2023 Video Games Thread

[GrantDawg]

Manor Lords comes put in a couple of weeks, and from the few people who have played the full game, it sounds like it is going to live up to ots hype.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Atocep]

Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 was announced today and apparently releases later this year. I absolutely loved the first one so this great to hear.

[RainMaker]

I need to try the first game again. I bought it near release and it was slow and buggy from what I remember. Did it get some updates over the years?

Saw it described as Skyrim without all the magic stuff which seems right up my alley.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I need to try the first game again. I bought it near release and it was slow and buggy from what I remember. Did it get some updates over the years?

Saw it described as Skyrim without all the magic stuff which seems right up my alley.

It got patched into pretty good shape. The sword fighting is far more realistic than most games and takes some time get a grasp of.

Overall the story isn't what I would call dark, but it's far more realistic than most other medieval RPGs. It took me a couple of tries to really get into to it, but it eventually really stuck for me. The characters are interesting and the game is well written.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

It got patched into pretty good shape. The sword fighting is far more realistic than most games and takes some time get a grasp of.

Alas, I figured out fairly quickly that I was unlikely to ever get the hang of it. It ended up as one of those games I was (for a bit) better suited to just watch LetsPlays of than to actually play.

There's a line between reasonable and too difficult and for me and my own limited skill set it landed on the wrong side of the line. #SoundsLikeAPersonalProblem

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Alas, I figured out fairly quickly that I was unlikely to ever get the hang of it. It ended up as one of those games I was (for a bit) better suited to just watch LetsPlays of than to actually play.

There's a line between reasonable and too difficult and for me and my own limited skill set it landed on the wrong side of the line. #SoundsLikeAPersonalProblem

I spent a lot of time with the sword trainer learning how to not look like a moron and get killed. What I found interesting and fun is I got to the point that I was decent. I could mow down bandits and others. But every now and then I'd run into a knight or some other opponent that was obviously better than me and it took less than 5 seconds to recognize it. And it wasn't because his stats were better, he just did everything better than me.

That's not everyone's cup of tea. It wasn't mine the first time I tried.

I would say it's not really anything like skyrim. I'd say maybe more like Witcher 1 without the magic and monsters and in a small open world. It's got some clunkiness to it but the things it does right it nails.

[Izulde]

I've still been slow-playing Ghost of Tsushima in the scant free time I have (which is averaging about once a week I'm able to sit down and get some playtime in). Really enjoying it thus far even though I'm currently stuck on an obnoxious stealth mission.

Rise of the Ronin is also on my eventual getlist though it'll be a while since I'm determined to finish GoT first.

[Ghost Econ]

Same started GoT, im lucky if I get 20 minutes every couple of weeks. I have games I want to play, I just can't find time and don't want to just constantly switch between games.

[GrantDawg]

Total War: Star Wars is in development at Creative Assembly. They could take my money now if they wanted.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[dubb93]

WWE 2k24 is fully embracing the money sink now it appears. They are releasing updated versions of Roman Reigns and The Rock and they are only obtainable through MyFaction which is basically the games version of ultimate team or whatever you want to call it.

Worse though it seems they are only obtainable by acquiring another specific card, in the case of Roman you need to get a Sapphire Sami Zayn to unlock Roman.

Ofcourse you can buy 70k of in-game currency for $20 and then flip that into packs of cards that cost either 12k or 17k depending on the rarity you want to buy. Each pack guarantees "atleast" 1 superstar and up to 4 accessories.

Finally, there are 10 different card rarities in the game as well as basically every current superstar or legend you could think of that isn't signed with AEW. And you are specifically hunting a Sapphire Sami Zayn from one of the damn packs.

It wouldn't be nearly as bad if they didn't have these damn wrestlers show up in the wrestler selection every time greyed out. So I'm having to explain to my kids why despite paying $100 for the premium version of the game at launch they can't have 2024 Roman Reigns or The Rock. Yes, I know you can download something similar in the community creations but these are kids and they don't understand. If you are going to add new wrestler models or wrestlers period, they should be in the damn base game or included with the season pass.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by dubb93

WWE 2k24 is fully embracing the money sink now it appears. They are releasing updated versions of Roman Reigns and The Rock and they are only obtainable through MyFaction which is basically the games version of ultimate team or whatever you want to call it.

