September 2023 PCG Article Links and Discussion

[ZedClampet]

Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines 2 has been quietly rebuilt by Dear Esther developer The Chinese Room with 'different gameplay mechanics and RPG systems'

The game's now slated for a fall 2024 release.

www.pcgamer.com

Forgot to make this post.

I don't feel like making a new comment to this, so here's the one I left on the article:

The writing for Dear Esther was the worst purple prose I've ever read. It made freshman English papers look reserved. And Everybody's Gone to the Rapture basically had no ending. It was like the television series Lost. They just threw some pop-philosophy nonsense together and called it an ending. So, yeah, I'm really excited for this. Honestly, I thought The Chinese Room had closed down. I wasn't missing them.

 

[Zloth]

Was there supposed to be a 'not' in the next to last statement?

Yeah, I didn't like Dear Esther at all, but that game is going for something very, very different than this game. I liked the trailer, except for the punching which seemed to have the scale off whack (or you're playing Elastic Vampire Man). It's definitely worth keeping an eye on, IMHO.

(And, if it doesn't work out, so what? I'll take it off my wish list. No harm, no foul.)

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

The next game from the Battle Brothers devs is a sci-fi tactical RPG that 'takes everything beloved' about their last game and 'improves it tenfold'

Menace says it will "shake up the current norms of turn-based tactics games."

www.pcgamer.com

I've gone on about Battle Brothers on here in the past quite a bit, one of my favourites of the past 10 years, probably all time.

I really liked the simple but detailed graphics, it really suited the game but maybe putting a bit more graphical shine and a sci fi setting on the new game will attract some new attention. Hopefully they can keep up the quality of the combat and meta game which was super replayable and always fun.

I'd like it if they would keep the challenge level up where it was in BB, you really had to learn how to play it. On the easiest difficulty there was a chance things would go wrong even if you did everything right which made it super exciting to play.

 

[ZedClampet]

Baldur's Gate 3 has ruined Starfield for me

Bethesda's latest can't help but feel shallow by comparison.

www.pcgamer.com

PCG trolling for clicks lol. Personally, I didn't find BG3 to be anything special, but it's not my type of game anymore, so it's hard for me to judge it. But I don't see how an isometric, turn-based game can ruin your enjoyment of a game that is almost the exact opposite.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Preface this by saying that I haven't played Starfield, I probably will at some point but Bethesda games apart from Skyrim have never really got me excited in the past. If they're your thing, I don't intend to criticize your taste, I really don't care what floats your boat, have fun.

I'll throw in a take, let people judge if its hot or not.

PCG is not the only outlet that's been critical of Starfield. Theres a lot of good but not great reviews of 7 or 8 and multiple podcasts I listen too have said Starfield is good but a bit bland or just fine. Critics obviously play a much wider range of games than your average gamer, so theyre more likely to be sensitive to anything derivative because theyve seen similar much more than most non pro critics would have across more titles. Also importantly, they have consciously thought about what makes games interesting for them or not a lot.

You wont see too many film critics whose favorite ever films are Marvels Avengers, or literary critics who will tell you Harry Potter is the greatest work of fiction ever written even if theyre the biggest selling and most popular. They might even score them pretty high if pushed to give a number for a review.

But people who have consciously developed a sense of how a piece of art is constructed rather than just experiencing them passively tend to look deeper and be less impressed by special effects and scale alone. Theyre also more prone to be critical of things that dont innovate, and give praise to new ideas.

You can tell me that games aren't art and I should get off my high horse, and I dont blame you, or maybe I'm just stating the obvious. But I'd be willing to bet a good sized section, and increasingly as time goes on of game critics do see themselves in that way, at least a little.

I would think clicks are a factor as well to be fair.

 

[Brian Boru]

PCG trolling for clicks lol.

Well sure, but that's all over the place. This year's biggies so far are Harry Potter, Zelda, Diablo, Baldur's and Starfield—and any other I forgot. There are articles and debates all over the internet comparing them—it's just part of that new thing hype cycle which loads of people enjoy.

Critics … more likely to be sensitive to anything derivative because theyve seen similar much more than most

I agree, critics have lost the eye for quality—or purposely discarded it to stay relevant in the fleeting content maelstrom. Which article gets the clicks?
♣ Continued refinement of ship-building mechanic underpins new game
♦ Shinier ships, Hundreds more planets!

tell me that games aren't art

It doesn't matter, let them be art or not art—those who care about such have a nice rabbit hole to call their own. The only real curiosity is does any particular piece get hung on the fridge or the Louvre.

