Doesn’t really seem spoilery to me at all. Alan Wake - and Remedy in general - is very into surreal weirdness and world fuckery. He’s mostly talking about audiences being receptive to pushing creative boundaries.
I would argue it’s actually a detriment to experience anything other than the source material when adapting a work. Especially with books, different people are going to have wildly different interpretations of the world. The character that exists in your mind is going to be different from somebody else who read the same book. But once it is adapted to a visual medium, you lose a bit of that magic. Which sucks, because all of those previous interpretations are still valid! More valid even, than anything that was put to screen, because they were yours.
I think the argument for accuracy is kind of bullshit anyway (not that you said this, but others have). Is The Shining (the film) worse for the changes it made to the original text? Stephen King might think so; he would also be wrong. You don’t want something accurate, you want something that’s good. You want somebody with passion and artistic vision to create something new and uniquely amazing. The recent Last Of Us show, to my knowledge, tread pretty closely to the source material. “Aha!” you might say. But what is also true, is that the best episode of that first season was also the probably the biggest deviation from the source material. I probably don’t even need to say which one if you’ve seen the show.
Anyway, companies should hire people who are both passionate about the source material, and want to make something cool and new in that world - not robots who are just going to recreate the original work beat for beat. If I wanted that, why wouldn’t I myself just, you know, read the book?
If you try to just use the characters and setting to tell a different story, it’s also going to be soulless because those characters aren’t made to tell that story. Make your own characters and tell your own story if you don’t want to stick to the spirit of the original work.
I don’t exactly agree with this. If the creator has a vision, I say let them try. They should be able to stretch and change and rework things however they want. Of course, the farther they stray, the more it begs the question “Why?” but I don’t think it’s impossible if they have ideas.
I don’t see the issue to be honest. It’s three days… How is it substantially different from somebody waiting 3 months for the price to go down even more? What are you protecting against?
Yes, but presumably the order of magnitude (waiting substantially longer) would be worse but you’re arguing the opposite… Why is waiting longer for a price cut better?
The game was originally set in the Summerset Isles. And then we got bored and decided, “Man, this is really boring. How about we put it in a volcano with like giant bugs everywhere?” And people were like, “What?” So Todd Howard — the easiest way to get anything past Todd, at that time, was you basically just had to say “Star Wars.” Which was true for me and anybody then. So I was like, “The game should be like Dark Crystal meets Star Wars.” And he was immediately hooked. I got all the bug creatures I ever needed, we moved it from Summerset Isles to this weird dark-elf place on the map, and we just went from there.
I used to have this thing with Todd, because he was one of the ones that’s like, “Let’s not make it too weird.” So I’d bamboozle him. There was a period where I would actually draw two different versions of a monster — the one that was weird and that I wanted to be in the game, and then one that was fucking crazy. And so I’d go to Todd, and I’m like, “OK, I think I’ve got the mid-level creature set.” And I’d show him a picture. He’d be like, “Nah, dude, that’s crazy.” Then I’d go back to my office and I would act like I was drawing something new, and I’d just come back with the original drawing of what I really wanted to be in there. Like, “Hey, is this what you were thinking?” And he’d be all, “Oh, yeah, that’s much better. That’s great.”
I can definitely believe his influence has become immense following the studio’s success - though it definitely feels like he needs to hand the reins over to somebody else.
I usually play games on “normal” difficulty these days, for a balanced challenge. However, I don’t particularly enjoy boss fights, or at least I don’t enjoy the extra challenge associated with them. Was thinking it would be nice if games had a separate setting so I could just set boss fights to “easy”, while not...
Maybe you’ve read it before and you want to skip to the good parts. Maybe it’s non-fiction and you’re only interested in something specific. Maybe there are parts of the story that make you uncomfortable, but you’re enjoying it overall. Maybe a page is missing. Maybe it’s an abridged version and it’s not up to you, that’s just what was available.
And to the original point, what of translations? Maybe the original author is dead, and somebody translated their book. Are you ‘circumventing’ the author’s original intent to ‘gain an advantage’? I mean, yes. Does that mean you’re ‘cheating’?
What about audio books? Was the book intended to be read on a page? Are you cheating by having the book read to you?
