What's been up with PC gaming lately? Lawsuit after lawsuit, bad game after bad game...

[corrado33]

1 hour ago, JZStudios said:

Bioshock Infinite was a bit of a scandal due to essentially false advertising and a terrible ending.

 

I think his primary point was the larger well known devs, not indie studios.

Technically yes, I was mainly talking about the larger well known devs, but I will disagree with you on bioshock infinite. I loved the hell out of that game (and the ending.) 

[Taja]

13 hours ago, JZStudios said:

 

The Witcher 3 is basically made by an indie dev.

Divinity IS made by an indie dev.

Fallout 4 was universally mediocre at best.

DS3 is older and made by a smaller Japanese studio known for that series and Armored Core, which is very small.

Nioh is made by the Dead or Alive devs. They don't do much else.

Life is Strange is an indie dev. It's also garbage.

Bioshock Infinite was a bit of a scandal due to essentially false advertising and a terrible ending.

 

I think his primary point was the larger well known devs, not indie studios.

CDPR is not indie, larian and dontnod are indie, but that does not matter - I am talking about game quality in recent games - the games matter, not the developers.

 

Fallout 4 was not mediocre - it was an tremendous success. That does not mean the game is GOOD, because thay is 100% subjective. I find Fo4, Fo3 and NV to have its own merits and flaws, and the one I most enjoyed was Fo4, followed by NV.

 

Calling Life is Strange garbage is not only wrong, its falacious. You can find the game bad, thats an opinion, but calling it "garbage" sounds like it was poorly done - which it wasnt. It is a masterpiece and considered as such, even if some people dont like it/hate it.

 

Bioshock Infinite was very well received, and though its true there were scandals involving the game, overall its very positively reviewed. And the ending is not bad at all - again that is only an opinion.

 

The difference between calling a game "good" or "bad" lies in so much more than subjective things. I call fallout 76 BAD because it has a lot of problems, bugs, ita poorly done, etc. I may even enjoy the game, but even then I have to admit it is a bad game - also a game being "bad" is based on general public opinion and reception. Like every art form, you can find something unenjoyable but still acknowledge that its well done, and vice versa.

 

 

 

[JZStudios]

14 hours ago, corrado33 said:

Technically yes, I was mainly talking about the larger well known devs, but I will disagree with you on bioshock infinite. I loved the hell out of that game (and the ending.) 

I don't know when you played it, but the game promised and the game delivered were completely different. A LOT of content was cut.

I think people like the ending because they think it's something deep or mind-bending, but if you actually think about it it's actually very non-sensical. It just doesn't make any sense under any amount of scrutiny and you have to look at it at a surface level.

2 hours ago, Taja said:

CDPR is not indie, larian and dontnod are indie, but that does not matter - I am talking about game quality in recent games - the games matter, not the developers.

 

Fallout 4 was not mediocre - it was an tremendous success. That does not mean the game is GOOD, because thay is 100% subjective. I find Fo4, Fo3 and NV to have its own merits and flaws, and the one I most enjoyed was Fo4, followed by NV.

 

Calling Life is Strange garbage is not only wrong, its falacious. You can find the game bad, thats an opinion, but calling it "garbage" sounds like it was poorly done - which it wasnt. It is a masterpiece and considered as such, even if some people dont like it/hate it.

 

Bioshock Infinite was very well received, and though its true there were scandals involving the game, overall its very positively reviewed. And the ending is not bad at all - again that is only an opinion.

 

The difference between calling a game "good" or "bad" lies in so much more than subjective things. I call fallout 76 BAD because it has a lot of problems, bugs, ita poorly done, etc. I may even enjoy the game, but even then I have to admit it is a bad game - also a game being "bad" is based on general public opinion and reception. Like every art form, you can find something unenjoyable but still acknowledge that its well done, and vice versa.

 

 

 

CDPR produces and publishes their own games. That's called indie.

 

I saw a lot more negative to average reviews for FO4 than glaringly positive ones, including a lot of people saying they gave it a second chance only to discover it still wasn't very good. Just because YOU like it doesn't mean everyone else does.