Games journos have to get clicks, like any other pro content creator—else they're unemployed. So that's always #1 priority—if not for them, then definitely for their higher-ups. Comparing big names is one sure-fire way, it's easy to find some spin to hang such comparisons on—like art, or innovation or shiny.

 

[ZedClampet]

My statement above wasn't intended to be critical of PCG's writer in any way. As far as trying for clicks goes, you have to do that as an online publication. As far as her take goes, if BG3 ruined Starfield for her, then what is it to me? I feel like you were defending her from my take, and that wasn't necessary at all. I couldn't care less what people think or say about Starfield now that it's out, and they can play it. I'll gladly point out when I disagree with someone, but it doesn't bother me that they have a different opinion. The only complaint I ever had about PCG's coverage was when they were being consistently negative before they had even seen the game.

This is not what I was talking about, and I'm not directly addressing what you said here, but you made me think about criticism and reviews, so I have to say this regarding BG3.

Even though we often use the words interchangeably, there is a substantial difference between critics and reviewers. Critics write history. Reviewers write primarily for money and to aid in consumption. Where we frequently go wrong is when reviewers think too highly of themselves and imagine they are writing history instead of catchy blurbs intended to attract consumers and inform them on buying decisions. The point is that some works become phenomena and that reviewers are far more subject to being swept up in it than are critics. Is BG3 one of the greatest games of all time? I don't know, but I do know BG3 is a phenomenon. In all this talk about how wonderful BG3 is, there's been very little talk of exactly why it is so great. I only spent 7 hours in it (so far), but I don't see how it is significantly different from DOS/DOS2 in any way other than production values and scope, which are two things you generally won't hear critics fawning over since in gaming those are generally determined by how much money you throw at the problem.

Note: For simplicity and the sake of discussion, I pretended in the above there is such a thing as a game critic. Gaming, historically speaking, is brand new and considered about as valuable artistically as stomping in puddles. We won't know who the authorities really were until the dust settles, but we can usually tell when we aren't looking at one, and I haven't seen any yet.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I agree, critics have lost the eye for quality—or purposely discarded it to stay relevant in the fleeting content maelstrom. Which article gets the clicks?
♣ Continued refinement of ship-building mechanic underpins new game
♦ Shinier ships, Hundreds more planets!

You dont need articles for that its right there in all the marketing. Theres also a lot of articles that actually do go into that and a good review will obviously go over positive and negative aspects.

Games journos have to get clicks, like any other pro content creator—else they're unemployed. So that's always #1 priority—if not for them, then definitely for their higher-ups. Comparing big names is one sure-fire way, it's easy to find some spin to hang such comparisons on—like art, or innovation or shiny.

That could explain an article on a website, but what about other media not funded by clicks? I've heard varying opinions, some like the game and others who are meh with it, all of whom are funded by Patreon. You'd imagine they would have a vested interest in appeasing their fans, but they just give their opinions and criticisms. You cant tar all critics who dont love a game with one brush.

Its also not exactly like they go after every game that's really popular. Is there 0 chance there's some confluence between genuinely not liking parts of a really popular game and something that gets you the traffic?

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I feel like you were defending her from my take, and that wasn't necessary at all.

I have to sleep now, but I wasnt defending anyone. I really do just wonder about pointelss stuff like this and decided to put it on the internet.

 

[Brian Boru]

what about other media not funded by clicks?

They're all funded by consumption, makes little diff if the click is one step removed behind a subscription model.

You'd imagine they would have a vested interest in appeasing their fans, but they just give their opinions and criticisms

Um… their opinions and criticisms are why their fans exist, and are presumably appeased

tar all critics who dont love a game

Not doing that—love or don't love makes no difference.

Is there 0 chance there's some confluence between genuinely not liking parts of a really popular game and something that gets you the traffic?

Of course there is, such a take will probably guarantee a lot of traffic.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

They're all funded by consumption, makes little diff if the click is one step removed behind a subscription model.


Um… their opinions and criticisms are why their fans exist, and are presumably appeased


Not doing that—love or don't love makes no difference.

I think you are misunderstanding how a large section of gaming media works. People dont consume gaming podcasts in that way, they do so because they have built up a kind of relationship with those people over time. The majority aren't one person monologues like the average Youtuber, theyre conversations between groups of people with often different opinions and takes, some of them have been in the industry for 20+ years. I couldn't care less whether their takes on Starfield or anything else are positive or negative, but they dont gain anything at all by falling either way.