Calling these things ‘cheating’ is silly and unnecessarily loaded, and they assume that the goal of a work is completion. That the only reason you would start a thing is to finish it. I don’t believe that’s the case for any art. One might say that the challenge in a game is the point, but that’s only sometimes true, and challenge is relative. If something comes naturally easier to you, is it ‘cheating’ to use mods to make the game more difficult, because you’re gaining the advantage of improving your experience, against the original intent of the game? I don’t think so, so I don’t see why it is any different the other way around.
To think about it another way: if you subtract that paragraph from that book, does it cease to be a book? No, it’s just a different book, and that can still have value to people. You’re not ‘cheating’, you are making a new experience for yourself.
I could go on and on so I’m gonna stop myself here.
A large majority of their player base never uses mods (roughly 92%). They need to serve a minimum viable product to people who don’t know about or care about that ecosystem. They tried to bridge that gap with paid mods, but, well, we know how that went.
It’s because the publisher has put out multiple games in the “ENDLESS” universe, so it’s a shared world kind of thing - I agree it’s kind of dumb. I haven’t played this game, but I did play the 2D “Dungeon of the Endless” which I liked a lot. To my knowledge, that game serves as a kind of blueprint for this higher budget release, so I’m looking forward to this one. Hopefully it’s not shit.
I played it - and if it was truly only made by two people is quite impressive - but it’s just alright. The world is very cool, and is structured around multiple levels of a tower each with their own language that you need to learn to progress. My main issue with the game is that the differences between these languages, and the puzzles built around them, aren’t particularly interesting or deep or varied. There are a few gems, but overall it’s much closer to a traditional adventure game than you might expect on first glance.
That said, the art and world design are very cool.
Edit: As an aside, it’s worth noting that the Steam Reviews metric is a tad misleading in a similar way to Rotten Tomatoes, in that it only gauges ratio of positive reviews, over what those reviews are actually saying. A universal consensus of a game being a 7/10 (if we assume 7/10 is positive) will appear “better” than a game where 99% of people believe it is a 10/10, but 1% think it sucks. It’s good at predicting whether you will like it, it is bad at predicting how much.
I suck at math, but if the mean is sufficiently over the “positive” threshold, and there’s a low standard deviation across reviews, wouldn’t this have the problem I describe? The more certain people are about the quality of good games, the less relevant the ratio becomes, which is perhaps the opposite of what you would want.
Why does the ratio become less relevant the more certain people are about the quality of good games? Again, the review is only positive or negative, no actual review number assigned. In which cases do you expect the ratio to drift away from the actual useful information?
It’s because there’s no review number in combination with varying certainty that makes for bad information regarding judgment calls about quality. If people are certain the game is a 7/10, that could produce a better score than being less certain about an 8/10, because the wider distribution (less certainty) could put more reviews below the positive/negative threshold.
The following reviews: 6/10, 6.5/10 , 7/10, 7.5/10, 8/10 will produce a 100% rating. More certain, less useful.
The following reviews: 4/10, 6/10, 8/10, 10/10, 10/10 will produce an 80% rating. Less certain, more useful.
It’s only consistent if you assume all games follow the same distribution, which is not how reviews work in my opinion. There are many websites which do surface score information, and they follow wildly different distribution patterns depending on many different factors.
Again, it is useful for predicting whether you’ll like it, but bad for predicting how much you’ll like it.
My entire argument stems from the idea that you can ascertain quality from these ratings, which I am refuting. The rating is “correct” in that it is measuring something, and as long as people keep in mind what that something is, there is no problem. But this article, for example, uses the flood of positive reviews to make the case that it is one of the best of the year, which I believe is faulty reasoning.
What I meant by certain is that the reviews are more clumped together (again if you had a score - even though it isn’t present presumably you could attach one to these reviews), so there’s more agreement among different people about the quality of the product. If you don’t agree that games can be more or less polarizing, you won’t agree with this point unless I can back it up with data which I’m not going to spend time doing. You could go through Rotten Tomatoes and compare Critic Score with RT Score because they surface both those values and see how closely they track on different parts of the spectrum.
Remap Radio; previously Waypoint Radio, sometimes their politics feel overly dogmatic, perhaps as a reflection of the audience and culture they have cultivated, but the vibes are good and they have insightful things to say. I’d say they are currently in a transition period so they’re still finding their rhythm.