 

Life is Strange IS garbage. It's barely a game, so it relies heavily on story, which is terrible. It's so far up it's own asshole and it's "inspirations" that it doesn't do anything creative or original. The writing is hella awful, the characters are all stupid and uninteresting, the ending again was retarded and invalidated the entire game before then by boiling down to ME3 style "Pick ending A or ending B."

Now, personally, in my own opinion I also abhor the art style. Everything looks like shitty claymation, and I'm a fan of Aardman films.

The Before the Storm made by a completely separate studio fared much better, but the original game was so garbage there was only so much they could do.

 

I didn't say Bioshock was bad as a whole, just the ending. But more recently games have been given less of a pass for false advertising.

 

I say things are bad when they're objectively bad. Look into the Bioshock ending and REALLY think about it. It doesn't hold up. Look at the writing and story telling and brown nosing in Life is Strange. It's just not very good.

If I objectively don't like something, I'll say I hated the Bioshock ending, or I didn't like LIS. A lot of Bioshock fans didn't like the ending because it was garbage nonsense. A lot of people didn't like LIS because it's predictable brown nosing and hella awful writing chock full of clichés. If the game wants you to feel sad, or if wants to pretend to be "deep" "expressive" or "Provocative" it'll just cut to a music video edited by hipsters with some soft indie music while the camera pans around some garbage cans and squirrels. Oh, and instagram filters.

 

I won't accept mediocrity as anything more than that. You'd probably defend those splatter paintings that sell for $1mil meanwhile an artists apron with paint smeared on it is indistinguishable.

[aigars2]

We are at a point where a lot of studios can make half a decent game based on what we expect, EXCEPT that WOW moment and QUALITY. We pay too much for what has been ... since year 20??, when all the modern game mechanics were established. Also, everything can be outsourced to shitiest levels. 

 

Also today, how many people make it by writing something original? None. Because no one reads books. How suprising. 

 

Probably VR will save us? But no! Because someone will SUE the shit out of it. 

[TechyBen]

Greed and money. You know that resturange that constantly reduces the size of the portion, gets worse and worse staff, but the boss has a bigger sports car and more holidays each year? Yeah, we are at that stage (And ET the Extra Terrestrial on Atari shows it happened once or twice in the industry before already).

[TechyBen]

16 hours ago, A Random Dude said:

To you, sure. To others, they're still addictive.

You must not watch Angry Video Game Nerd. XD

 

Yeah, a lot of nostalgia glasses there.

 

Costs mean AAA 100% pure art budget, orchestral, paid actors voiceover, 50 hour FMV, openworld where even the gnats bollocks are textures in 8k, are going to be millions in cost (IIRC half of it is advertising anyhow)... but games like A Ghost of a Tale and StarDew Vally show there is a mix of game scope and art ability even with single person "studios". Those games can be good too.

 

See HollyWood and Disney. Disney especially as they can use a ton of cash to make a good thing, or a flop (Or Warner Brothers who love making flops XD).

 

There are obviously poor implementations of game mechanics or programming though. Games like Fallout [whatever the cash grab number is] are broken on so many levels it's hard to point to. And games like The Quiet Man, where they had a good idea(?) but failed at every step other than "let's make a game".

[Taja]

3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

I don't know when you played it, but the game promised and the game delivered were completely different. A LOT of content was cut.

I think people like the ending because they think it's something deep or mind-bending, but if you actually think about it it's actually very non-sensical. It just doesn't make any sense under any amount of scrutiny and you have to look at it at a surface level.

CDPR produces and publishes their own games. That's called indie.

 

I saw a lot more negative to average reviews for FO4 than glaringly positive ones, including a lot of people saying they gave it a second chance only to discover it still wasn't very good. Just because YOU like it doesn't mean everyone else does.

 

Life is Strange IS garbage. It's barely a game, so it relies heavily on story, which is terrible. It's so far up it's own asshole and it's "inspirations" that it doesn't do anything creative or original. The writing is hella awful, the characters are all stupid and uninteresting, the ending again was retarded and invalidated the entire game before then by boiling down to ME3 style "Pick ending A or ending B."