Worse though it seems they are only obtainable by acquiring another specific card, in the case of Roman you need to get a Sapphire Sami Zayn to unlock Roman.

Ofcourse you can buy 70k of in-game currency for $20 and then flip that into packs of cards that cost either 12k or 17k depending on the rarity you want to buy. Each pack guarantees "atleast" 1 superstar and up to 4 accessories.

Finally, there are 10 different card rarities in the game as well as basically every current superstar or legend you could think of that isn't signed with AEW. And you are specifically hunting a Sapphire Sami Zayn from one of the damn packs.

It wouldn't be nearly as bad if they didn't have these damn wrestlers show up in the wrestler selection every time greyed out. So I'm having to explain to my kids why despite paying $100 for the premium version of the game at launch they can't have 2024 Roman Reigns or The Rock. Yes, I know you can download something similar in the community creations but these are kids and they don't understand. If you are going to add new wrestler models or wrestlers period, they should be in the damn base game or included with the season pass.

Gaming in 2024 sucks. It really does. Games exist more as a money extraction tool, rather than a source of entertainment.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Mota

Gaming in 2024 sucks. It really does. Games exist more as a money extraction tool, rather than a source of entertainment.

Part of it is because as the cost to make games has skyrocketed, the cost to buy games has remained fairly steady. An SNES game, in today's dollars would be something like $130.

Corporate greed runs deep and is frustrating when microtransactions are poorly implemented, but game prices were pretty crazy until the PS2 era.

[dubb93]

The reason why videogames don’t cost $130 is because videogame companies are in the business of selling videogames which they wouldn’t at $130. It isn’t the consumers fault that they can’t control their own costs. These companies that can’t create games on any kind of budget at all are going to go out of business in the next 10 years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dubb93

WWE 2k24 is fully embracing the money sink now it appears. They are releasing updated versions of Roman Reigns and The Rock and they are only obtainable through MyFaction which is basically the games version of ultimate team or whatever you want to call it.

The chase for cards is really the only thing truly engaging about modern sports console titles.

Madden? Check.
Show? Check.
NHL? Check.

I figure NBA is the same, I don't know that I'd expect anything different from a wrestling game.

Whether NCAA Football turns out to be different, honestly, remains to be seen. And if it does, once the new wears off, I figure it'll be the same.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by dubb93

The reason why videogames don’t cost $130 is because videogame companies are in the business of selling videogames which they wouldn’t at $130. It isn’t the consumers fault that they can’t control their own costs. These companies that can’t create games on any kind of budget at all are going to go out of business in the next 10 years.

You also don't have to buy the microfransactions if you don't want them. That essentially the opposite end of the argument and if people weren't buying them they wouldn't be as popular for publishers to add to games as they are.

You either pay an increased up front cost or you live with microtransactions.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Atocep

You either pay an increased up front cost or you live with microtransactions.

OK? I literally said we paid an increased amount up front. Where does charging more up front and then introducing micro transactions fall into this?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mota

Gaming in 2024 sucks. It really does. Games exist more as a money extraction tool, rather than a source of entertainment.

I think for AAA console games this is the case. But I'd argue that PC gaming is as good as its ever been. There's so many good games that come out from smaller or medium sized studios. Their graphics are catching up.

Sports games are dead but if your into a strategy or survival game, there are so many to choose from. Even decent RPGs on PC coming out weekly.

[Brian Swartz]

I agree. There's more choices than ever; too many, by far. It's hard to find many of the good games which isn't great, but there are many of them to be found.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dubb93

OK? I literally said we paid an increased amount up front. Where does charging more up front and then introducing micro transactions fall into this?

I believe that's called profitability. And that's why folks go to work.

The era of "oh we make games cause we want to, it's not about getting rich" is pretty well over -- for both developers AND progammers -- every bit as much as it is for "content creators".

