July 2023 PC Gamer Article Links and Discussion

[ZedClampet]

Start off with a funny one:

Someone made a ChatGPT-powered bot that says 'dumb things that are somewhat funny' to waste telemarketers' time

Finally, get some sweet revenge on those annoying telemarketers and record it for your pleasure.

www.pcgamer.com

This is actually amazing. You would never know you were talking to AI. If you want to hear a couple of the calls (which are pretty hilarious) you can go to their site.

 

[ZedClampet]

We're on the brink of the biggest changes to computing's DNA and it's not just quantum that's coming

We're not at the tipping point yet, however. The hardware is still nascent and "the thing that we haven't cracked yet is the software."

www.pcgamer.com

 

[mainer]

I almost linked these articles in the Starfield Pre-Release thread, but I don't think that they are so much Starfield specific, but more a comparison/discussion on two RPGs (the other being Baldur's Gate 3) that are completely different in the way they are developed, as well as played.

Starfield and Baldur's Gate 3 have reignited the 'quantity vs quality' debate around RPGs that promise a billion hours of gameplay, but I think they can actually deliver

Stop me if you've heard this before: "Our game has more words than the Lord of the Rings and the Bible put together! It's a billion, kajillion hours long! You can't finish it! No one can finish it!"

www.pcgamer.com

Starfield having only four romanceable NPCs is 'a good thing', says Dragon Age veteran

David Gaider chimes in on the 'quality versus quantity debate'.

www.pcgamer.com

This is just my perspective from having played primarily RPGs for the past 30 + years. I don't think that this is a matter of "quality vs quantity", as both Bethesda & Larian have distinct styles and focus on how they create games.

Bethesda creates huge open world sandboxes where you can be whoever you want and go wherever you want at your own pace. You can even ignore the main story line and still spend hundreds of hours with crafting systems, settlement/house construction, pursuing side quests, or just go off the beaten path because it looks interesting. Plus they have a dedicated mod community that greatly expands on what you'll eventually be able to do.

Larian creates a game world that focuses on character interactions, conversations and choice of direction, much like the older Bioware games did. They're more story focused. While not open world, the maps are still fun to explore and have multiple options on how you approach any given situation.

I think both these studios, as well as the upcoming games, have both quality and quantity, and in fact complement each other with their different styles of gameplay. It's too bad they have to be released in the same year and so close together. I doubt that I'll be able to play them both this year, because (based on the way I play) I'm looking at several hundred hours each for a first time run.

 

[ZedClampet]

I almost linked these articles in the Starfield Pre-Release thread, but I don't think that they are so much Starfield specific, but more a comparison/discussion on two RPGs (the other being Baldur's Gate 3) that are completely different in the way they are developed, as well as played.

Starfield and Baldur's Gate 3 have reignited the 'quantity vs quality' debate around RPGs that promise a billion hours of gameplay, but I think they can actually deliver

Stop me if you've heard this before: "Our game has more words than the Lord of the Rings and the Bible put together! It's a billion, kajillion hours long! You can't finish it! No one can finish it!"

www.pcgamer.com

Starfield having only four romanceable NPCs is 'a good thing', says Dragon Age veteran

David Gaider chimes in on the 'quality versus quantity debate'.

www.pcgamer.com

This is just my perspective from having played primarily RPGs for the past 30 + years. I don't think that this is a matter of "quality vs quantity", as both Bethesda & Larian have distinct styles and focus on how they create games.

Bethesda creates huge open world sandboxes where you can be whoever you want and go wherever you want at your own pace. You can even ignore the main story line and still spend hundreds of hours with crafting systems, settlement/house construction, pursuing side quests, or just go off the beaten path because it looks interesting. Plus they have a dedicated mod community that greatly expands on what you'll eventually be able to do.

Larian creates a game world that focuses on character interactions, conversations and choice of direction, much like the older Bioware games did. They're more story focused. While not open world, the maps are still fun to explore and have multiple options on how you approach any given situation.

I think both these studios, as well as the upcoming games, have both quality and quantity, and in fact complement each other with their different styles of gameplay. It's too bad they have to be released in the same year and so close together. I doubt that I'll be able to play them both this year, because (based on the way I play) I'm looking at several hundred hours each for a first time run.

BG3 has 174 hours of cinematics? What? Seriously? 174 HOURS! I've figured out which RPG I want @Brian Boru to play.