Now, personally, in my own opinion I also abhor the art style. Everything looks like shitty claymation, and I'm a fan of Aardman films.

The Before the Storm made by a completely separate studio fared much better, but the original game was so garbage there was only so much they could do.

 

I didn't say Bioshock was bad as a whole, just the ending. But more recently games have been given less of a pass for false advertising.

 

I say things are bad when they're objectively bad. Look into the Bioshock ending and REALLY think about it. It doesn't hold up. Look at the writing and story telling and brown nosing in Life is Strange. It's just not very good.

If I objectively don't like something, I'll say I hated the Bioshock ending, or I didn't like LIS. A lot of Bioshock fans didn't like the ending because it was garbage nonsense. A lot of people didn't like LIS because it's predictable brown nosing and hella awful writing chock full of clichés. If the game wants you to feel sad, or if wants to pretend to be "deep" "expressive" or "Provocative" it'll just cut to a music video edited by hipsters with some soft indie music while the camera pans around some garbage cans and squirrels. Oh, and instagram filters.

 

I won't accept mediocrity as anything more than that. You'd probably defend those splatter paintings that sell for $1mil meanwhile an artists apron with paint smeared on it is indistinguishable.

Ok, I get it now. You are just a person who thinks your opinions means a lot more than it actually does. No sense in trying to argue with that.

 

Else, for people with more sense, try the games I said, or at lest see reviews of them. Maybe you will love them, maybe not. But it is worth a try for sure (TW 3 and DOS 2 are my favorite games and so good that its a shame if you dont try them)

[JZStudios]

1 hour ago, Taja said:

Ok, I get it now. You are just a person who thinks your opinions means a lot more than it actually does. No sense in trying to argue with that.

 

Else, for people with more sense, try the games I said, or at lest see reviews of them. Maybe you will love them, maybe not. But it is worth a try for sure (TW 3 and DOS 2 are my favorite games and so good that its a shame if you dont try them)

OK, I get it now. You are just a person who thinks your opinion means a lot more than it actually does. No sense in trying to argue that.

 

Else, for the people with more sense, take a more critical close-up look at the games mentioned and how the public as a whole also perceived those games both at the time of launch and now. Maybe you'll like them, or maybe you won't because you're capable of critical thinking and asking questions such as "Does this make sense?" "Why the hell would killing one instance stop all time lines which are already occurring?"Who the fuck says hella ever, let alone this much?" "Which this game get over it's brown nosing of The Catcher in the Rye?" "Isn't it kind of stupid and pointless to have a game about decisions and choices make it all entirely meaningless?" "Why the fuck is the final decision to invalidate everything you did by letting an entire town die, or to be hella besties forever with a shitty person?"

 

CDPR is still an indie studio, and I said nothing else about TW3, but fuck it, whatever.

DOS 2 is also made by an indie studio, which was crowd funded and had an early access model since the first game wasn't great. But yeah, fuck it, I guess I said that sucks balls too.

[Taja]

3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

OK, I get it now. You are just a person who thinks your opinion means a lot more than it actually does. No sense in trying to argue that.

 

Else, for the people with more sense, take a more critical close-up look at the games mentioned and how the public as a whole also perceived those games both at the time of launch and now. Maybe you'll like them, or maybe you won't because you're capable of critical thinking and asking questions such as "Does this make sense?" "Why the hell would killing one instance stop all time lines which are already occurring?"Who the fuck says hella ever, let alone this much?" "Which this game get over it's brown nosing of The Catcher in the Rye?" "Isn't it kind of stupid and pointless to have a game about decisions and choices make it all entirely meaningless?" "Why the fuck is the final decision to invalidate everything you did by letting an entire town die, or to be hella besties forever with a shitty person?"

 

CDPR is still an indie studio, and I said nothing else about TW3, but fuck it, whatever.

DOS 2 is also made by an indie studio, which was crowd funded and had an early access model since the first game wasn't great. But yeah, fuck it, I guess I said that sucks balls too.

Sure dude.

[JZStudios]

15 hours ago, Taja said:

Sure dude.

Yep.

Probably also think the Marvel movies are really good too.

[Taja]

@JZStudios

Sure dude.

