight romances? Where is the sense in this? The more options you allow in your art, the more people will feel included in it

We're now at talking about options to turn off options designed to make people feel included in order to make people feel included that don't feel included because they don't like inclusionary options even though there's the option to just leave them on their default setting.

Did you come up with the Starchild in Mass Effect 3?

edit: And with that, I think I'm out. Have fun.

Edited November 27 by majestic

[Bartimaeus]

Just skipping past the part of character creation that lets you change your pronouns or going into your game settings to disable the game from letting you change them is effectively the exact same thing (and I would find any suggestion of the contrary to be quite hilarious: I'd genuinely love to see someone explain how the game asking you about it on one page is to-o-otally different from being asked about it on another page), but if it makes the mouth-foaming troglodytes mad that they can't do the latter, I'm against including it as an option.

 

Edited November 28 by Bartimaeus