What I don't understand about this article and others like it is that the extra stuff in a Bethesda game (or in Dying Light 2 which they mentioned) is purely optional. Some of us love this optional stuff and will spend most of our time with it. Why are journalists and others who apparently don't like it arguing to get rid of it? Just skip it! No one is forcing you to place outposts on all 1000 planets. Just stick to the main story if you think everything else is bloat.

Another thing that bothers me is that the article mentions their critical coverage of Starfield so far. On what justification can you be critical of a game that hasn't launched yet? You're just preemptively attacking something you know almost nothing about. It's typical of our era's unhelpful degrees of cynicism. It also poisons the well, as many PCG readers just parrot whatever the writers say. The world is crappy enough as it is without people actively attempting to make it more crappy.

In our current climate, Starfield has a 50/50 shot at best of avoiding the Cyberpunk 2077 $hit$show no matter how good it is, no matter how many bugs it has. But those of us who think for ourselves will be able to enjoy the game regardless of how many furious a-holes there are. But if the implosion (under the pressure of our own cynicism) happens, I'll have to quit reading PCG for awhile.

 

[Pifanjr]

It's too bad they have to be released in the same year and so close together. I doubt that I'll be able to play them both this year, because (based on the way I play) I'm looking at several hundred hours each for a first time run.

I'm pretty sure Starfield will still be relevant a year after release and it will probably be a better experience by then too, so I don't see the problem about them releasing close together.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

---

What I don't understand about this article and others like it is that the extra stuff in a Bethesda game (or in Dying Light 2 which they mentioned) is purely optional. Some of us love this optional stuff and will spend most of our time with it. Why are journalists and others who apparently don't like it arguing to get rid of it? Just skip it! No one is forcing you to place outposts on all 1000 planets. Just stick to the main story if you think everything else is bloat.

I can only speak for myself obvs, and of course I'm not saying I'm right but I can answer your question in brief as to why I'd rather they didnt have such large scale games, but rather even slightly smaller games that are more focused and polished.

You cant always skip the guff. Sometimes they hide side quests in random places, side quests that actually have some of the best story moments and best crafted levels and missions.

Often the enemies are repeated through the main story, side missions and bloat content. The amount of bloat wears off the novelty quicker for the main quests and better side missions.

The time they spend making the game bigger than ever could be spent polishing the hell out of a smaller world and improving actual game mechanics to make gameplay more engaging.

A focused game and more tightly controlled world actually often makes gameplay better. With a wide open world where there are so many variables its harder to balance skills and mechanics.

I think its lazy game design. Dont need to make novel mechanics, enemies or more interesting stories, just make more of it.

---

---

Luckily we live in a world where there are enough games being made to satisfy everyones tastes. I hope Starfield is really good and people love it, but I'm not too excited by it personally. I'll get BG3 because I'm pretty sure I'm going to be engaged by that combat if nothing else, if its anything like Divinity OS1/2

 

[ZedClampet]

Rise, Goldfish: Elden Ring's bosses are now being humiliated by a fish somehow hooked-up to the controls

Fish in question reported to have no memory of the feat.

www.pcgamer.com

Goldfish is owning bosses by randomly swimming around in his tank.

I can only speak for myself obvs, and of course I'm not saying I'm right but I can answer your question in brief as to why I'd rather they didnt have such large scale games, but rather even slightly smaller games that are more focused and polished.

You cant always skip the guff. Sometimes they hide side quests in random places, side quests that actually have some of the best story moments and best crafted levels and missions.

Often the enemies are repeated through the main story, side missions and bloat content. The amount of bloat wears off the novelty quicker for the main quests and better side missions.

The time they spend making the game bigger than ever could be spent polishing the hell out of a smaller world and improving actual game mechanics to make gameplay more engaging.

A focused game and more tightly controlled world actually often makes gameplay better. With a wide open world where there are so many variables its harder to balance skills and mechanics.

I think its lazy game design. Dont need to make novel mechanics, enemies or more interesting stories, just make more of it.

---

---

Luckily we live in a world where there are enough games being made to satisfy everyones tastes. I hope Starfield is really good and people love it, but I'm not too excited by it personally. I'll get BG3 because I'm pretty sure I'm going to be engaged by that combat if nothing else, if its anything like Divinity OS1/2

This makes my point. Not all games are made for everyone. You and I play completely different types of games, and I will enjoy the extra stuff in Starfield. You would not enjoy it. While you think these extra mechanics make the game less engaging and less focused, I see them making the game more engaging with more possibilities.

