9 hours ago, melkathi said:

Starfield just seems so bland. I don't even feel any energy to try it.

All I remember is that I thought it looked like **** and being surprised that it dropped off the cultural zeitgeist almost completely within a month after release. It's like a massive void, there's no memes about arrows to the knee or talk of massive mods that make it into a somewhat playable game, there's just nothing there.

That tells you how bad it was. For me it's funny, because we saw Bethsoft's decline ever since Oblivion. Every game they released got worse, but since you were able to make mods so easily, and the bare minimum gameplay loop was still fun, the majority of people never really cared so much. Starfield is just the next step down the ladder, and truth told, I have no trust in the next TES game either. They just can't do it.

Reckon Starfield was a bit of a perfect storm.

It was never going to have a good story or dialogue and was always going to use their shonky 20 year old engine, and even another TES would have had those two issues. Worse was, while it may have seemed like a good fit in theory it was intrinsically not a good fit for the 'Bethesda style' and made some of its limitations very obvious. Probably the worst though was that just about everyone would have preferred a TES* or Fallout title which meant that a decent subset of the target audience was predisposed against it and unwilling to cut it the slack they might have otherwise; that also meant no built in/ existing enthusiasm for modding. Perhaps as a result, marketing was also unusually tepid.

*fair enough really, not personally a fan of the series but it's already 13 years since Skyrim, and a new game is not close. Best part of 20 years between titles of your flagship franchise is going to stretch people's patience in the best circumstances, if you're going to take 7 years doing a new franchise it'd better look the part.

The downside of making a really popular game with lots of replayability (through modding), you can't just do the same again, you have to do loads better.

I remember when they talked about Avowed in one of those big shows about games where they announce new stuff or new trailers, one of the presenters said "Why not just play Skyrim again?".

Yeah, I actually enjoyed Starfield. The setting and story were more engaging for me than Skyrim or Fallout 4. I played through it 1 and a half times. It's far from perfect. The scale and procedural generated stuff is problematic. But I'd argue that a lot of people went in with unrealistic expectations and were surprised when they weren't met. It's still just a video game.

It also sold extremely well, so all this talk about it being a flop is overstated. Bethesda is nowhere near being in trouble as a developer. Heck, it sounds like the Fallout TV show managed to even turn their biggest recent flop, Fallout 76, into a modest success.

If they had added pulp aliens that are little more than humans with funky foreheads or antenna and pop art skin colours, I would have been more interested. Flying through space is more fun if you end up in a cantina in a hive of scum and villainy with aliens, than if you end up in a cantina in a hive of scum and villainy with just the same garden variety scumy villains you had where you started.

Starfield probably would have been better already if they just went with the Outer World-route and made like 2 or 3 planets and scrap all that generated content crap. Sometimes less is more.

3 hours ago, Hurlshort said:

It also sold extremely well, so all this talk about it being a flop is overstated.

It's certainly no flop and sold well in absolute terms, but since Bethesda is (basically) a single team studio there's an inherent opportunity cost to spending 7 years on Starfield. ie making it meant they couldn't do other projects.

So you're not just comparing its sales in absolute numbers, but comparing them relative to what sales of an alternative TES title would have been; and probably they would have been better in the short term, and certainly* would have had better longevity via word of mouth etc. Also, if it's 7 years per title as a new norm you'd be looking at 18 years between TES titles and then... 22 years between Fallouts? Even if it goes back to 5 years that's still 16 years and 18 years. That's a lot of time between drinks. You don't really want to rely on someone who played a game as a 13 year old buying a sequel as a 31 or 35 year old...

*ok, not literally literally certainly certainly but just very, very likely.

Ran across this trailer and started digging a bit. Looks like it could be fun (i.e. no guarantee it's any good, but at least it looks interesting). Basically a Japanese Fallout game set in 80's USA in a world where Japan successfully took over America 😂

Yes, full of 80's retro 😎

 

 

No annoying settlement building? Take my money!

Seems more like Saints Row + Dead Rising

also it's a Chinese game

Several DLCs, early access games, remakes...

https://www.polygon.com/480312/game-awards-2024-nominees-list-game-of-the-year

2 hours ago, MrBrown said:

Several DLCs, early access games, remakes...

https://www.polygon.com/480312/game-awards-2024-nominees-list-game-of-the-year

Couple eyebrows raised, and while I thought Erdtree will take the cake, I am even more confused by Marvel vs. Capcom Fighting Collection as a best fighting game(s?) of the year. That's not even a remake, that's just a re-release/port. From what I understand it is a very welcome one and a great one, but still. A collection of old games shouldn't be a contender for best X game of current year.