8-4 Play; Started by a localization company based in Tokyo, you’ll get a unique perspective of life in Japan, Japanese games, and industry connections that you can’t really get anywhere else, at least not in English.
Used to listen to the Bombcast, but none of the splinters from what it was appeal to me much. New Bombcast, Nextlander, solo Gerstmann, are all flawed in different ways imo.
As time went on, he developed a reputation for big promises and hype and underdelivering - viewed by some as straight up lying. He arguably killed the Fable brand. He presented a tech demo for the launch of the Kinect that was thought to be a real game, that was mostly smoke and mirrors. Following Fable 3’s poor reception, he makes his own company and hypes up “Curiosity”, essentially a bad clicker game with a promised prize to the person who gets the final click. The tech was bad, and the “prize” was supposedly a share of the revenue from their following project Godus. That project was not good (which was only expected to be at all due to his penchant for inflating expectations), and the cherry on top was that the person who won the prize for the aforementioned Curiosity game never received a dime.
I believe it amplifies some of the worst aspects of their games. If I think back to what I liked about Oblivion, it was a world that felt lived in. Objects had purpose, characters had homes, content was discovered. It relied a lot on procedural content, but it felt like there was a strong level of cohesion between the procedural elements and mechanics. The disparate aspects of the game fed into one another. With Starfield, you get this huge increase in scope, but each individual part feels kind of empty and boring and clunky and slow.
Here’s a contrasting example:
In Oblivion, imagine if you wanted to steal something from a vendor. You have to wait for night, you have to pick the lock, items have actual value, you have to stealth in case they catch you, you know if they can see you, there are other things to do in the city in the meantime, and during all this you might find something unexpected along the way that completely tangents you off into a different direction. All these elements come together to create interesting player stories, and none if it needs to be tied to any guided narrative.
In Starfield, all of these elements fall apart. The scope of the game means you’re constantly fast travelling from location to location. No single location has too much going on, and half the time what is there is sending you back out to space anyway, so you never really feel much connection to any physical place. The relative value of items is totally skewed because of the scale of ship related expenses compared to anything else, so what’s the value of stealing a cool rock? It’s also very difficult to tell relative weapon/item quality at a glance. I know that a steel sword is better than an iron sword; I have no clue why a Reflective Terrablazer is better than a Targeted Blurgun - and the default weapons usually don’t matter anyway because I would much rather have cool modifiers. The stealth and lockpick mechanics are both behind skill tree unlocks, so you’re far less likely to engage with those mechanics in the first place. The shops are all open 24/7 (I think? honestly don’t even know) so the day/night cycle seems irrelevant, so sneaking in to the shop is a no go, and I feel pretty limited in lockpicks and don’t really know where to reliably buy than a few at a time. And you never, ever, find anything surprising or compelling, and if you did it would be reduced to a quest checkbox.
So to summarize: I don’t know who I’m stealing from, I don’t know why I would care to steal anything, it’s not obvious how stealthy anyway I am unless I skill into it, it’s not worth using my lockpicks, I’ll never be caught, and their door is always open. There’s zero motivation to actually engage with the world in a way that makes it feel alive. But it’s critical to note: all those systems are still there! You can do all this stuff in the game! But because of how things are structured, even though the game on a fundamental level is extremely similar, the way you interact with it is totally removed from the kind of emergent fun that makes exploring those worlds so fun. It’s just a smooth path of monotony to the next thing. The systems often amount to less than the sum of their parts.
Now I’ll admit, some of this could be on me. Maybe I’ve changed. It’s possible. But man, I tried. Hey, what’s that cool cave on this planet? I’ll go check it out! Oh uhh, it’s nothing? There’s… a dead crab and a box with some old glue? Okay I guess?
Oh you’re definitely correct. But I think many decisions were made in this way, and it compromises the core experience. There’s all these friction points between the different systems that make the experience feel disjointed. They are each fine in isolation, but they don’t talk to each other very well, in my opinion.