My problem is that too many people of the same mind as you are arguing to change games into the style that they like, completely ignoring that people like me like them as they are. You don't see me complaining that Elden Ring doesn't have base building and automation. I don't complain about Prey needing to be less restrictive and demand that they stop making linear, corridor shooters.

The problem is that a faction of people, and I'm not including you in this, has decided that their way is the only way, and they are endlessly lobbying for games to cater to their desires and harshly criticizing games that don't.

 

[ZedClampet]

Diablo 4 Lilith ad receives satanic panic-style complaints for giving kids nightmares and 'being offensive to me as a Christian'

A response in the case report ensures concerned citizens that the billboard "does not state or imply that Brisbane or Melbourne is 'hell'".

www.pcgamer.com

The real problem is that people think we care when they are offended.

Being offended is a symptom of being weak.

 

[mainer]

What I don't understand about this article and others like it is that the extra stuff in a Bethesda game (or in Dying Light 2 which they mentioned) is purely optional. Some of us love this optional stuff and will spend most of our time with it. Why are journalists and others who apparently don't like it arguing to get rid of it? Just skip it! No one is forcing you to place outposts on all 1000 planets. Just stick to the main story if you think everything else is bloat.

All those options are one of the main things that make Bethesda games great for me. The crafting, home and/or settlement building, ship building, collecting things, like books, and displaying them in your home, or just exploring wherever you want with no set goal or quest is what I enjoy best about their games. A vast open world sandbox where you can do whatever you want. I don't need a tightly focused world where I'm compelled to do certain things at certain times. It's a unique style of gameplay that Bethesda is known for.

People don't have to play that way, as we're all a bit different, and can just follow the main quest line, ignoring all those optional activities. To me, that's missing the meat and purpose of the game, whether it's Starfield, Skyrim, or Fallout 4. Play how you want to play, of course, but i don't think a game should be criticized in the gaming press (at PCG or elsewhere), for sticking to a design formula that millions of players love.

I can only speak for myself obvs, and of course I'm not saying I'm right but I can answer your question in brief as to why I'd rather they didnt have such large scale games, but rather even slightly smaller games that are more focused and polished.

You cant always skip the guff. Sometimes they hide side quests in random places, side quests that actually have some of the best story moments and best crafted levels and missions.

Often the enemies are repeated through the main story, side missions and bloat content. The amount of bloat wears off the novelty quicker for the main quests and better side missions.

The time they spend making the game bigger than ever could be spent polishing the hell out of a smaller world and improving actual game mechanics to make gameplay more engaging.

A focused game and more tightly controlled world actually often makes gameplay better. With a wide open world where there are so many variables its harder to balance skills and mechanics.

I think its lazy game design. Dont need to make novel mechanics, enemies or more interesting stories, just make more of it.

Needless to say, I disagree with every point you've made, but I say that with all due respect, as it's just that we have different opinions. I think there's a place for more tightly focused games (that tend to be a bit linear), but there's also a place for those open world sandbox games that allow you to go where you want and do almost anything. Freedom of choice over channeling the player in specific directions or to do certain things.

I'm pretty sure Starfield will still be relevant a year after release and it will probably be a better experience by then too, so I don't see the problem about them releasing close together.

I'm sure it will be as well, much like the 12-year-old Skyrim is relevant today, thanks to the massive modding community that Bethesda games has. The thing for me is, that it's often the first playthrough of a Bethesda game (without mods) that I remember the most. There's just certain "wow" moments (as Todd Howard put it) that are most dramatic the first time you play.

As far as Starfield and BG3 being released close together, it's a problem for me and the way I play massive RPGs. Each of these games will take me hundreds of hours, and there's no way I can start BG3 on 8/3 and expect to be done in roughly 30 days. I also don't have the mental flexibility to flip back and forth between games, so I'll only be able to play one of them this year, though there's a slight possibility that I might get to BG3 in December after playing Starfield for 3 months. So it's more of a personal problem for me, rather that a general game community problem.

 

[Brian Boru]

Being offended is a symptom of being weak

How offensive—and I say that a bit strongishly!

a faction of people … are endlessly lobbying for games to cater to their desires and harshly criticizing games that don't

Another glaring example of this is the innovation fetish which has been around in games journo for a long time. Last game was great, but next time don't you dare make something like what players love—what other non-artsy industry would tolerate that?

