A lot of it has to do with a) I was a teenager when Fallout 3 came out and b) the Fat Man was basically an easter egg that I never even encountered in my playthroughs, and this is one of the major selling points of 76 that they're producing entire video segments to highlight
Eh, it's kinda all over the place, you can get it through a story mission, you can get it from a random encounter, you can even buy it in one of the shops and it has a rare variant, it was just another weapon.
the nuke thing actually bothered one of my friends a lot
from a gameplay point of view, I just see folk getting griefed endlessly on the official servers by more powerful collectives of players
and nuking stuff just to collect special resources seems kind of... gross? what if we could disarm the nukes instead and gain the same resources?
that would be pretty swell
I kinda gave up on Fallout having any sort of real thematic punch again once Obsidian got scorched out by that single metacritic point
I have a suspicion, and maybe this is putting too much faith into Bethesda, and only time will tell if my theory bears out...
But I have a suspicion that nuking stuff to gain resources will ultimately prove to be a bad decision and the reason why the rest of the fall out setting is so fucked up.
Like, 76 looks pretty pristine and healthy in those trailers. Let’s see how much the human greed of the first vault survivors ruins it all.
0
Indie Winterdie KräheRudi Hurzlmeier (German, b. 1952)Registered Userregular
I don't think that "publishers only hear dollars spent, not what we're saying" has actually been true for a very long time
an institution that exists for the most efficient pursual of profit will prioritize profit above all else
if there's public outcry they can minimize damage through the various "we hear you" approaches (as EA tried to with the lot boxes), but in the end the only thing that changes their behavior is the curtailment of profit
I don't think that "publishers only hear dollars spent, not what we're saying" has actually been true for a very long time
I didn’t see any change from the constant complaints about lootboxes online until a big budget game actually tanked sales wise and made EAs stock go down.
+3
Indie Winterdie KräheRudi Hurzlmeier (German, b. 1952)Registered Userregular
I don't think that "publishers only hear dollars spent, not what we're saying" has actually been true for a very long time
I would argue EA is proof of that, yeah
what changed their tune though
people complaining on twitter or the government possibly stepping in and a) restricting monetization options across multiple platforms and b) implicating EA as the responsible party for this restriction, reducing share value
I don't think that "publishers only hear dollars spent, not what we're saying" has actually been true for a very long time
an institution that exists for the most efficient pursual of profit will prioritize profit above all else
if there's public outcry they can minimize damage through the various "we hear you" approaches (as EA tried to with the lot boxes), but in the end the only thing that changes their behavior is the curtailment of profit
Don't get me wrong; I am not buying Fallout 76. That's not really part of the conversation; there is a wealth of games I can partake in that don't rankle me in that way.
But I genuinely don't think this is always going to be true, especially because behaviors that encourage long-term profit versus short-term profit can often look very different
I don't think that "publishers only hear dollars spent, not what we're saying" has actually been true for a very long time
How do you figure
Ubisoft didn’t take a year off from AC until considerably less people bought one of their entries (Syndicate). Then Origins came out, sold much better, and they’re back to yearly
DmC didn’t sell as well as other entries and they are now pretending like it didn’t even exist
I can think of almost no instances where the bottom line wasn’t the only thing they listened to
I don't think that "publishers only hear dollars spent, not what we're saying" has actually been true for a very long time
How do you figure
Ubisoft didn’t take a year off from AC until considerably less people bought one of their entries (Syndicate). Then Origins came out, sold much better, and they’re back to yearly
DmC didn’t sell as well as other entries and they are now pretending like it didn’t even exist
I can think of almost no instances where the bottom line wasn’t the only thing they listened to
Uhhhh
Well one instance I can think of with regards to Bethesda in particular is that they're holding on hard to their "fuck the Nazis" campaign in spite of the fact that New Colossus sold considerably less than New Order
Ubisoft is leaning towards greater inclusivity and diversity in the AC casts in spite of the fact that sales kept going up with the same boring-ass white guys in the lead for most of a decade
I mean they're little things but one of the things to keep in mind is that listening to your audience, chasing profit, is just as much a capitalist behavior as steadfastly only doing what's proven to work
I think Bethesda has done a much better job with TES than FO, as watered down as their fantasy work has become (Morrowind was my entry into TES and it was pretty fucking cool and weird!)