I spent exponentially more time with YouTube when everything wasn't produced by people trying to make their living making videos, and oddly enough I spent more time on console games (and PC games for that matter) when everybody wasn't trying to retire in their 30s by making them.

[Brian Swartz]

That's unjustifiably cynical IMO. The landscape has certainly changed, but there are still people in the video and development space - a lot of them - who do it because they enjoy it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That's unjustifiably cynical IMO. The landscape has certainly changed, but there are still people in the video and development space - a lot of them - who do it because they enjoy it.

Considering all we ever seem to here from that sector is constant and persistent, to the point of incessant, whining {oh the hours, oh not being guaranteed a job forever, oh this and oh that} I struggle to find much justification for your defense.

Whinier than the pampered athletes in the sports games, which feels like I'm being more realistic than cynical tbh.

[Brian Swartz]

That's not all we hear from them though, that's the point. I'd suggest you're just listening to the wrong people if that's your perception. There are many contrary examples, the Baldurs Gate 3 devs being well-publicized but far from the only one. A number of video makers and devs I am familiar with have literally never done the kind of whining you are describing to my knowledge. There's others who have of course, but the idea that such things dominate the industry is just plain not true.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That's not all we hear from them though, that's the point. I'd suggest you're just listening to the wrong people if that's your perception. There are many contrary examples, the Baldurs Gate 3 devs being well-publicized but far from the only one. A number of video makers and devs I am familiar with have literally never done the kind of whining you are describing to my knowledge. There's others who have of course, but the idea that such things dominate the industry is just plain not true.

The greed has way more to do with CEO's and Boards of major traded companies only caring about how much they can milk out of an IP. They only care about the quality of the game to the point that it impacts their bottom line.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The chase for cards is really the only thing truly engaging about modern sports console titles.

Madden? Check.
Show? Check.
NHL? Check.

I figure NBA is the same, I don't know that I'd expect anything different from a wrestling game.

Whether NCAA Football turns out to be different, honestly, remains to be seen. And if it does, once the new wears off, I figure it'll be the same.

Can anyone elaborate on this? The only console game I currently play is NCAA 13. What is the chase for cards? I guess I'll find out if it's part of the new NCAA Football when it comes out, but since I don't even know what it is, I'm worried it's the kind of thing everyone will just know and not talk about.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Can anyone elaborate on this? The only console game I currently play is NCAA 13. What is the chase for cards? I guess I'll find out if it's part of the new NCAA Football when it comes out, but since I don't even know what it is, I'm worried it's the kind of thing everyone will just know and not talk about.

Ultimate team garbage. You spend money (in game currency, you usually can either buy in with real world money or earn it SLOWLY in game) on card packs that give you players to play a mode in whatever game you are playing. You use these cards to build a team. It's usually a combination of current players and legends. You can play with your team online or offline, there are leaderboards, etc.

Apparently, it's up Jon's alley but IMO it's the worst thing that has happened to modern sports videogames. You will learn that EA doesn't care about your Franchise mode at all (hell they accidently deleted them all two years ago and didn't bat an eye.) They care about selling virtual currency. This is the mode that gets updated all year with new cards. Franchise is a complete afterthought.

If you play OOTP these modes are more or less the same thing as perfect team.

[JonInMiddleGA]

[quote=dubb93;3433143]Ultimate team garbage. You spend money (in game currency, you usually can either buy in with real world money or earn it SLOWLY in game) on card packs that give you players to play a mode in whatever game you are playing. You use these cards to build a team. It's usually a combination of current players and legends. You can play with your team online or offline, there are leaderboards, etc.

Apparently, it's up Jon's alley but IMO it's the worst thing that has happened to modern sports videogames. You will learn that EA doesn't care about your Franchise mode at all (hell they accidently deleted them all two years ago and didn't bat an eye.) They care about selling virtual currency. This is the mode that gets updated all year with new cards. Franchise is a complete afterthought.

If you play OOTP these modes are more or less the same thing as perfect team.