[JZStudios]

On 12/1/2018 at 1:04 PM, Taja said:

@JZStudios

Sure dude.

Yep.

Probably also think Assassins Creed is a good franchise.

[Taja]

13 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Yep.

Probably also think Assassins Creed is a good franchise.

Sure dude.

[JZStudios]

3 hours ago, Taja said:

Sure dude.

Yep.

Probably also think that McDonalds has good food.

[Taja]

1 hour ago, JZStudios said:

Yep.

Probably also think that McDonalds has good food.

Surete, dudette.

[JZStudios]

5 hours ago, Taja said:

Surete, dudette.

Yep. Probably also think socialism is a good idea.

[DaMainMan]

Meh, I think most of it is Nostalgia. There were alot of bad games back in the day as well. I recently had the same feeling like you did, but the more I thought about it, it became apparent that the whole gaming landscape has changed.

The big AAA producers have more or less become money making monsters who push out sequel after sequel to satisfy the market. It almost seems like innovation has become a serious liability at this point (why try something new which may fail if you can produce BattleDuty 152322 and still make millions).

On the other hand, the explosion of early access titles really drive the innovation in this era of gaming. Just look what happened with PUBG. There are so many innovative titles available right now, it is almost mind-boggeling. Most are not nearly finished, but fun nontheless.

 

To answer you question, I think BF:V is the game with the best graphics/engine out at the moment - but that is more or less also just a rehash of BF1.

 

[Taja]

7 hours ago, DaMainMan said:

Snip

 

Yeah, I think this sequel-tendency can be good in some points and bad in others.

For example, divinity original sin 2 is AMAZING. The first game is also good, but the second is way better in every way imaginable. 

But there is also the likes of Fallout 4: it improved A LOT of things, but also it made some stuff worst and changed others in a compromising way. I for one like the Voiced main character, but the cost of that was too high: losing a bunch of freedom with the dialogues. It was worth it? Maybe. But it also could have been done better.

 

I think the mentality about sequels cant be purely money-centered, like MANY are, even if that seens to work in the short term.

[JZStudios]

16 hours ago, DaMainMan said:

Meh, I think most of it is Nostalgia. There were alot of bad games back in the day as well. I recently had the same feeling like you did, but the more I thought about it, it became apparent that the whole gaming landscape has changed.

The big AAA producers have more or less become money making monsters who push out sequel after sequel to satisfy the market. It almost seems like innovation has become a serious liability at this point (why try something new which may fail if you can produce BattleDuty 152322 and still make millions).

On the other hand, the explosion of early access titles really drive the innovation in this era of gaming. Just look what happened with PUBG. There are so many innovative titles available right now, it is almost mind-boggeling. Most are not nearly finished, but fun nontheless.

 

To answer you question, I think BF:V is the game with the best graphics/engine out at the moment - but that is more or less also just a rehash of BF1.

 

I don't think there's very much else like Battlefield though. It used to straddle the middle ground between something like Arma and Call of duty. Arma has an entire island, Call of Duty has 2 houses. Arma is a milsim, COD is pure arcade.

I managed to get a friend super hooked on BF4 and now he's butthurt that there's nothing else like it on the market. WW3 could still be promising, but needs work. There's shitloads of COD likes though, and for the more "tactical" type, there's Insurgency, Squad, Siege, and a few other indie titles coming out.

9 hours ago, Taja said:

Yeah, I think this sequel-tendency can be good in some points and bad in others.

For example, divinity original sin 2 is AMAZING. The first game is also good, but the second is way better in every way imaginable. 

But there is also the likes of Fallout 4: it improved A LOT of things, but also it made some stuff worst and changed others in a compromising way. I for one like the Voiced main character, but the cost of that was too high: losing a bunch of freedom with the dialogues. It was worth it? Maybe. But it also could have been done better.

 

I think the mentality about sequels cant be purely money-centered, like MANY are, even if that seens to work in the short term.

If they're going to give you less choices, why wouldn't they just actually give you less choices? I've only seen a few videos, but it seems like a lot of dialogue has "4" choices, but 2 or 3 of them is the same. Why not just remove the false choices?