maybe it's because it's their own franchise, and has evolved as the studio changed? what I'm saying is that I haven't written off Starfield, and I'm tempted to play their Blades game and see their mindset for the future of TES
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
I don't think that "publishers only hear dollars spent, not what we're saying" has actually been true for a very long time
How do you figure
Ubisoft didn’t take a year off from AC until considerably less people bought one of their entries (Syndicate). Then Origins came out, sold much better, and they’re back to yearly
DmC didn’t sell as well as other entries and they are now pretending like it didn’t even exist
I can think of almost no instances where the bottom line wasn’t the only thing they listened to
Uhhhh
Well one instance I can think of with regards to Bethesda in particular is that they're holding on hard to their "fuck the Nazis" campaign in spite of the fact that New Colossus sold considerably less than New Order
Ubisoft is leaning towards greater inclusivity and diversity in the AC casts in spite of the fact that sales kept going up with the same boring-ass white guys in the lead for most of a decade
I mean they're little things but one of the things to keep in mind is that listening to your audience, chasing profit, is just as much a capitalist behavior as steadfastly only doing what's proven to work
It's looking like Youngblood is going to be only $30, so I'm wondering if it's a scaled-back followup to allow them to wrap up their story while admitting Wolfenstein is maybe not a very profitable venture
I don't think that "publishers only hear dollars spent, not what we're saying" has actually been true for a very long time
How do you figure
Ubisoft didn’t take a year off from AC until considerably less people bought one of their entries (Syndicate). Then Origins came out, sold much better, and they’re back to yearly
DmC didn’t sell as well as other entries and they are now pretending like it didn’t even exist
I can think of almost no instances where the bottom line wasn’t the only thing they listened to
Uhhhh
Well one instance I can think of with regards to Bethesda in particular is that they're holding on hard to their "fuck the Nazis" campaign in spite of the fact that New Colossus sold considerably less than New Order
Ubisoft is leaning towards greater inclusivity and diversity in the AC casts in spite of the fact that sales kept going up with the same boring-ass white guys in the lead for most of a decade
I mean they're little things but one of the things to keep in mind is that listening to your audience, chasing profit, is just as much a capitalist behavior as steadfastly only doing what's proven to work
It's looking like Youngblood is going to be only $30, so I'm wondering if it's a scaled-back followup to allow them to wrap up their story while admitting Wolfenstein is maybe not a very profitable venture
That seems like a weird assumption? I assumed it was just TNC's version of The Old Blood
Wolfenstein Youngblood is co-op because they're hoping having TWO people in the game will speed up the process of "I cannot possibly figure out how I'm supposed to get through Collapsed Building #94" that inevitably happens in every level of the Machinegames entries
Theodore Flooseveltproud parent of eight beautiful girls and shalmelodorne (which is currently being ruled by a woman (awesome role model for my daughters)) #dornedadRegistered Userregular
despite looking at basically nothing, i will admit that looking at a basic-ass logo of elder scrolls vi over a damn mountain made me slightly excited
I don't think that "publishers only hear dollars spent, not what we're saying" has actually been true for a very long time
How do you figure
Ubisoft didn’t take a year off from AC until considerably less people bought one of their entries (Syndicate). Then Origins came out, sold much better, and they’re back to yearly
DmC didn’t sell as well as other entries and they are now pretending like it didn’t even exist
I can think of almost no instances where the bottom line wasn’t the only thing they listened to
Uhhhh
Well one instance I can think of with regards to Bethesda in particular is that they're holding on hard to their "fuck the Nazis" campaign in spite of the fact that New Colossus sold considerably less than New Order
Ubisoft is leaning towards greater inclusivity and diversity in the AC casts in spite of the fact that sales kept going up with the same boring-ass white guys in the lead for most of a decade
I mean they're little things but one of the things to keep in mind is that listening to your audience, chasing profit, is just as much a capitalist behavior as steadfastly only doing what's proven to work
It's looking like Youngblood is going to be only $30, so I'm wondering if it's a scaled-back followup to allow them to wrap up their story while admitting Wolfenstein is maybe not a very profitable venture
That seems like a weird assumption? I assumed it was just TNC's version of The Old Blood
Yeah but Old Blood was a prequel and this would have to advance the story by its very nature
Wolfenstein Youngblood is co-op because they're hoping having TWO people in the game will speed up the process of "I cannot possibly figure out how I'm supposed to get through Collapsed Building #94" that inevitably happens in every level of the Machinegames entries
They really should just add a button you can hold out of combat that puts a magic line on the ground to the shortest path to the way to the next room.