Except that I'm about to complete the core card collection in Show 24 without (once again, same as last year) ever spending a dime. And since I have zero interest in playing online against a human ever, if that's enough of a goal to satisfy me then no worries about collecting every single 99 card (or whatever the 9 to 12 card meta that takes over all online play happens to be)

The franchise modes are fairly weak, but then again, they have been that way on console for many years. I've already gotten a respectable amount of hours out of the game just by grinding for the cards. Once a more complete (and good) roster file is finally completed, I'll probably give a franchise run a go although by that point NCAA 24 will be out most likely and I'm not sure how much time will be left.

Truth is, I'm not sure what the last thing I played on console for any purpose other than "the grind" (for one thing or another) even was.

Starfield, I guess, but that ended quickly once I realized that NG+ killed it for me. I tried FM on console but interacting with the UI kept me from being able to enjoy it or get into it. That would leave, I guess, the Sim Settlements mod for Fallout4 was the last thing I played cause I wanted to play (rather than grind) ... and that died once it grew beyond the console's capability to handle the size of the ever-expanding mod. Before that? Stellaris, though I never once got past last midgame with it (and all the fun is in the early game anyway). Hell, I dunno, I owned some version of Civ on console at some point, I probably mindlessly played that for "fun" at times I guess.

Ultimately all console sports games end up with what I refer to here in the 'cave as "the NHL problem". Ultimately, I find across all of them the same problem, the point where one difficulty is comically easy and the next one is utterly unbeatable and non-competitive. How many titles in a row did I win on the old NCAA? Or consecutive SBs in Madden? But then again, I've done the same thing on console with OOTP, with EHM, with FHM. And I'm not exactly anybody's GM savant, those are all simply that easy to do it with.

Will talks about the dopamine factor in games now & then. That you have to find that somewhere in the game or else you'll move on. That's what the collecting modes provide for me ... the gameplay itself so is rarely fun or enjoyable or engaging on anything on console.

It's the same reason I've played WWE Supercard on my little tablet for 10 straight years now, it's something to do with some vague reward beyond timewasting.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And it doesn't exactly seem like I'm the Lone Ranger when it comes to that approach to gaming. I may have given the reasons behind it more thought, or typed more words about it, than the average player but my motivations seem pretty in-line with a huge chunk of the audience.

The reason those modes have become a cash cow for devs is because they work. I'm an anomaly 'cause I'm a NMS guy (No Money Spent) but the motivation for me is the same as it is for the whales.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And it doesn't exactly seem like I'm the Lone Ranger when it comes to that approach to gaming. I may have given the reasons behind it more thought, or typed more words about it, than the average player but my motivations seem pretty in-line with a huge chunk of the audience.

The reason those modes have become a cash cow for devs is because they work. I'm an anomaly 'cause I'm a NMS guy (No Money Spent) but the motivation for me is the same as it is for the whales.

The modes work because people pay for them, and somehow people forget that these games aren't created for charity. They are cash cows to very large corporations. I'm sure there are plenty of programmers that work there for the joy of working on a game they loved, but in the end it is the corporate entity that dictates what time and effort can be put into various things, and they are going to be way more concerned about the biggest profit center than the feature that always sucks yet people still buy the games anyway.

[dubb93]

Jon basically is the exact opposite gamer than I am. Show me a game that prioritizes grind over fun and I’ll show you a game I don’t play. I also havent bought a sports game for myself in 3 years almost entirely because Franchise modes are actually somehow getting worse.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

The modes work because people pay for them, and somehow people forget that these games aren't created for charity. They are cash cows to very large corporations. I'm sure there are plenty of programmers that work there for the joy of working on a game they loved, but in the end it is the corporate entity that dictates what time and effort can be put into various things, and they are going to be way more concerned about the biggest profit center than the feature that always sucks yet people still buy the games anyway.

But my argument, I guess, is that in many ways the fact that people are paying for them (us NMS types notwithstanding) says that they're doing exactly what they should be doing.

I mean, it succeeds because the market responds to it. And it kinda even makes sense.

