1378 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

I don't really follow the logic that a review agreeing with public opinion means the reviewer merely follows public opinion. It's almost like Joe has the same standards as the average gamer(For better or worse) shocking.

Joe has been in a quality decline for years now. He started out good (not as a critic but as a good personality who would not take bullshit) but now? He tries top hard, his internet personality no longer has any charm and he just feels like a giant yes man along with being extreamly bias. He bashed EA and their Battlefront season pass (for good reasons) but never bashed Bethesda's season pass despite having a similar issue (we have no clue what it is, it has a physical edition and past Bethesda dlc have always been hit and miss)

[Heimdall]

Joe has been in a quality decline for years now. He started out good (not as a critic but as a good personality who would not take bullshit) but now? He tries top hard, his internet personality no longer has any charm and he just feels like a giant yes man along with being extreamly bias. He bashed EA and their Battlefront season pass (for good reasons) but never bashed Bethesda's season pass despite having a similar issue (we have no clue what it is, it has a physical edition and past Bethesda dlc have always been hit and miss)

That's all fair enough, I just don't agree with the assessment that he merely mirrors public opinion. Partly because I agree with many of his scores of games.

Then again, I know I'm far too forgiving of a game's flaws to make a good critic.

[pdusen]

Because companies usually shoot for the 90 range with the big budget games like these.

 

That 85 score is damning especially when you know that Obsidian did not receive a bonus for New Vegas just because they got a meta score of 84 instead of 85. 

 

And what exactly is any of that supposed to mean to me, except that companies who give out bonuses based on Metacritic are idiots?

[Shechinah]

For some reason, I keep thinking of Deacon as Discount Elvis. Think it's the hair and shades.

[Shechinah]

For some reason, I keep thinking of Deacon as Discount Elvis. Think it's the hair and shades.

[Giantdeathrobot]

And I've said it again, what can they learn? Mod support. Even CDP has started to follow the mod support bandwagon over the years.

 

Also stop using an action adventure game as your argument, jesus christ.

 

The thing is, Bethesda can have mod support because they are still using the venerable Gamebro engine (which is also a reason why the game doesn't look very good and has tons of bugs that were already present in Oblivion). They haven't changed engine in more than 10 years, and I'm willing to bet that it's because modding Gamebryo is easy and, more importantly, there is less third party software that Beth would have to license for an arm and a leg.

 

By contrast, Bioware is now using Frostbite. Which looks much better (hair aside admitedly) and has less bugs and collision issues, but EA has made it clear that modding is more or less out of the question because it's hard and the bevy of third-party software at work means its probably very expensive to implement.

 

I think this idea that devs just need to find their magic ''make the game moddable'' wand and wave it at their game in order to make it a modder's dream needs to be dispelled. Not saying you think so, but it seems loads of people think its simple when it very much is not. At this point I'm pretty sure it is out of Bioware's hands at any rate.

 

And while I like modding a lot, I think I prefer games that are functional on release. FO4 is, to me, barely functional. It crashes, it takes ages to load textures, it stutters then goes back up to 60 FPS fo no apparent reason, it's awfully optimized for how poor it looks, it has loads of bugs and collision issues, and whenever it rains my screen always become a blinding white that makes the game utterly unplayable forcing me to hide indoors and wait or fast travel. I had bugs with TW3 and DA:I on release too, but nothing on that scale. 

 

Cripes, the two aren't mutually exclusive. To keep an RPG case, TW3 has modding support and wasn't a cobbled together mess on release. I'm tired of Bethesda being given a free pass because of mods. 

[Dantriges]

Mod support is nice and dandy but I prefer the game not to need mods to be playable or for features that should be in the main game. Played games for a long time where you needed mods and addons to have a working UI or play the game properly. Then hunt down the addons after a major patch is released. Have a game right now where the workshop has around 10-15k items made by modders and uh yeah this one hs compatibility issues with this one and another one with that one. And if you remove a mod for some reasons, you can throw the save game away, too. Sometimes. Ah yeah, ok.

 

So mods are nice enhancements but needing mods to fix the vanilla game?

[Ahglock]

I'm playing the vanilla game and having a blast. No mods needed.

Will some mods increase the fun? Sure, but it's not needed to be a great game.

[Shechinah]

Goodneighbor is wonderful. That is all.

 

Wait, and there's a guy who may be a pirate gangster, a colonial gangster or a gangster who dressed up in colonial to look like a pirate. That was all.   