I would've liked if Wolfenstein: TNC had good gameplay
Yeah I couldn't get more than a few levels into new order, I just don't like how the guns feel at all
I ended up not bothering to try tnc
Weirdly enough I liked the guns fine, I just hated the collectables upgrade system, confusing map design, unnecessary stealth elements, and worst of all horrible indication whether you're taking damage or not.
I don't think that "publishers only hear dollars spent, not what we're saying" has actually been true for a very long time
How do you figure
Ubisoft didn’t take a year off from AC until considerably less people bought one of their entries (Syndicate). Then Origins came out, sold much better, and they’re back to yearly
DmC didn’t sell as well as other entries and they are now pretending like it didn’t even exist
I can think of almost no instances where the bottom line wasn’t the only thing they listened to
Uhhhh
Well one instance I can think of with regards to Bethesda in particular is that they're holding on hard to their "fuck the Nazis" campaign in spite of the fact that New Colossus sold considerably less than New Order
Ubisoft is leaning towards greater inclusivity and diversity in the AC casts in spite of the fact that sales kept going up with the same boring-ass white guys in the lead for most of a decade
I mean they're little things but one of the things to keep in mind is that listening to your audience, chasing profit, is just as much a capitalist behavior as steadfastly only doing what's proven to work
It's looking like Youngblood is going to be only $30, so I'm wondering if it's a scaled-back followup to allow them to wrap up their story while admitting Wolfenstein is maybe not a very profitable venture
That seems like a weird assumption? I assumed it was just TNC's version of The Old Blood
Yeah but Old Blood was a prequel and this would have to advance the story by its very nature
I mean it’s a game with established branching timelines already, so this can easily be a branch off of “what I’d you don’t succeed in Wolfenstein 3?”
Also they are setting it way in the future so plenty of space to slot Wolfenstein 3 before it.
I think Bethesda has done a much better job with TES than FO, as watered down as their fantasy work has become (Morrowind was my entry into TES and it was pretty fucking cool and weird!)
maybe it's because it's their own franchise, and has evolved as the studio changed? what I'm saying is that I haven't written off Starfield, and I'm tempted to play their Blades game and see their mindset for the future of TES
Conceptually, I don't have a problem with Bethesda taking Fallout in their own direction. It'd have been much weirder if they'd bought the IP, then proceeded to do exactly what Obsidian had been doing already. I'm not a huge fan of what it's turning into, but that new direction is proving to be much more lucrative than what was being done before, so they're going to keep doing it, until it stops being lucrative.
I do think TES suffers less because there's no other perspective to compare it to. A lot of the backlash from Fallout has been 'it used to be this, and I liked it, and now it's this, and I like it less, therefore they ruined this thing I liked' but that's never going to apply to TES, because there's nothing to ruin.
Posts
Wow, rude to assume he wasn't reading it already
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Instead you end up being the grand savior of the whole city, which honestly never felt that different to me.
Hey this is me! But also add bioware to this list. And EA. And Blizzard.
Actually videogames are just bad y’all go home.
This has been my hottest take.
from a gameplay point of view, I just see folk getting griefed endlessly on the official servers by more powerful collectives of players
and nuking stuff just to collect special resources seems kind of... gross? what if we could disarm the nukes instead and gain the same resources?
that would be pretty swell
I kinda gave up on Fallout having any sort of real thematic punch again once Obsidian got scorched out by that single metacritic point
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Eh, it's kinda all over the place, you can get it through a story mission, you can get it from a random encounter, you can even buy it in one of the shops and it has a rare variant, it was just another weapon.
I am hoping once I get my walker boot on today that I will be able to go to the gym again and at least do upper body workouts.
Doom is rad
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I have a suspicion, and maybe this is putting too much faith into Bethesda, and only time will tell if my theory bears out...
But I have a suspicion that nuking stuff to gain resources will ultimately prove to be a bad decision and the reason why the rest of the fall out setting is so fucked up.
