The big difference between the two for me is how much feeling of gameplay expression there is. In Fallout, my options feel like melee, shooting enemies with shotguns, shooting enemies with automatic rifles, shooting enemies with long-range rifles, shooting enemies with lasers, shooting enemies with miniguns, and so on. And the shooting mechanics don’t feel strong enough to really differentiate those different weapons as different playstyles for the most part. If I play a game like Titanfall, Battlefield, etc, then changing weapons can feel drastically different - they handle differently, you navigate combat arenas differently, you prioritise targets differently, you use cover differently. But that doesn’t really feel like the case with Fallout for me without any of the moment-to-moment decision making that tends to allow for gameplay expression in shooters.

Whereas Skyrim feels like there are a lot more playstyles available. Destruction magic feels very different to conjuration which feels very different to illusion which feels very different to being a stealth archer which feels very different to using a dagger which feels very different to using a huge, two-handed melee weapon. They’re not just visually different; how you approach and navigate combat encounters will be significantly different depending on what kind of build you have. It just feels like there’s so much more gameplay depth.

I’m definitely a little confused about Tango - I’m hoping we’ll at least get more details come out about why Microsoft shuttered them. I mean, Ghostwire Tokyo was… whatever, and I could understand Microsoft not wanting to have them working on that kind of scale again any time soon. It wasn’t bad by any means, but it was fairly expensive and perhaps didn’t do as well as they hoped. But I’m surprised they didn’t want to just downsize the studio and aim for another HI-FI Rush-esque game (or sequel).

But Arkane Austin being closed definitely makes sense. Not only was Redfall a disaster, but by the time Redfall released, 70% of the people who’d worked on Prey had left the studio. (Largely because the studio’s president had left the studio just after Prey, I believe, rather than because of the Microsoft acquisition of Bethesda.) All that was really left was the name.

I don’t think the Steam Workshop is the issue here. I’m glad it exists, and direct downloads or snv links are still a reasonable alternative for mods that can’t be hosted on the Workshop for whatever reason.

It’s okay; I appreciate the apology! :)

I think it’s important to look for the nuance in situations and not treat everything as zero-sum. Both sides can have good points and be open to criticism at the same time (this isn’t an “enlightened centrist” take, I promise!). I think a lot of discussion online does tend to strip away nuance and take the position that if you show any empathy with one side then it means you must hate the other - I do my best to avoid that!

Is the fully casted radio version not the best version to listen to anyway?

these people SHOULD be putting this negative pressure on them. It’s deserved

Was it not implied I agree with that when I said:

The angry customers and the state of the game are problems.

and;

• customers being disappointed and/or wanting a refund is perfectly reasonable
• people wanting the game to be better is also reasonable

I’m not going to defend the poor quality of the game because it’s obviously bad (from what I gather, anyway - I’ve not played it myself) and should be improved.

?

I don’t see why that would make my opinion stupid. Yes, the studio/publisher should be held to account for the crappy release. But a big part of holding them to account should be not giving them money for it in the first place; not just handing over money and then complaining afterwards. Complaining afterwards is reasonable for the people who did hand over money, but they should also hold themselves accountable for financially rewarding a company that puts out a crappy product - they’re part of the problem.

The angry customers and the state of the game are problems.

• it’s hard to feel sorry for people who pre-ordered because they got exactly what they paid for - a game of unknown quality and quantity of content
• it’s hard to feel sorry for people who bought post-release because they also got exactly what they paid for - a game where reviews detailed poor quality and quantity of content
• customers being disappointed and/or wanting a refund is perfectly reasonable
• people wanting the game to be better is also reasonable
• people abusing the devs is not reasonable

I’m not going to defend the poor quality of the game because it’s obviously bad (from what I gather, anyway - I’ve not played it myself) and should be improved. But I do think gamers could learn to be a little more responsible with their purchases and inform themselves before buying a game.

I’m pretty over the whole cycle of games coming out and not meeting expectations, people buying them anyway (through pre-orders or day-one purchases), people being unnecessarily rude/hostile/sending death threats to developers as if they were forced to buy the game as gunpoint. Yes, developers should try to do better, yes publishers should often give developers more time to polish up games rather than announcing the release date two years in advance and refusing to delay, but also consumers could really take some responsibility for what they decide to give money to.

I think it’s best not to get caught up worrying about the “early access” tag and to just evaluate what the game is like right now instead.

Factorio and Last Epoch are both games that I bought in early access (they’ve both fully released now, though) and, at the time I purchased them, I think they were worth my money. They’ve both only improved since that time, which is great, but even if they were never updated again after I bought them, I would have considered them very worthwhile purchases. I played both for hundreds of hours in their early access states and had fantastic times with them (and still do post-full release, too).

And then, conversely, there are plenty of games that are fully released that aren’t worth your time or money despite not being “early access”.