[Shechinah]

I like how if you spend enough time in dialogue without selecting an option, it prompts the other character in the conversation to say something and can be pretty different and rather hilarious. I love that bit.

[Mr.House]

The thing is, Bethesda can have mod support because they are still using the venerable Gamebro engine (which is also a reason why the game doesn't look very good and has tons of bugs that were already present in Oblivion). They haven't changed engine in more than 10 years, and I'm willing to bet that it's because modding Gamebryo is easy and, more importantly, there is less third party software that Beth would have to license for an arm and a leg.

 

By contrast, Bioware is now using Frostbite. Which looks much better (hair aside admitedly) and has less bugs and collision issues, but EA has made it clear that modding is more or less out of the question because it's hard and the bevy of third-party software at work means its probably very expensive to implement.

 

I think this idea that devs just need to find their magic ''make the game moddable'' wand and wave it at their game in order to make it a modder's dream needs to be dispelled. Not saying you think so, but it seems loads of people think its simple when it very much is not. At this point I'm pretty sure it is out of Bioware's hands at any rate.

 

And while I like modding a lot, I think I prefer games that are functional on release. FO4 is, to me, barely functional. It crashes, it takes ages to load textures, it stutters then goes back up to 60 FPS fo no apparent reason, it's awfully optimized for how poor it looks, it has loads of bugs and collision issues, and whenever it rains my screen always become a blinding white that makes the game utterly unplayable forcing me to hide indoors and wait or fast travel. I had bugs with TW3 and DA:I on release too, but nothing on that scale. 

 

Cripes, the two aren't mutually exclusive. To keep an RPG case, TW3 has modding support and wasn't a cobbled together mess on release. I'm tired of Bethesda being given a free pass because of mods. 

Ok no. There are some devs like Atlus who did a fantastic job with Gamebryo (Cathrine), so blaming gamebryo is pretty silly as more Bethesda have horrible programmers and coders who don't understand the fricken engine.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Ok no. There are some devs like Atlus who did a fantastic job with Gamebryo (Cathrine), so blaming gamebryo is pretty silly as more Bethesda have horrible programmers and coders who don't understand the fricken engine.

 

That's not the same graphical syle at all. Catherine was a highly stylized game. Bethesda attempt to do photorealistic games, and for that the venerable engine is just inferior to the likes of Frostbite, FOX or RED unless you push it to the max with various injectors and such. 

 

I'm pretty sure they do understand the engine. It's just a hopelessly outdated one for the game they want to do, but they keep it because it's cheap, familiar and easy to mod.

 

It of course doesn't help that Bethesda knows they can release buggy as hell games and not spend the time to fix them because their fans give them a free pass and then proceed to make 1000+ fix unofficial patches. Well this time they had a bit of backlash on Metacritic, but compared to things like the reception of Unity? People still go very soft on Bethesda if you ask me. 

[goishen]

See, I'm different than most folks who play PC games.  I do not mod my games, at all.

 

Why, you ask?  Well, to start off with most of them are buggy.  Secondly, they change the game.  Okay, so I bought Star Wars and why I looking at Star Trek?  Thirdly, If you need a mod to fix a developer mess, then perhaps the developer should be the one to fix it.  Not the community. 

 

EDIT :  Oh, and plus.  Modding is something that developers worry about extremely late in the game when working on games.  At least with the amount of interviews and stuff that I've seen.  Something to please that .0001% of players who want to get in there and show the developers how it's done.  .0001% of players who even attempt this actually will.

[Zekka]

And what exactly is any of that supposed to mean to me, except that companies who give out bonuses based on Metacritic are idiots?

I don't know why you're asking me, my original comment wasn't directed at you. You asked me why devs care about metacritic scores. It seems you think they're  idiots, I agree.

[Andrew Lucas]

Hopefully, they learned nothing with Fallout 4.

[FKA_Servo]

See, I'm different than most folks who play PC games.  I do not mod my games, at all.

 

Why, you ask?  Well, to start off with most of them are buggy.  Secondly, they change the game.  Okay, so I bought Star Wars and why I looking at Star Trek?  Thirdly, If you need a mod to fix a developer mess, then perhaps the developer should be the one to fix it.  Not the community. 

 

You're really missing out, honestly. Mods can be wonderful, and are one of that platform's greatest boons.

 

A little bit of research and some trial and error could probably convince you that bugs are not really a huge issue.