Look at TEW. How many people bought that game & started a dynasty/campaign/whateverword? But how many of those ever got past 3 years in game? The long-running franchise people, regardless of the game or the medium, are a minority.

[bhlloy]

There’s a fun question in Jon’s post there which is - when was the last time you went past 5 years or seasons in a sports game?

For me I think I had an FM save 7 or 8 years ago with Wrexham (ironically given the recent hoopla around that club) that must have got to 5 years as they were Conference at the time and I had them in Europe. Before that you are probably talking Championship Manager 97/98 as a kid for a time where I really got somewhere approaching a decent career sim. I’ve probably taken some classes from frosh to titles in TCY back in the day as well.

Console or non-sim game I’m not sure I’ve ever done it. Not sure I’ve ever hit three tbh.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

There’s a fun question in Jon’s post there which is - when was the last time you went past 5 years or seasons in a sports game?

For me I think I had an FM save 7 or 8 years ago with Wrexham (ironically given the recent hoopla around that club) that must have got to 5 years as they were Conference at the time and I had them in Europe. Before that you are probably talking Championship Manager 97/98 as a kid for a time where I really got somewhere approaching a decent career sim. I’ve probably taken some classes from frosh to titles in TCY back in the day as well.

Console or non-sim game I’m not sure I’ve ever done it. Not sure I’ve ever hit three tbh.

Fairly often. Went 12 in madden 3 years ago with a few friends in an online league. Like I said that’s the last console sports one I’ve bought but I have an OOTP game right now where I’m 24 years in.

[Ajaxab]

I've really enjoyed FM '24 and am currently in the 2036-37 season. Started at Alfreton Town in the Vanarama North before moving to Leyton Orient in League 2 for two seasons. Moved on to Hellas Verona in Serie A where I'm in season 8 at the club. Won the league 3 times, but the expectations are starting to outpace the budget the board are giving me, so it's starting to be a slog. I'm trying to hang in to the end of the year when we move into a new stadium just to see how that affects the financial situation.

FM has probably been the only game where I've been able to put in this kind of time and not be bored.

[dubb93]

TEW is a completely different beast for a variety of reasons.

1. It takes forever to get anywhere as a big promotion.

2. The long term sim prospects are bleak because the game does a really poor job of keeping the world full of usable talent.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

For me I think I had an FM save 7 or 8 years ago with Wrexham (ironically given the recent hoopla around that club) that must have got to 5 years as they were Conference at the time and I had them in Europe.

I probably have a dozen FM saves that have lasted that long at least, but I can't say the same about any other sports game....and not-so-coincidentally most of those stretches were with Wrexham. I assume the draw was the same in FM as in real-life: they have better facilities and resources than the other teams in their league.

[dubb93]

Franchise in Madden is so bad that it’s had the same fatigue bug for like 4 or 5 years and they just won’t fix it.

It had the same playoff bug for half a decade where every game against a cold weather team in the playoffs was a blizzard complete with everyone on both teams getting -20 speed, acc, change of direction, increased fumble risk etc and a 50 mph cross wind. I don’t know if that bug has been fixed but I know for a fact that the fatigue bug is still there and starting about week 3 in franchise the game pulls your starters after the first quarter because they are too fatigued. It really is ridiculous. You can put in house rules by just turning progressive fatigue off and making all user teams be teams that play in domes but it just goes to show how little these franchise modes are touched at all on a yearly basis.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dubb93

TEW is a completely different beast for a variety of reasons.

1. It takes forever to get anywhere as a big promotion.

2. The long term sim prospects are bleak because the game does a really poor job of keeping the world full of usable talent.

And yet Will's 3-4 longest careers ever -- and several of my ten longest -- are in TEW.

So go ahead and pick virtually any sizable game not named FM and you'd get the same sort of result. I'm a "long universe" guy historically myself ... but I also know I'm an outlier.

That's exponentially more true for consoles, where a) there's a new one every year and b) most people stick with a title for 3-6 months until the next sports title comes out.

It's fine to be in the minority, but at least accept that reality of that being the case.