In the Starfield discussion thread you suggested journos have influenced peoples minds about certain games, and some people are mindless sheep for not loving Starfield. What I'm saying instead is that game critics have genuine reasons they can articulate well for not loving some games, and so do others.

Your suggestion with this article is that its deliberately controversial, that's true. But that doesnt mean the take is purely cynical.

My statement above wasn't intended to be critical of PCG's writer in any way. As far as trying for clicks goes, you have to do that as an online publication. As far as her take goes, if BG3 ruined Starfield for her, then what is it to me? I feel like you were defending her from my take, and that wasn't necessary at all. I couldn't care less what people think or say about Starfield now that it's out, and they can play it. I'll gladly point out when I disagree with someone, but it doesn't bother me that they have a different opinion. The only complaint I ever had about PCG's coverage was when they were being consistently negative before they had even seen the game.

This is not what I was talking about, and I'm not directly addressing what you said here, but you made me think about criticism and reviews, so I have to say this regarding BG3.

Even though we often use the words interchangeably, there is a substantial difference between critics and reviewers. Critics write history. Reviewers write primarily for money and to aid in consumption. Where we frequently go wrong is when reviewers think too highly of themselves and imagine they are writing history instead of catchy blurbs intended to attract consumers and inform them on buying decisions. The point is that some works become phenomena and that reviewers are far more subject to being swept up in it than are critics. Is BG3 one of the greatest games of all time? I don't know, but I do know BG3 is a phenomenon. In all this talk about how wonderful BG3 is, there's been very little talk of exactly why it is so great. I only spent 7 hours in it (so far), but I don't see how it is significantly different from DOS/DOS2 in any way other than production values and scope, which are two things you generally won't hear critics fawning over since in gaming those are generally determined by how much money you throw at the problem.

Note: For simplicity and the sake of discussion, I pretended in the above there is such a thing as a game critic. Gaming, historically speaking, is brand new and considered about as valuable artistically as stomping in puddles. We won't know who the authorities really were until the dust settles, but we can usually tell when we aren't looking at one, and I haven't seen any yet.

Its come across in multiple places here with users complaining about PCGs coverage of Starfield, even some conspiracy theory came up at one point about Sony paying off journalists to ruin Xboxs big game. I guess the bubble in me just popped when I saw the article, I wasn't targeting your post, its was just another one in a line of other posts that got me thinking more about the same thing.

I also didnt want to jump into the Starfield playthrough thread and gum it up, I'm not playing that game right now.

Art is what it is to you, to some people games are art. Its not really important what Roger Ebert thinks or anyone else, and no one is going to convince anyone either way. But we have to accept that for some people that is true.

 

[Brian Boru]

I must've phrased things really badly, because…

you suggested … some people are mindless sheep for not loving Starfield.

…is absolutely not what I was trying to convey.

you are misunderstanding how a large section of gaming media works

Probably not, because I agree with all your following paragraph

Anyway, I'll retire my clumsy phrasing from the thread, enough gum here

 

[Zloth]

But people who have consciously developed a sense of how a piece of art is constructed rather than just experiencing them passively tend to look deeper and be less impressed by special effects and scale alone. Theyre also more prone to be critical of things that dont innovate, and give praise to new ideas.

Or unconsciously, by simply playing a ton of them. It hits us old gamers, too.

On the other end of things, there's really no need to try to be especially original when making children's entertainment. Young hero being trained by a wise old wizard/knowledgeable person, when suddenly the wise one is killed about half way through the story? Great stuff! It won't seem that way after you see a dozen other stories do the same thing, but the first one is awesome. (And, for the ultimate expression of all this, a carboard box can be just as exciting and new as the toy inside the box for toddlers.)

I really do just wonder about pointelss stuff like this and decided to put it on the internet.

Yeah, so did Dr. Internet, the famous physicist that invented all this just for that purpose.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Or unconsciously, by simply playing a ton of them. It hits us old gamers, too.

On the other end of things, there's really no need to try to be especially original when making children's entertainment. Young hero being trained by a wise old wizard/knowledgeable person, when suddenly the wise one is killed about half way through the story? Great stuff! It won't seem that way after you see a dozen other stories do the same thing, but the first one is awesome. (And, for the ultimate expression of all this, a carboard box can be just as exciting and new as the toy inside the box for toddlers.)


