The Literate Noob writes - As games get more and more realistic, will high horsepower graphics engines, motion capture and photorealism force gameplay and original concepts to take a backseat? I say it can only make things better.
"They want you to believe the devs under them are super stoked to work generative AI into their processes," continued Gaider, "but I assure you what they took as excitement was really a veiled wail of despair not unlike the time that team was informed of their new 'really cool' live service mandate.".
I think anyone with some common sense knew this, im glad i don't support their games anymore, what a sh!t company.
I said this yesterday. AI isn't what we want when it comes to crafting artistry. Alas, these soulless corporate morons don't care about their work, only about cutting corners as much as possible.
Has the rapid growth of Xbox made the ship too heavy? Following the closures of Tango Gameworks, Arkane Austin, and Roundhouse, we explore what the future of Xbox could look like.
This ship was never meant to sail, this ship was made from the get go to sink as fast as possible. It almost feels that they want to lower the standards of quality in the industry so that they can fit in
I disagree, Xbox from the get go innovated and changed the industry. They did a lot of firsts and standardized a lot of others. It wasn’t till the beginning of the Xbox1 era that things started to go south.
Yep, although I’d argue it started going to shit when they tried to hock Kinect on their audience instead of continuing to invest in their studios and IPs. 2001-2010 Xbox was peak gaming, though.
@Stevonidas
I agree they never should have focused on it after the 360 era. But you do have to remember they were faked out by the huge volumes of Kinects sold. To quote info on Wikipedia, “Project Natal, It was first released on November 4, 2010, and would go on to sell eight million units in its first 60 days of availability.” So if your Xbox and see these huge sales on a peripheral where are you going to put some money? Criticism in hindsight is worthless…..if only we could all see our future. In other wards they had no way of knowing. Plus they had engagement numbers and a lot of signs pointed to people wanting it.
Their biggest mistake wasn’t the Kinect, but unlike Sony after the PS3 debacle. They didn’t double on down on exclusive good games. The other huge mistake was letting Call of Duty go to Sony.
Xbox has no soul and Phil has no confidence, and it's impossible to say either do when they killed Tango and Arkane Austin.
Everything they've said since has only made them look worse to a point that they're actually less competent than Embracer.
Whe you release something like the series S and expect it not to hurt your business model, and developers have to have parity with games. Then you know Microsoft don't care. Series s is the final nail that broke developers,
Skewed and Reviewed have written an Opinion Piece covering issues in the gaming industry, how current issues were issues years ago, and what can be done to help restore consumer trust.
Nothing. It's up to the gamers to stop consuming content from companies that they don't agree with.
How do you know if you agree with it or not unless you play it? Which without conventions forces gamers to rely on trailers. Perhaps Demos should be made more frequently. But companies need to do better as well.
But is that not what they have now? Tons of gameplay or are you talking about watching actual gamers play it versus the trailers and streams? The big issue is that some companies pay streamers and influencers and they create content but for me; that is hardly a fair, unbiased, and factual look at a game.
They usually are attached to the money sadly. It would be nice to have gamers in charge but you have so much money invested that business people are needed. Hence the issue; you need people who know business but are also gamers who know have an eye to the community. It sounds simple in theory that if you give gamers quality games that they want to play; money will be made. But that is not always so.
Realism works for me in certain type of games...If i'm playing a game that is promoted to be a military or racer sim then that's what the gameplay should offer.
my take on this subject is that there are good realism and bad realism, let's take gta 4 for example
Good realism: immersive world, physics, golden quality, amazing car physics\damage model, animation, effects and overall cinematic \in your face feel of the action
bad realism: things that make the gameplay more frustrating, like getting shot while in car or in car jack animation, speed slow down when taking stair steps, the annoying animation when niko caught fire, things like that
gta 4 imo is one of the best games ever, i still play it to this day, don't get me wrong but there are a lot to improve in gta 4, i hope gta 5 ditch the bad aspects of realism while improving the good aspects of it and add a lot of stuff
I can handle a bit of unrealism for the sake of just enjoying the game. It's the same with movies. If half of them were realistic then a lot of the greatest action scenes just wouldn't pan out.
Realism is sometimes good but you don't wanna have a game be too realistic.
Make some games with realism and then make some that bend the rules.
I like to play games to relax and get away from this world for awhile, so sometimes i like being able to fly or jump 300 feet. Other times id like to experience what it would be like on a top secret military mission.