[RainMaker]

One thing that holds back longer dynasties/franchise sessions is bad AI. Even games I loved like NCAA Football got boring after a few seasons when you could turn Ball State into Alabama

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dubb93

but it just goes to show how little these franchise modes are touched at all on a yearly basis.

and yet " the “Madden NFL” franchise saw record net bookings for the year, up 6%, and double-digit growth in weekly average users for “Madden NFL 24” and “Madden Mobile.”"

So, umm, how would that suggest that they're doing it wrong somehow? Or at least that they should be diverting resources?

The issue is that most people don't give a rat's ass about franchise mode.

Hard to blame companies for doing what pleases the most customers most. That's a customer issue, not a company issue.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's fine to be in the minority, but at least accept that reality of that being the case.

There in lies the issue though. I don’t think the “majority” of people play MUT and not Franchise. First off there are no numbers I googled and they don’t exist. And just because the dev team is spending more time on it doesn’t mean it’s more popular it just means that the mode is monetized unlike franchise modes.

The MUT modes have largely replaced multiplayer IMO rather than replacing Franchise.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

One thing that holds back longer dynasties/franchise sessions is bad AI. Even games I loved like NCAA Football got boring after a few seasons when you could turn Ball State into Alabama

Which is why I predict that once the initial wave of hype is over, NCAA will quickly settle into some form of card collecting same as every other sports game on console.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dubb93

The MUT modes have largely replaced multiplayer IMO rather than replacing Franchise.

We disagree on that point entirely, wholly, and completely.

Will is pretty much the only member of his age-group cohort that has ever completed a franchise season. They MUT, they MP. And that's literally all any of them do.

edit to add: And I've known more whales in his cohort than I've known in my own. To the point of knowing a couple who've regularly spent thousands on pay-to-win games, and quite a few that don't blink at spending hundreds at a time.

[RainMaker]

While I don't like the trend in video games, I do understand it from both sides. There is something addictive about collecting players/cards, buying/selling, opening packs, etc. And if I was a bit younger and playing online more, I'd probably be much more into it. The only sports game I've really grinded out is The Show and that's just because I find grinding in that to be somewhat relaxing and it's not tied that deep into the online play.

And from a developer standpoint, I get it too. You don't really need to improve gameplay, AI, or franchise modes that take up a lot of resources. Sports games really haven't evolved much in that regard in over a decade. So you're still capturing most of the people who just want to play any sports game while maximizing the spend of the percent who will buy cards. Whatever that saying is about 10% of your customers will make up 90% of your revenue probably applies to these games.

Sports games are mostly dead from a simulation aspect. That's been something that started with the Madden exclusive license. But I still contend you can find a lot of really good PC games (non-sports) that don't run like that. People just seem too caught up in AAA console games and ignore a ton of really good options made by medium to small studios that are aimed at specific audiences.

One positive is I do think there has been some pushback against "online" for every single game. Fallout 76 caused enough anger that they more or less re-developed it. RDR2 saw their online mode bomb. Everyone tried to copy the success of GTA Online but are finding out that's not an easy task. So I do think we'll see more games shift toward single-player mode.

[Brian Swartz]

Every piece of data I've ever seen says things like multiplayer are a very low draw in games with a significant single-player component. Even Starcraft which poured massive effort into multiplayer is at 20%, industry estimates are around 10% typically for most games, sports games typically lower than that in the single digits.

Obviously there are some games specifically designed for multiplayer and they get whatever audience they get and some people do really enjoy them. But given the choice between single and multiplayer the audience has consistently been on the single-player side and hasn't really moved. The multiplayer audience tends to be more vocal, but they are a fairly small minority.

[RainMaker]

Have they figured out a good way to play PC games on your living room TV yet (without dragging your PC around)? Because for me, that's pretty much the dream. The only thing holding me on consoles is that part and maybe a few games.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Have they figured out a good way to play PC games on your living room TV yet (without dragging your PC around)? Because for me, that's pretty much the dream. The only thing holding me on consoles is that part and maybe a few games.

Run a long HDMI and run in multi monitor mode is the best I can come up. How far away is the PC?