I think its lazy game design. Dont need to make novel mechanics, enemies or more interesting stories, just make more of it

See above. You can also call it having respect for those who made your last game a big success, being business savvy, or…

The time they spend making the game bigger than ever could be spent polishing the hell out of a smaller world and improving actual game mechanics to make gameplay more engaging

…this. Making the next game similar, so they can polish all aspects of it. No need to nerf the grand vision down to a small manageable chunk which can enter the polishing cycle of rapidly declining returns.

All those options are one of the main things that make Bethesda games great for me

And same for Far Cry for me. In FC6 I ignored all the fishing and hunting—apart from a couple of quests requiring same—and didn't bother with the Cryptogram puzzles on my first playthru, but did on 2nd.

I haven't finished the game yet, and may never do so—certainly don't feel any compulsion, some of the story missions are quite annoying, which is a difficult sell when there's so much fun to be had outside of them.

there are enough games being made to satisfy everyones tastes

Amen, brother. Could you please pass this on to the journos?

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

This makes my point. Not all games are made for everyone. You and I play completely different types of games, and I will enjoy the extra stuff in Starfield. You would not enjoy it. While you think these extra mechanics make the game less engaging and less focused, I see them making the game more engaging with more possibilities.

My problem is that too many people of the same mind as you are arguing to change games into the style that they like, completely ignoring that people like me like them as they are. You don't see me complaining that Elden Ring doesn't have base building and automation. I don't complain about Prey needing to be less restrictive and demand that they stop making linear, corridor shooters.

The problem is that a faction of people, and I'm not including you in this, has decided that their way is the only way, and they are endlessly lobbying for games to cater to their desires and harshly criticizing games that don't.

All those options are one of the main things that make Bethesda games great for me. The crafting, home and/or settlement building, ship building, collecting things, like books, and displaying them in your home, or just exploring wherever you want with no set goal or quest is what I enjoy best about their games. A vast open world sandbox where you can do whatever you want. I don't need a tightly focused world where I'm compelled to do certain things at certain times. It's a unique style of gameplay that Bethesda is known for.

People don't have to play that way, as we're all a bit different, and can just follow the main quest line, ignoring all those optional activities. To me, that's missing the meat and purpose of the game, whether it's Starfield, Skyrim, or Fallout 4. Play how you want to play, of course, but i don't think a game should be criticized in the gaming press (at PCG or elsewhere), for sticking to a design formula that millions of players love.


Needless to say, I disagree with every point you've made, but I say that with all due respect, as it's just that we have different opinions. I think there's a place for more tightly focused games (that tend to be a bit linear), but there's also a place for those open world sandbox games that allow you to go where you want and do almost anything. Freedom of choice over channeling the player in specific directions or to do certain things.


I'm sure it will be as well, much like the 12-year-old Skyrim is relevant today, thanks to the massive modding community that Bethesda games has. The thing for me is, that it's often the first playthrough of a Bethesda game (without mods) that I remember the most. There's just certain "wow" moments (as Todd Howard put it) that are most dramatic the first time you play.

As far as Starfield and BG3 being released close together, it's a problem for me and the way I play massive RPGs. Each of these games will take me hundreds of hours, and there's no way I can start BG3 on 8/3 and expect to be done in roughly 30 days. I also don't have the mental flexibility to flip back and forth between games, so I'll only be able to play one of them this year, though there's a slight possibility that I might get to BG3 in December after playing Starfield for 3 months. So it's more of a personal problem for me, rather that a general game community problem.

How offensive—and I say that a bit strongishly!


Another glaring example of this is the innovation fetish which has been around in games journo for a long time. Last game was great, but next time don't you dare make something like what players love—what other non-artsy industry would tolerate that?


See above. You can also call it having respect for those who made your last game a big success, being business savvy, or…

…this. Making the next game similar, so they can polish all aspects of it. No need to nerf the grand vision down to a small manageable chunk which can enter the polishing cycle of rapidly declining returns.


And same for Far Cry for me. In FC6 I ignored all the fishing and hunting—apart from a couple of quests requiring same—and didn't bother with the Cryptogram puzzles on my first playthru, but did on 2nd.

I haven't finished the game yet, and may never do so—certainly don't feel any compulsion, some of the story missions are quite annoying, which is a difficult sell when there's so much fun to be had outside of them.


Amen, brother. Could you please pass this on to the journos?

Totally agree that not all games need to be for everyone. But let me expand because it doesnt seem like I was clear.