I’m not Canadian and I don’t know the details of the situation, so excuse me if I’m wrong on this, but I think MP pay is a complex issue. It’s easy to say “they get paid way more than the average person, of course they don’t need a pay rise” but I think it’s important to find a balance between that and paying enough that becoming an MP is an appealing option for intelligent, driven people. If they have a choice between an median salary as an MP and 15x the pay in the private sector, the most brilliant people are going to be drawn towards the private sector purely for financial reasons.

It’s also important that they’re given enough financial security that there’s no risk of their finances being used as leverage against them. Some politicians will always just be corrupt and open to bribery or “lobbying”, of course, but you don’t want politicians that don’t have their own money from other sources being put in compromised positions because of their finances. And you don’t want politicians looking for other sources of income rather than focusing on their primary job.

Like I said, I don’t know the details. Maybe Canada has already found a good balance - where it’s already appealing to the best and brightest, and where their no risk of financial issues for MPs - and MP pay rises would be unnecessary. I just thought it was worth mentioning the fact that there can be some nuance to the situation!

Other way around: consoles are there to sell Game Pass. Microsoft wanted to put it on PlayStation, in fact, but Sony wouldn’t allow it. It’s been clear for quite a few years that MS has been prioritising software over hardware.

There’s barely any profit to be made in console sales themselves. They often start out the console generation as loss-leaders, in fact, and then as the manufacturing scales and becomes cheaper they’ll see small profits per console. But making $50 profit on a console sale is nothing compared to the cut they take on software (game) sales and subscriptions. A $70 game where the storefront takes a 30% cut means they take $21 per game sale. Not all of that will be pure profit, of course - there are some infrastructure costs and such - but let’s assume the average person buys three games per year; that’s ~$60 per year, rather than the one-off $50 from the console sale. And obviously that number goes up the more games someone buys, whereas the profit on the console is static.

Microsoft has stated that Game Pass is profitable in its own right.

While you’re at it, it might be worth including a “canary” in these kinds of posts.

There certainly was some actual “ethics in video game journalism” discussion early on that I felt was legitimate, but that got drowned out pretty quickly by the misogynists (which, from what I gather, was the entire point - it seems the misogynists started the whole thing and used the “ethics in game journalism” thing as a front to try to legitimise their agenda).

I think the discussion about the personal relationships game journalists have with developers in general was a reasonable one to have. It unfortunately ended up just laser focusing on Zoe Quinn supposedly trading sex for good reviews, which was untrue, sexist and resulted in nasty personal attacks. But I think it was worth at least examining the fact that game journalists and game developers often have close relationships and move in the same circles, and that game journalism can often be a stepping stone to game development. Those are absolutely things that could influence someone’s reviews or articles, consciously or subconsciously.

And another conversation worth having was the fact that gaming outlets like IGN were/are funded by adverts from gaming companies. It makes sense, of course - the Venn diagram of IGN’s (or other gaming outlets’) readers and gaming companies’ target audience is almost a perfect circle, which makes the ad space valuable to the gaming companies. And because it’s valuable to gaming companies, it’s better for the outlets to sell the ad space to them for more money than to sell it to generic advertising platforms. But it does mean it seems valid to ask whether the outlets giving bad reviews or writing critical articles might cause their advertisers to pull out, and therefore they might avoid being too critical.

Now I don’t think the games industry is corrupt or running on cronyism, personally. And I certainly don’t believe it’s all run by a shadowy cabal of woke libruls who are trying to force black people, women (and worse, gasp black women shudder) into games. But I do feel it was worth asking about the relationships between journalists, developers, publishers and review outlets - and honestly, those are the kinds of things that both game journalists and people who read game journalism should constantly be re-evaluating. It’s always good to be aware of potential biases and influences.

The fact that the whole thing almost immediately got twisted into misogyny, death threats and a general hate campaign was both disappointing and horrifying. And the fact that it led to the alt-right, and that you can trace a line from it to Brexit and to Donald Trump becoming US president, is even worse.

1.0 is getting a “true offline” mode where there won’t be any chat (and where a connection isn’t required for server authentication). Personally, I quite like the chat and the sense of community it brings (apart from when it’s filled with “D4 bad”) but I can see myself wanting it turned off if the game gets much more popular and attracts a more casual playerbase.

Honestly, though, I feel like that’s such a minor quibble to have - especially for a game still in beta. While Last Epoch obviously doesn’t have the budget behind it that Diablo 4 or Path Of Exile has, I think it’s done a great job of cementing itself as a worthwhile addition to the genre already. The developers have done a brilliant job of coming up with creative solutions to problems (both LE’s own problems and problems that other games have suffered from) and I think they’ve laid a very strong foundation to continue to build upon going forward. The game is mechanically interesting, has probably the most interesting itemisation and by far the best crafting in the genre, and generally feels good to play.

I agree that the art style isn’t as strong as Diablo 4, Path Of Exile or Grim Dawn, but I think it looks much better than a cheap Unreal asset - especially with the lighting overhaul in 1.0. And I’m glad that it isn’t just another dark fantasy setting; as much as I love those kinds of settings (Grim Dawn’s, especially), having the more lush, vibrant style of Last Epoch makes for a nice change.