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?  

Edited November 19, 20241 yr by Sven_

Ultimately, award shows are what credible industries like movies have, so gaming needs them in order to be a credible industry...

(It's one of those situations where if you start off without credibility it's very hard to earn it, because the factors that cause the lack of credibility are self reinforcing- window dressing like awards showsis easy though (and awards shows are great for advertising). That's perhaps best illustrated by the general perception of game Criticism vs movie Criticism, of which gaming's review inflation is certainly a major symptom. One's serious business, the other, well, isn't; it's still largely seen as reviews of a kid's pastime done by people who Aren't Real Journalists. The self reinforcing consequence of that is that if you're a movie reviewer you're a lot more likely to be experienced and well known already, and there is an expectation that you can- and should- give bad marks to big movies. Correspondingly that gives high marks value, and the reviewer some protection from blowback. It's by no means perfect there; except when compared to the situation with games.

From the pov of the biggest gaming industry stake holders- publishers- many of the factors that lead to the lack of credibility are net positives so not subject to change)

https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/sony-talks-buy-media-powerhouse-behind-elden-ring-sources-say-2024-11-19/

^ Yeah, I heard about that. Most play up the gaming connection, but I'd be more concerned about the anime/manga influence, if any, that could affect films, series etc. Not to mention the general "yet more under one umbrella" concerns.

They should hire Ricky Gervais to host those award shows… might be worth watching then

For me watching the game awards is completely useless. Precisely because you almost never get review under 7/10. Which made the game reviews absolutely useless and irrelevant in my eyes. Because it is sometimes more entertaining to watch a 5/10 movie than play a 8/10 game. Unless they fix this widespread issue, they will lack the credibility they are craving for so much as mentioned by Zoraptor. 🤷‍♂️

15 hours ago, MrBrown said:

https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/sony-talks-buy-media-powerhouse-behind-elden-ring-sources-say-2024-11-19/

As a consumer I have been very happy with FromSoft under Namco Bandai, so I don't see an immediate benefit to myself. The most positive thing would be reuniting Bloodborne IP with Fromsoft, allowing for a potential sequel, or perhaps finally a remaster/remake.

On a flip side, that would probably mean end of day and date multiplatform releases, and while in general I don't mind waiting, I think it can be somewhat demaging for FromSoft game, where obtuse nature, and community discovery is part of the experience. That is, of course, assuming Sony would port their games to PC. While they have been moving their IPs over, Demon Souls remake is annoying absent. Whenever it is business decision, or if there is something blocking Sony from released DS on PC, I don't know. But from all Sony's IP DS and Bloodborne are two games I want to see the most.

I must say, I have been rather disappointed with Sony games so far. They are not bad, but the best I can say is that they have been "alright".

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 is releasing in a short while, 30 minutes if I recall, lots of bugs according to the reviews. Ofcourse a day one patch is coming, but we'll see how much that fixes. I preordered as soon as they opened it up, so I'll be playing regardless, I've a high tolerance for jank and bugs, and I was very lucky with Cyberpunk 2077 on release. My one complaint would be that the main character isn't trans as a giant **** you to Russians, but oh well 😄

Here's the release trailer, not going to post any of the reviews because everyone has their own favourites

 

Sounds like it's a game to buy in a year or more when it's patched up and cheaper.

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Sounds like it's a game to buy in a year or more when it's patched up and cheaper.

That seems to be the consensus. It needs a lot of patching.

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Sounds like it's a game to buy in a year or more when it's patched up and cheaper.

So pretty much like most big titles these days.

9 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

For me watching the game awards is completely useless. Precisely because you almost never get review under 7/10. Which made the game reviews absolutely useless and irrelevant in my eyes. Because it is sometimes more entertaining to watch a 5/10 movie than play a 8/10 game. Unless they fix this widespread issue, they will lack the credibility they are craving for so much as mentioned by Zoraptor. 🤷‍♂️

This explained it pretty well, I think. tl;dr, because no one reviews the actually bad games, unless they're notable for some other reason.