At the moment it feels like the AAA open world playbook is to prioritize designing a world map as big and beautiful as the budget allows. Then trace in a main quest and some side quests. Finally have some interns come in afterwards and dot one of 3-5 of the same encounters or locations in any space they deem to not have enough to do and metaphorically draw a false moustache or plastic nose on them to make them seem different. Imagine if they built worlds half the size full of more bespoke encounters with highly varied enemy types, NPC's, and locations that they had really thought about, and as many ways to tackle them as you could shake a stick at?

I really want to play that $500,000,000 game.

I definitely dont think they should put less game mechanics in, but I bet Starfield has a ton of 'alien bandit bases' or similar that all might as well be the same one. That's what I would take out. I'm not talking linear either its still an open world map to do with as you please, just with better quality content spread over it.

A a bathtub full of pasta with cheese grated on it, or a Michelin star 5 course meal?

 

[Brian Boru]

Imagine if they built worlds half the size full of more bespoke encounters with highly varied enemy types, NPC's, and locations that they had really thought about, and as many ways to tackle them as you could shake a stick at?

Well obviously they have built worlds half the size, and quarter the size, and 1/8th the size, and so on—since worlds have been increasing in size over the past ~25 years.

Did those smaller worlds have the compensatory attributes you think would/should accompany the smaller size?

—…—

On the other side of the coin, for those of us who prioritize gameplay over innovation and diversity, the equation is simple—please give us as much of it as possible.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

The original question was:

What I don't understand about this article and others like it is that the extra stuff in a Bethesda game (or in Dying Light 2 which they mentioned) is purely optional. Some of us love this optional stuff and will spend most of our time with it. Why are journalists and others who apparently don't like it arguing to get rid of it? Just skip it! No one is forcing you to place outposts on all 1000 planets. Just stick to the main story if you think everything else is bloat.

I clarified above like that because it seemed everyone thought I want all open world games to be linear and the same and thats not it at all. I want open worlds with optional stuff thats less copy pasted and so more fun with better gameplay, the sacrifice to have that would be less of it, and I'd be very O.K with that.

It wasnt dont like that in the past because budgets were smaller and technology less advanced. At some point theyre going to have tech and money enough to make an entrie universe, does that mean that game would be infinitely more fun?

Totally understand theres no right and wrong for this necessarily, but Zed did ask what the arguments were to get rid of repetitive side content, and those are some of mine.

 

[Brian Boru]

At some point theyre going to have tech and money enough to make an entrie universe, does that mean that game would be infinitely more fun?

If the gameplay loops are good, then absolutely yes of course

How about a planet? People who love MS Flight Sim drool at the ability to visit any major city airport on the planet, even tho it's the same main gameplay loop each time to land and take off.

Or maybe sport: a planet full of sports fields, with the same activity repeated week in, week out. If the play is good, people love it—and many will object strongly at any attempt to introduce new variations.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

If the gameplay loops are good, then absolutely yes of course

How about a planet? People who love MS Flight Sim drool at the ability to visit any major city airport on the planet, even tho it's the same main gameplay loop each time to land and take off.

Or maybe sport: a planet full of sports fields, with the same activity repeated week in, week out. If the play is good, people love it—and many will object strongly at any attempt to introduce new variations.

I struggle to imagine that a Far Cry universe where there are infinite planets with an infinite number of similar proc-gen bandit camps and mental Honey Badgers wouldnt get boring after some time. But whatever floats your boat.

Flight Sims are their own thing, I'd be willing to bet a lot of sim people dont even play other video games anyway.

I've also never really got the sports/ single player video game comparison. If youre playing against other humans there are enough possible permutations in anything that every game is naturally different. Single player video games are a completely different thing, way closer to an interactive book or movie than a sport. People have to create them.

 

[Brian Boru]

I've also never really got the sports/ single player video game comparison. If youre playing against other humans there are enough possible permutations in anything that every game is naturally different. Single player video games are a completely different thing, way closer to an interactive book or movie than a sport.

Having played a lot of sports, I strongly disagree. Tune into the next Diamond League and watch the Long Jump. Tune into the following one and watch the Long Jump there. Spot the difference.

Or Archery at the next Olympics. Or the Double Sculls.

Field games aren't as obviously the same every time, simply because there is a small degree of variation possible. But play for a season and you'll have 'seen it all', at least 95% of it.

There is so much more variation in a Civ game than I've ever experienced or seen in a sport. Sport, even at a low level, is about level of performance, not degree of variance. Variance is something athletes strive to eliminate if they have championship ambitions, because consistency is key to getting on the podium or keeping your place on the team—Mario Balotelli is a poster child for this.