Like, 76 looks pretty pristine and healthy in those trailers. Let’s see how much the human greed of the first vault survivors ruins it all.
an institution that exists for the most efficient pursual of profit will prioritize profit above all else
if there's public outcry they can minimize damage through the various "we hear you" approaches (as EA tried to with the lot boxes), but in the end the only thing that changes their behavior is the curtailment of profit
I would argue EA is proof of that, yeah
I didn’t see any change from the constant complaints about lootboxes online until a big budget game actually tanked sales wise and made EAs stock go down.
what changed their tune though
people complaining on twitter or the government possibly stepping in and a) restricting monetization options across multiple platforms and b) implicating EA as the responsible party for this restriction, reducing share value
Don't get me wrong; I am not buying Fallout 76. That's not really part of the conversation; there is a wealth of games I can partake in that don't rankle me in that way.
But I genuinely don't think this is always going to be true, especially because behaviors that encourage long-term profit versus short-term profit can often look very different
How do you figure
Ubisoft didn’t take a year off from AC until considerably less people bought one of their entries (Syndicate). Then Origins came out, sold much better, and they’re back to yearly
DmC didn’t sell as well as other entries and they are now pretending like it didn’t even exist
I can think of almost no instances where the bottom line wasn’t the only thing they listened to
I think there's a case to be made for ego being a secondary need, though
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Just one more negative aspect of humanity. HIVE MIND 4EVA!!!!
That is my hope!
I mean yeah I don't like many games made by any of those companies
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Uhhhh
Well one instance I can think of with regards to Bethesda in particular is that they're holding on hard to their "fuck the Nazis" campaign in spite of the fact that New Colossus sold considerably less than New Order
Ubisoft is leaning towards greater inclusivity and diversity in the AC casts in spite of the fact that sales kept going up with the same boring-ass white guys in the lead for most of a decade
I mean they're little things but one of the things to keep in mind is that listening to your audience, chasing profit, is just as much a capitalist behavior as steadfastly only doing what's proven to work
maybe it's because it's their own franchise, and has evolved as the studio changed? what I'm saying is that I haven't written off Starfield, and I'm tempted to play their Blades game and see their mindset for the future of TES
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
It's looking like Youngblood is going to be only $30, so I'm wondering if it's a scaled-back followup to allow them to wrap up their story while admitting Wolfenstein is maybe not a very profitable venture
I bet thats what fans of the original Warcraft games said too when WoW came out.
A cool thing to do is to immediately shit on people's hopes and dreams and make them feel bad for no real gain
That seems like a weird assumption? I assumed it was just TNC's version of The Old Blood
http://www.audioentropy.com/
That probably has more to do with the RTS market dying out and the reception to SC2 than anything else.
Yeah I couldn't get more than a few levels into new order, I just don't like how the guns feel at all
I ended up not bothering to try tnc
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Yeah but Old Blood was a prequel and this would have to advance the story by its very nature
They really should just add a button you can hold out of combat that puts a magic line on the ground to the shortest path to the way to the next room.
and its most positive form is still trying to carve a market out of social justice first and foremost
it's much better, and VERY noticeable when the developers leverage identity politics and intersectional theory as a matter of course
it's fuckin' pride month, so I got rainbow capitalism fresh on the mind
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Weirdly enough I liked the guns fine, I just hated the collectables upgrade system, confusing map design, unnecessary stealth elements, and worst of all horrible indication whether you're taking damage or not.
I mean it’s a game with established branching timelines already, so this can easily be a branch off of “what I’d you don’t succeed in Wolfenstein 3?”
Also they are setting it way in the future so plenty of space to slot Wolfenstein 3 before it.
Conceptually, I don't have a problem with Bethesda taking Fallout in their own direction. It'd have been much weirder if they'd bought the IP, then proceeded to do exactly what Obsidian had been doing already. I'm not a huge fan of what it's turning into, but that new direction is proving to be much more lucrative than what was being done before, so they're going to keep doing it, until it stops being lucrative.
I do think TES suffers less because there's no other perspective to compare it to. A lot of the backlash from Fallout has been 'it used to be this, and I liked it, and now it's this, and I like it less, therefore they ruined this thing I liked' but that's never going to apply to TES, because there's nothing to ruin.