It’s not a perfect game by any stretch, but I think it’s a very good game and I think it has a lot of room to grow going forward.

deleted by creator

Last Epoch and Grim Dawn are probably most in line with Diablo, I think.

People have mentioned Path Of Exile, and I’ve played a lot of it, but I don’t think it feels particularly like Diablo any more, even though it started out that way. It’s quite unforgiving, and even a lot of experienced players feel like they need to follow build guides rather than work things out for themselves. Its learning curve is hundreds or thousands of hours long. Of course, the reason for that is that it has incredible depth, variety and complexity, which may be a selling point or a deterrent depending on what you like! I definitely like the complexity of it myself, but it’s very overwhelming when you’re new. The reason I don’t think it’s all that in line with Diablo these days, though, is simply the pacing of the gameplay. You blow up screens of enemies at a time, and your deaths are often so fast that you’re not really sure what killed you.

Path Of Exile also heavily revolves around its trading economy. Item drop rates are balanced around players being able to trade for them, which makes trading somewhat mandatory (unless you’re a bit of a masochist). The economy is fairly complex, with there being a lot of different currencies, and quite a lot of factors that can affect the value of an item. I’ll let you decide whether you find this appealing or not - some people do, some people don’t! I do think it causes some issues with the balance and progression of the game, but it’s interesting to say the least, even if you wish you didn’t have to engage with it.

Grim Dawn feels a little mechanically dated at this point but it’s still solid. It’s got some good builds, the dual-class system and constellations system make for some interesting variety. It’s got an offline mode, as well as online co-op play. Its real selling point, though, at least for me, is it’s absolutely soaked with atmosphere. It’s very, well, grim, but the world is really immersive and it has a great setting in general with a solid story and some great lore. It also has quite a lot of mods available (including the Reign Of Terror mod I mentioned in another comment in the thread that adds the entire Diablo 2 campaign and all its classes to Grim Dawn).

Last Epoch is more mechanically interesting than Grim Dawn, I think, but it’s lacking in the story and world-building. It’s still in early access, although its full release is next week. It has quite a lot of depth and complexity, but it’s all done in an intuitive way that means you can jump into the game blindly and work things out for yourself fairly easily. It has a good variety of skills, and the fact that each skill has its own fairly comprehensive skill tree means you can play the same skills in very different ways. It has a wonderful itemisation system that does a great job of making you actually engage with the loot you find on the floor (which is an issue in other loot games), and some of the best crafting I’ve ever seen in a game. The dev team also manages to come up with some really creative and somewhat intuitive solutions to things they perceive as issues in other ARPGs.

Last Epoch’s biggest drawback is that its endgame is currently a little lacking in comparison to POE (which has a very rich and deep endgame, but is also a ten-year-old game that’s been updated constantly). It’s still far, far better than Diablo 4’s, though, and will obviously only improve as more is added. Last Epoch has some truly brilliant systems in place for the devs to build off - and frankly, I still think it’s great now - but it’ll only get better as more content gets added over time.

I love all three games I’ve talked about for different reasons, and honestly, they’re all well worth playing!

Grim Dawn also has a mod called Reign Of Terror that lets you play the entirety of Diablo 2 in GD, complete with classes, skills and items! It has some differences because it’s built on Grim Dawn’s systems, so it has the dual-class system from Grim Dawn (with similarly laid out skill trees), item affixes work like Grim Dawn, etc, but it feels great to play! And you can combine Grim Dawn classes with D2 classes, D2 classes with other D2 classes, or just play the D2 campaign with a regular Grim Dawn build. It’s great!

EDIT: spelling

I heard about it when Skill Up, whose YouTube channel I have notifications turned on for, posted his review of it. Before that, I’d seen absolutely nothing about it, and I heard very little about it after that, too. I was shocked to find out it was an EA game - partly because it didn’t look (visually) polished enough to be an EA game, and partly because of the complete lack of marketing I’d seen for a major publisher game.

Finding out it was an expensive flop and not just a smaller AA game they decided to put out on the side is a surprise, too.

A reverse image search comes up with a lot of pictures that have been taken in this exact location. I’ve no idea which is the original, unfortunately.

Not that your suggestion is necessarily bad in general, but I don’t really think it’s necessary when it comes to Factorio. I think it should be clear from playing the demo whether 100+ more hours of that seems worth the asking price for someone. It’s probably the most representative demo I’ve ever played; the full game is just the demo but more. There are no surprises down the line. There are no random pivots to other genres, or the game trying to stick its fingers in too many pies. There’s no narrative to screw up. There’s no “oh, they clearly just spent all their time polishing the first hour of the game and the rest of it is a technical mess”. It’s the same gameplay loop from the demo for another 50 hours until you “win”.

… and then another 50 hours after that when you decide to optimise things. And then another 100 hours when you decide to make a train-themed base. And then another 700 hours when you discover some of the mods that exist…

Factorio’s demo absolutely convinced me to buy it.

Demos only really work well if the game is fantastic and able to convey that in a small slice of the game, though.