Yeah, so did Dr. Internet, the famous physicist that invented all this just for that purpose.

There must be other factors as well than age and experience. Some people here play a lot of games and dont seem to
experience any kind of fatigue with certain types.

If you only enjoy playing certain very specific types of game over and over again, becoming a game critic wouldnt be much fun, being forced to play new games all the time. Games journalism probably attracts people of a type who tend towards novelty experiences, or theyd be having a terrible time.

I love that Dr. Internet guy !

I must've phrased things really badly, because…

…is absolutely not what I was trying to convey.


Probably not, because I agree with all your following paragraph

Anyway, I'll retire my clumsy phrasing from the thread, enough gum here

I was referring to this post

You are so right. This is a journalistic thing originally if I recall correctly, and has gradually permeated out into the impressionable. There is a definite bias towards unusual and away from quality.

Many more clicks and views to be had drooling over something new, than marveling at the finer points of polishing and perfecting.

It's not the first time youve wondered about why journalists tend to criticize games for not innovating. The why of that tendency that I also tend to agree with since about 2013 is what Im curious about.

 

[Brian Boru]

I was referring to this post

Okay. I'm still in dense mode tho, cos I still don't see whatever connection you do

Just realized we're not in Playthru thread, so gum away I guess

The why of that tendency … is what Im curious about

Why journos trend towards praising newness over quality?

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Okay. I'm still in dense mode tho, cos I still don't see whatever connection you do

Just realized we're not in Playthru thread, so gum away I guess


Why journos trend towards praising newness over quality?

I think the connection is pretty obvious: sheep/impressionable. And I wonder why you'd think its some sort of conspiracy originating within journalism to influence gamer minds in a direction, but its ok

Also I dont see it as newness over quality. A lot of open world games are released in a terrible state.

I want to say its that they favour innovation over formula, but its not that simple either. Dark Souls games were widely praised, and they didnt stray too far from the source over 4 games until Elden Ring and even that was an evolution, even if it was a giant step.

Perhaps its partly to do with a similar open world formula being spread across many developers with slightly different flavours. There is a Souls formula thats become widely spread as well, but the games are pretty short in comparison and elements of the formula translate across to 2d or even isometric views, making them more varied in ways other than just setting.

Open world games tend to be huge and take many hours to get through. I bet that wears on you as a professional reviewer with tight deadlines. Its possible players in general might favour that because a good portion value the time/money equation highly.

On the other end of things, there's really no need to try to be especially original when making children's entertainment. Young hero being trained by a wise old wizard/knowledgeable person, when suddenly the wise one is killed about half way through the story? Great stuff! It won't seem that way after you see a dozen other stories do the same thing, but the first one is awesome. (And, for the ultimate expression of all this, a carboard box can be just as exciting and new as the toy inside the box for toddlers.)

Do you think open world games tend to be aimed at younger adults with more free time on their hands? Maybe we going to start seeing 'Retirement Ubisoft' games aimed at people 70+ as the gaming population ages

 

[Brian Boru]

I think the connection is pretty obvious: sheep/impressionable

Sure. But the Starfield connection…?

some people are mindless sheep for not loving Starfield

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Directly from the thread it was originally posted in. Your reply was to a post about the Starfield vs Baldurs Gate 3 article, with BG 3 being the something new and Starfield being the polishing and perfecting. Hardly a stretch.

 

[Zloth]

Do you think open world games tend to be aimed at younger adults with more free time on their hands? Maybe we going to start seeing 'Retirement Ubisoft' games aimed at people 70+ as the gaming population ages

Younger adults? College was the busiest time of my life, other than summer breaks! But they should be starting to see more and more retired people playing. I wonder if they'll find ways to get old Bee Gees and Barry Manilow songs? <shudder>

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Younger adults? College was the busiest time of my life, other than summer breaks! But they should be starting to see more and more retired people playing. I wonder if they'll find ways to get old Bee Gees and Barry Manilow songs? <shudder>

Not to pry, but perhaps you dont have a child/ren?

BeeGees and Manilow, why not? Fallouts alternate future was from the 50's and at this point the 70's was the same amount of time in the past as when it released. We've had Disco Elysium, so kind of without any licenses I guess.

 

[Zloth]

Not to pry, but perhaps you dont have a child/ren?