Far Cry certainly has more variance than sport, tho nowhere near as much as Civ, since the maps are fixed. But many of the encounters are random, interspersed with set pieces which are open to a number of different approaches.

mental Honey Badgers

Okay now, that's just a low blow—you tryin' to discombobulate me? *shudder*
But hey, alpacas rule!

get boring after some time

Obviously applies to anything taken to extreme—ref various current players' experience in the Colif's Diary thread.

But of course, a highly polished game with much less in it would get boring much quicker, wouldn't it? After all, in a game of universal size, we will always want to make it to the restaurant at the end of it so we can be thankful for the fish

 

[ZedClampet]

Totally understand theres no right and wrong for this necessarily, but Zed did ask what the arguments were to get rid of repetitive side content, and those are some of mine.

I don't believe I asked that. Repetitive is subjective, to a degree.

As for singleplayer being repetitive, I've played Satisfactory a dozen times and I play it differently each time. Huge open world games are like that, too. There are a wealth of things to do, and that encourages a different style playthrough each time.

As for multiplayer being different every time, I disagree. By that standard, every round of ping pong is different. Maybe the specifics are, but me standing there hitting a ball with a paddle is the same every time, and I don't want to do that very often even if my opponent's shots go in different places each time. Like most PvP games, I can play a round of ping pong every now and then, but it's not something I want to do all the time because, to me, it's the same thing over and over and gets boring after a game or two.

Another example is a shooter I used to play a bit where one team defended a win-point. There were other modes, but to me they were all the same. I try to shoot the blue guy before he shoots me. I had a lot of fun for a week and then never went back. In fact, I would argue, looking back on all the multiplayer I've played, that those games have far less variation than singleplayer games and get boring much more quickly. That's probably why most of them close down within a year of launch.

 

[Brian Boru]

I would argue, looking back on all the multiplayer I've played, that those games have far less variation than singleplayer games and get boring much more quickly

Agree, that was a big reason why I only glanced at MP back in late 90s, and haven't been back since—watch an occasional video in case anything much has changed, but I don't see it.

C&C & Red Alert was my interest back then, and it was a real chore to find a MP game which wasn't a 5-10m rush play. Yawn.
I much preferred the far more varied possibilities and fun gameplay in skirmish mode.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I don't believe I asked that. Repetitive is subjective, to a degree.

When you said :

Why are journalists and others who apparently don't like it arguing to get rid of it?

I never once said single player games were all repetitive, I said that open world games tend to have a lot of repetitive side content. I dont really play anything competitive multiplayer aside from the occasional board game

As for multiplayer being different every time, I disagree. By that standard, every round of ping pong is different. Maybe the specifics are, but me standing there hitting a ball with a paddle is the same every time, and I don't want to do that very often even if my opponent's shots go in different places each time. Like most PvP games, I can play a round of ping pong every now and then, but it's not something I want to do all the time because, to me, it's the same thing over and over and gets boring after a game or two.

Another example is a shooter I used to play a bit where one team defended a win-point. There were other modes, but to me they were all the same. I try to shoot the blue guy before he shoots me. I had a lot of fun for a week and then never went back. In fact, I would argue, looking back on all the multiplayer I've played, that those games have far less variation than singleplayer games and get boring much more quickly. That's probably why most of them close down within a year of launch.

I'm willing to bet every round of Ping pong is different as long as you know enough about ping pong to understand it. To an idiot like me all I see is a table and some people hitting a ball but I bet a pro player will tell you one game can be very different to another. Same in any game where two people are competing, same in Esports.

Its getting a bit off track here, and I'm not here to argue details like this. I just saw there was maybe a discussion to be had about video games that might be interesting.

Having played a lot of sports, I strongly disagree. Tune into the next Diamond League and watch the Long Jump. Tune into the following one and watch the Long Jump there. Spot the difference.

Or Archery at the next Olympics. Or the Double Sculls.

Field games aren't as obviously the same every time, simply because there is a small degree of variation possible. But play for a season and you'll have 'seen it all', at least 95% of it.

There is so much more variation in a Civ game than I've ever experienced or seen in a sport. Sport, even at a low level, is about level of performance, not degree of variance. Variance is something athletes strive to eliminate if they have championship ambitions, because consistency is key to getting on the podium or keeping your place on the team—Mario Balotelli is a poster child for this.

Far Cry certainly has more variance than sport, tho nowhere near as much as Civ, since the maps are fixed. But many of the encounters are random, interspersed with set pieces which are open to a number of different approaches.