[Mr.House]

That's not the same graphical syle at all. Catherine was a highly stylized game. Bethesda attempt to do photorealistic games, and for that the venerable engine is just inferior to the likes of Frostbite, FOX or RED unless you push it to the max with various injectors and such. 

 

I'm pretty sure they do understand the engine. It's just a hopelessly outdated one for the game they want to do, but they keep it because it's cheap, familiar and easy to mod.

 

It of course doesn't help that Bethesda knows they can release buggy as hell games and not spend the time to fix them because their fans give them a free pass and then proceed to make 1000+ fix unofficial patches. Well this time they had a bit of backlash on Metacritic, but compared to things like the reception of Unity? People still go very soft on Bethesda if you ask me. 

No one should use metacritic as an argument or to hand out bonuses.

[Giantdeathrobot]

No one should use metacritic as an argument or to hand out bonuses.

 

Preach it. I'm still salty that Obsidian missed a big bonus because of one lousy Metacritic point then was in danger of going under. Were it not for the success of Pillars of Eternity my favorite RPG developper might have been tanked by Bethesda's stupid engagements that they can, seemingly, barely reach themselves with FO4.

 

And I'm not using Metacritic as an argument. It's a cesspit of fanboyism, trollery, and aggregating statistics without regards for the source. My point was that it seems the bad reception to Bethesda's typical bug-ridden fest still wasn't as big as what it should IMO be thanks to the ''mods will fix it'' excuse.

[wolfhowwl]

Obsidian would have been a better position if Alpha Protocol hadn't also completely bombed.

[pdusen]

I don't know why you're asking me, my original comment wasn't directed at you. You asked me why devs care about metacritic scores. It seems you think they're  idiots, I agree.

No, I didn't ask you why devs care, I asked you why any of *us* should care, since you keep bringing it back up.

[RatThing]

It seems to me that Fallout 4 learned too much from Mass Effect and adopted some things it shouldn't habe. Pinocchio Story, no full dialogues anymore. Adding Romances was also absolutely unnecessary. Will bite them in the ass when people start demanding to be able to romance every single charakter.

Bioware can learn that a morality system is not needed. The Karma system was an inherent part of the past Fallout games. Now it's gone or at least not visible. And I certainly don't miss it. Don't See too many other people miss it too. About time Bioware does the same with its Paragon Renegade system. People can decide for themselves what is good or bad.

[Shechinah]

I very much like how characters ask the player character how they are handling things. It's sweet and one of the things that makes the follower friendship feel like it is not one-sided but that the player character and the follower are becoming friends or gaining a mutual respect for one another. It even made me forgive Nick Valentine's AI for repeatedly screwing about.

 

It is also something I found to be a bit lacking in Mass Effect 3 especially in regards to Thane's death where I cannot recall anyone attempting to comfort Shepard about it. It made sense that some characters might believe that it was something Shepard wanted to deal with on their own or that they did not know them well enough to approach the subject but I find it hard to believe that this went for all of them. It may, however, have been bugged since I had the Samantha shower scene happen just about right afterwards.

 

I actually laughed when the option to join her came up because it was so badly timed and like the game was trying to cheer me up. Dang it, game, I will get to lesbian sex in my own time, thank you very much! 

[Shechinah]

So far I have found nothing that bothers me personally about implementing a voice to the player character with the exception of auto-dialogue but that is primarily only when they add a tone to it like it had in Vault 111 when you were examining things. Otherwise, I can be unbothered by even the auto-dialogue. As I've mentioned before, the mechanics stands to be improved in my opinion but otherwise I love it a lot.

 

I can understand why some might dislike or even loathe it but I am personally hoping it is a feature that'll remain implemented albeit improved in the future games.

[Shechinah]

For those interested; "Full Dialogue Interface" by Cirosan and shadwar on the Fallout 4 Nexus seems to be a mod that removes paraphrasing by having the dialogue options display what your characte will say when the option is selected. 

 

I'm doing a completely unmodded run as my blind run so I cannot personally say based on my own experiences how well it works yet but if you dislike paraphrasing or have had bad experiences with it, it may be worth a look if you are on PC. 

[Shechinah]

A trick with follower affinity is that you can cheat the internal cooldown by quicksaving and reloading after you've triggered an affinity boost like, say, by modding something. This should supposedly reset the timer and allow you to gain affinity without the wait.