Even Skyrim arguably suffered a little from problem of locations not mattering, but at least you needed to first visit the place to unlock it as a fast travel point, which meant you needed to travel there on foot, which meant exploring the world, which requires other design work that supports that experience. But for Starfield of course, these are planets so you can just fly there. It makes sense for what the game is, but it doesn’t make for a compelling experience. See that mountain? You can go to your map and fast travel there.*
*I know it doesn’t work that way once you land on a planet, but you know what I mean
I think it’s better to reframe the question as “Are there downsides to Valve’s PC market dominance?” or “How is Steam’s 30% cut different from Xbox or Playstation?”
For the latter: it’s worth noting that Microsoft and Sony sell their hardware at a loss, and make up the difference through software, so there are obvious developer benefits to the 70-30 split. For Steam, the equivalent value-add for developers is only the platform itself, and I would wager for many of those developers the biggest reason for selling on Steam is not the feature set - though obviously useful - but because that’s where the users are.
So, users get a feature-rich distribution platform, and developers (and by extension users) pay a tax to access those users. So the question is, how fair is that tax, and what effect does that tax have on the games that get made? Your view on that is going to depend on what you want from Steam, but more relevant I think is how much Steam costs to operate. How much of that 30% cut feeds back into Steam? My guess is not much; though I could be wrong.
But anyway, let’s imagine you took away half the 30% cut. Where does that money go? Well, one of two places: either your pocket, or the developers (or publishers) pocket (depending on how the change affects pricing). The benefits to your pocket are obvious, but what if developers just charge the same price? Well, as far as I’m aware, a lot of games are just not profitable - I read somewhere that for every 10 games, 7 fail, 2 break even, and 1 is a huge success - so my personal view is that this is an industry where developers need all the help they can get. If that extra 15% helps them stay afloat long enough to put out the next thing without selling their soul to Microsoft or Sony or whoever is buying up companies these days, and Steam isn’t severely negatively impacted, I’d call that a win.
But of course, that won’t happen, because Steam has no reason to change. That’s where the users are, and they are fine with the status quo.
“are the devs happy with it? Is that the standard for digital stores as well?”. And the answer to both is Yes
I fully disagree. On the first point, do developers accept it? Sure. That does not at all mean they are happy about it. Money is tight for games, and I guarantee you every developer would much prefer to take a bigger piece of the pie.
To your second point, it is the standard but it is not universal. Epic Games Store takes 12%. Itch.io defaults to 10%. Google Play Store takes 15% on the first $1 million in revenue.
But that alone doesn’t impact me, the consumer.
I don’t believe this is entirely true. The more cash flow developers have, the more stable they are as companies, and the more able they are to put out good games. You are indirectly impacted because a larger tax on developers means fewer, or lower quality, games that get released.
Steams share has zero impact on my wallet.
Disagree, unless you exclusively play AAA.
Edit: Actually I’ve changed my mind on this. I mostly agree the percentage cut doesn’t affect the optimal price point.
The consoles justify the amount they take more because they are selling hardware at a loss to bring in users, so as a developer, you are seeing direct, tangible, and ongoing benefits to giving the manufacturers a cut. Every console cycle, there is renewed investment in the ecosystem to keep users interested.
For digital platforms, the continued investment in the platform itself is both less tangible, and I would wager less overall (though we can’t know this for Steam because we don’t have access to numbers like that). The longer Steam continues as a platform, the more true this is, unless you believe that Steam will continue to improve at the same rate. I don’t see my interaction with Steam being much different 5 years from now as it is today, so it is less obvious to me that such at steep rate is justified.
Like, imagine they “perfected” Steam. They made all the features users could ever want, and there becomes no reason to make any more changes. Should they keep charging the same rate? Or, maybe a better way to frame it, would be that rather than investing some of that 30% rate into improving the platform, they invest in developers themselves to make better products, because it’s the only place left to make the platform better than it was before. This would be equivalent to just lowering the rate across the board, in my opinion.
This is an interesting perspective, and gave me something to think about!
I don’t think the Steam Deck is quite there in terms of adoption to justify an across the board tax. The order of operations is kind of reversed, where Steam is reinvesting money made from previous sales towards R&D and Hardware ambitions, rather than using the Steam Deck to bring in users. But if you’re developer that benefits from the Steam Deck’s existence, or saw a sales bump from Steam Deck sales, or some other benefit like that, I agree it’s a pretty good trade-off in that case.