Hey I played a lot of team sports too Football, Cricket most of my life just about everything at school, at least we have that in common. Only individual thing I was any good at was Judo though tbh, athletics and rowing were pretty boring. Too repetitive funnily enough

But how are the graphics in the Doubles Sculls? Does it have an interesting art style? What about the soundtrack,does it suit the tone and wind up at the appropriate times? Hows the writing, standard linear narrative or multiple choices that affect the ending? Esports and sports have similarities with the dedication and teamwork required, Javelin throwing and Undertale not so much.

But of course, a highly polished game with much less in it would get boring much quicker, wouldn't it? After all, in a game of universal size, we will always want to make it to the restaurant at the end of it so we can be thankful for the fish

We are speaking a different language here as usual and thats OK. A game that you can play again and again isnt inherently better than one you can only play once. No more than a 1000 page book is any better than a short story just because its longer.

 

[ZedClampet]

When you said :



I never once said single player games were all repetitive, I said that open world games tend to have a lot of repetitive side content. I dont really play anything competitive multiplayer aside from the occasional board game



I'm willing to bet every round of Ping pong is different as long as you know enough about ping pong to understand it. To an idiot like me all I see is a table and some people hitting a ball but I bet a pro player will tell you one game can be very different to another. Same in any game where two people are competing, same in Esports.

Its getting a bit off track here, and I'm not here to argue details like this. I just saw there was maybe a discussion to be had about video games that might be interesting.

Hey I played a lot of team sports too Football, Cricket most of my life just about everything at school, at least we have that in common. Only individual thing I was any good at was Judo though tbh, athletics and rowing were pretty boring. Too repetitive funnily enough

But how are the graphics in the Doubles Sculls? Does it have an interesting art style? What about the soundtrack,does it suit the tone and wind up at the appropriate times? Hows the writing, standard linear narrative or multiple choices that affect the ending? Esports and sports have similarities with the dedication and teamwork required, Javelin throwing and Undertale not so much.




We are speaking a different language here as usual and thats OK. A game that you can play again and again isnt inherently better than one you can only play once. No more than a 1000 page book is any better than a short story just because its longer.

Well, I disagree on several things, including Ping Pong, but we aren't making any headway, so there's no point in continuing.

 

[Brian Boru]

But how are the graphics in the Doubles Sculls?

Infinitely variable, always interesting, not the same ol' same ol' polished stuff you get on a sterling teapot.

soundtrack,does it suit the tone and wind up at the appropriate times?

Well it's not a safely scripted straitjacket of auditory Kojimaism, acutely attuned to appropriateness like the Wimbledon dress code. You can certainly get the wind up, but it may be at an inappropriate time—damn that nature thing we're stuck with, so much inferior to out carefully crafted singular visions.

But the lapping and splashing… yeah, that always suits the tone of the endeavor.

Hows the writing, standard linear narrative or multiple choices that affect the ending?

Multiple choice of course—only in betting scandals will you find a linear narrative. But here's the thing—yo don't do Double Sculls for the flying, or the roar of the engines, or the writing. Horses for courses, and all that, ol' chap

Esports and sports have similarities with the dedication and teamwork required, Javelin throwing and Undertale not so much

What???

Dunno about Undertale, and I didn't have the shoulder flexibility to do the javelin properly, but I can definitely assert that there is far more dedication in other solo sports than in any team sport, where 'passengers' can be 'carried' by the rest and out-of-form stars can be allowed to play themselves back into form.

A game that you can play again and again isnt inherently better than one you can only play once

No more than a 1000 page book is any better than a short story just because its longer.

You need to let the Nobel and Booker Prize people know about this asap, they've been doing it wrong all these years—and my English professors too, now that I think back on it. So many silly people…

But while as a Paddy I do love me a good short story, I would never put The Ballroom of Romance on the same shelf as War and Peace. Any more than Lines on the Antiquity of Microbes can be thought comparable with The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.

But I agree, enough of the wind up

 

[mainer]

Now for something completely (almost) different:

How to respec in Baldur's Gate 3

Baldur's Gate 3 lets you respec your characters, including origin characters and other companions. Here's how.

www.pcgamer.com

Mainly about Larian including the option to re-spec your character from a certain NPC in the game, rather than restart the game with a new character (if you didn't like your first one). I don't see this as a bad thing, and might be good news for those with limited playing time. It's not like you can do it whenever you want anyway, and it's an option you can completely ignore if you want to play really old-school.