OMG no!! Do you any idea how much gaming time children take up? Wait... you DO know!! Kaamos, didn't you get the letter? The bit about pocket protectors and only washing your hair when you're going to be inside all day?? Hehehe, like pockets need protection... I swear the non-nerds will believe anything!

Wait, this post isn't something Google will sniff out, is it?

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

OMG no!! Do you any idea how much gaming time children take up? Wait... you DO know!! Kaamos, didn't you get the letter? The bit about pocket protectors and only washing your hair when you're going to be inside all day?? Hehehe, like pockets need protection... I swear the non-nerds will believe anything!

Wait, this post isn't something Google will sniff out, is it?

Just recently got to the stage where no one needs to sit next to her until she goes to sleep, which pretty much wiped out the chance of any quiet alone time every other week day for one of us.

I have got her playing a bit of this and that with me so might have a co/op partner in training, so its not all work

 

[ZedClampet]

'An astonishing scumbag move': Indie developers react to surprise Unity engine pricing changes

Unity's new Runtime Fee will charge developers on a per-install basis.

www.pcgamer.com

And Epic wins the game engine wars. We really need a new player to fill in for Unity, but there isn't a viable one out there. Cryengine has basically been ignored. None of the rest that I'm aware of have the flexibility necessary to compete. Maybe Valve should put some more work into Source.

 

[Brian Boru]

None of the rest that I'm aware of have the flexibility necessary to compete

Know very little about under the hood, but is Godot dead in water?

From article:
"If you, a solo developer, make $200,000 in a year off a little indie game you cooked up in Unity, paying a small fraction of what you earn on sales on top of that hardly seems unusual"

What am I missing?

Ok, these guys need to stop undermining their case:
"there's a hundred installs. Now, Unity does not have insight into my revenue, right? But they do have insight into the installs, so as far as they're concerned, they're now owed a few thousand dollars."
No, they're owed $20.

And again:
"we make a really nice deal with Microsoft, and on Microsoft it gets downloaded, you know, 15 million times," Ismail said. "Am I going to pay 20 cents over 15 million installs?"

Is he trying to say that a "really nice deal with Microsoft" wouldn't cover such a cost and still make nice profit?

The retro aspect of this change begs a question for sure, but I'd like to see some reasonable criticism before contemplating a conclusion.

Unity plans to "leverage the fraud detection practices that we’ve been using in our ads technology as a starting point to get us ready before January 2024,"
Oh boy, that's sure-fire trouble. They haven't thought this thru, and aren't remotely prepared.


Update: Just hours after the new Runtime Fee policy was announced, Unity has told Axios that it has now changed direction on the "multiple installs = multiple charges" policy after "regrouping" to discuss the issue following the strong pushback from developers


Popcorn time, this is nowhere near a finished policy—more like Early Access

 

[ZedClampet]

Know very little about under the hood, but is Godot dead in water?

From article:
"If you, a solo developer, make $200,000 in a year off a little indie game you cooked up in Unity, paying a small fraction of what you earn on sales on top of that hardly seems unusual"

What am I missing?

Ok, these guys need to stop undermining their case:
"there's a hundred installs. Now, Unity does not have insight into my revenue, right? But they do have insight into the installs, so as far as they're concerned, they're now owed a few thousand dollars."
No, they're owed $20.

And again:
"we make a really nice deal with Microsoft, and on Microsoft it gets downloaded, you know, 15 million times," Ismail said. "Am I going to pay 20 cents over 15 million installs?"

Is he trying to say that a "really nice deal with Microsoft" wouldn't cover such a cost and still make nice profit?

The retro aspect of this change begs a question for sure, but I'd like to see some reasonable criticism before contemplating a conclusion.

Unity plans to "leverage the fraud detection practices that we’ve been using in our ads technology as a starting point to get us ready before January 2024,"
Oh boy, that's sure-fire trouble. They haven't thought this thru, and aren't remotely prepared.


Update: Just hours after the new Runtime Fee policy was announced, Unity has told Axios that it has now changed direction on the "multiple installs = multiple charges" policy after "regrouping" to discuss the issue following the strong pushback from developers


Popcorn time, this is nowhere near a finished policy—more like Early Access

What if your game isn't selling anymore, but for the next 20 plus years your players periodically reinstall your game on new hardware? I can think of some Unity games that I've installed on 3 different systems in the last year. It's just not a good idea. That's why Unity likes it. They know they'll make more money.