Nintendo is a bit different because they sort of focus on their own thing and everyone else is secondary. Something like 80% of software sales for Nintendo platforms are first party, so it’s mostly a Nintendo machine. Frankly, I think they should take less of a cut. Indies do really well on Nintendo though. They have a kind of pseudo-monopoly of a younger casual gamer demographic, and they maintain that user base by putting out great software. It is an interesting counterpoint though.
Despite previous reports revealing the game's 2026 release window, The Elder Scrolls VI is at least five years away and is likely to release, unsurprisingly, only on PC, Xbox Series X, and Xbox Series S....
It’s weird, because they absolutely need to switch things up… but also they have a winning formula and so long as the games sell they will never adapt.
For me, the biggest fault isn’t the tech itself (at least not directly), but the game design. Every time they strap another system to that Frankenstein’s monster of an engine, those systems need to be justified in gameplay, which is harder to do the more there are. As everything grows in scale and scope, each component, whether locations or mechanics, feels less individually compelling. Then they hide mechanics behind the tech tree, which solves one issue by focusing the player experience, but now the quests feel even more bland because they need to appeal to every possible build.
Alan Wake 2 director says Remedy's confidence in the game was boosted by Everything Everywhere All At Once (www.pcgamer.com)
Baldur’s Gate 3 players demand major “quality of life” changes for inventory management (www.charlieintel.com)
The Witcher author says he's never played the games that cemented his fame: "I have no time for this, and it's not entertainment for me" (www.gamesradar.com)
What are some other sites like Lichess for tabletop/board games?
For those unaware, Lichess is a really slick site for playing chess online, and a kinda similar site exists with Online Go for playing Go online....
Starfield's new PC patch delivers the game we should have had at launch (www.eurogamer.net)
MMO players blast "disgusting" $90 early access charge for WoW: The War Within - "We must say early and loudly that this is not okay" (www.gamesradar.com)
Former Starfield dev says all decisions on Bethesda RPGs "run through" Todd Howard: "He would hate, hate, hate me for saying that" (www.gamesradar.com)
Would you prefer if games had a separate difficulty setting for boss fights?
I usually play games on “normal” difficulty these days, for a balanced challenge. However, I don’t particularly enjoy boss fights, or at least I don’t enjoy the extra challenge associated with them. Was thinking it would be nice if games had a separate setting so I could just set boss fights to “easy”, while not...
Blizzard will raffle off a human-blood-infused PC if Diablo IV players donate 666 quarts (www.engadget.com)
Starfield gets a new mod aiming to improve the behavior of NPCs (www.dsogaming.com)
ENDLESS™ Dungeon - Launch Trailer (www.youtube.com)
Coming Soon to Game Pass: Cities: Skylines II, Dead Space, Jusant, Mineko’s Night Market, and More (news.xbox.com)
Two Hobbyists Made One of This Year’s Best Video Games (Chants of Sennaar) (www.bloomberg.com)
Here is the link to the game store.steampowered.com/app/…/Chants_of_Sennaar/
Are there any reputable independent gaming sites left?
I’m looking for sites not owned by Fandom, Ziff Davis, Tencent, etc., who still cover news and reviews....
Peter Molyneux is ready to disappoint us again with his latest game, a blockchain-based business sim (www.pcgamer.com)
Starfield Is Bethesda's Lowest-Rated Game On Steam (www.gamespot.com)
Dusk: Unpopular opinion: I'd rather pay Valve 30% and put up with their de facto monopoly than help Epic work towards their own (very obviously desired) monopoly (twitter.com)
Is it possible that in the future there will be games available on Xbox Game Pass that cannot be played without joining Game Pass? Phil Spencer: No. That's not it. What we want to offer is choice. (game.watch.impress.co.jp)
Bungie Is Reportedly Using Unreal Engine For Its New IP Codenamed 'Gummy Bears' (www.psu.com)
The Elder Scrolls VI Is at Least Five Years Away, and Is Likely to Launch on PC, Xbox Series X|S Only (wccftech.com)
Despite previous reports revealing the game's 2026 release window, The Elder Scrolls VI is at least five years away and is likely to release, unsurprisingly, only on PC, Xbox Series X, and Xbox Series S....