I can't remember the last time I actually re-speced a character. I have, numerous times, completely restarted a new game because I really didn't like my character or characters (not D&D, but Wasteland 2 comes to mind). And I'm fine with that method also. I think the way Larian has implemented re-specing should please most players.

Better news for me came from reading Larian's update news for BG3 on Steams, specifically about companions (which are going to be huge in the game). Quoting from that update:

While we initially planned to lock players in with a core crew of companions past Act I, we nixed that plan in favour of a buffet-approach to team selection. You’ll be able to mix and match any of these characters into your group throughout. And, yes, you’ll be able to romance almost all of them (ask us sometime about
that Halsin scene).

One of my minor disappointments from Larairan's last game, Divinity OS 2, was that once you left the starting island with 3 companions, that was it for the entire game; the others were gone for good. Much like Dragon Age Origins, now you will have access to all the companions throughout the game. Which could lead to some really interesting scenarios, both in combat and in personal relations.

That full update is here, if you haven't read it:

Baldur's Gate 3 - Community Update #20: A Dragonborn, a Half-Orc & a Monk Walk Into a Tavern - Steam News

Where to begin. This week has seen you take to the streets of the Lower City as amateur sleuths in Blood in Baldur’s Gate, a community murder mystery to uncover the hidden darkness that lurks just beneath the city's surface. Where will the investigation lead? Keep digging, detectives, you’re...

store.steampowered.com

 

[Zloth]

I can't remember the last time I actually re-speced a character.

I did in D:OS2! I can't even remember which character (characters?) I did, but I do remember being eager to do it.

D:OS2 also had the ability to change the classes of your companions right at the start of the game. That was very handy! I don't know if it will work quite as well in a D&D game, though, where some of the classes are tied to personalities. Swapping a paladin to be a thief is going to be weird unless Larian also writes a bunch of special dialog and content just in case the player turns the paladin into a thief.

 

[ZedClampet]

Now for something completely (almost) different:

How to respec in Baldur's Gate 3

Baldur's Gate 3 lets you respec your characters, including origin characters and other companions. Here's how.

www.pcgamer.com

Mainly about Larian including the option to re-spec your character from a certain NPC in the game, rather than restart the game with a new character (if you didn't like your first one). I don't see this as a bad thing, and might be good news for those with limited playing time. It's not like you can do it whenever you want anyway, and it's an option you can completely ignore if you want to play really old-school.

I can't remember the last time I actually re-speced a character. I have, numerous times, completely restarted a new game because I really didn't like my character or characters (not D&D, but Wasteland 2 comes to mind). And I'm fine with that method also. I think the way Larian has implemented re-specing should please most players.

Better news for me came from reading Larian's update news for BG3 on Steams, specifically about companions (which are going to be huge in the game). Quoting from that update:

While we initially planned to lock players in with a core crew of companions past Act I, we nixed that plan in favour of a buffet-approach to team selection. You’ll be able to mix and match any of these characters into your group throughout. And, yes, you’ll be able to romance almost all of them (ask us sometime about
that Halsin scene).

One of my minor disappointments from Larairan's last game, Divinity OS 2, was that once you left the starting island with 3 companions, that was it for the entire game; the others were gone for good. Much like Dragon Age Origins, now you will have access to all the companions throughout the game. Which could lead to some really interesting scenarios, both in combat and in personal relations.

That full update is here, if you haven't read it:

Baldur's Gate 3 - Community Update #20: A Dragonborn, a Half-Orc & a Monk Walk Into a Tavern - Steam News

Where to begin. This week has seen you take to the streets of the Lower City as amateur sleuths in Blood in Baldur’s Gate, a community murder mystery to uncover the hidden darkness that lurks just beneath the city's surface. Where will the investigation lead? Keep digging, detectives, you’re...

store.steampowered.com

I LOVE when games let you respec characters, otherwise I always end up with regrets, even, often, when I start over.

Craftopia lets you respec as often as you like for a bit of gold (in-game currency--they have no cash currency), and I must have redone my skills two dozen times. There's just so many options, and you have limited points.

Craftopia is a survival/rpg/sandbox. Narrative RPGs don't really have that option all that often from what I've played. You usually need a mod to do it.

 

[Zloth]

Nom nom nom nom nom nom nom....

Baldur's Gate 3 will let you treat your companions terribly, including biting off their limbs

Chews your own adventure.

www.pcgamer.com