You might want to root for Capcom’s REX engine licensing to take off then, because off the shelf AAA game engines are going to be much more necessary as time goes on. Then stuff like Godot for lower end games.

I had to check Wikipedia. It is 343 rebranded.

So this is a hiring drive for a studio that laid off half of its personnel about a year ago? For a series that lost its way a long time ago with no indication that it’ll get back on track?

This article sucks. The original quote could be talking about anything, because it’s so vague. It could be about legitimate criticisms of the game, or it could be nonsense like people yelling about Sweet Baby and DEI. There’s no way to know, but the author of the article would clearly like you to ascribe it to something rational that still makes Ubisoft the bad guy.

EDIT: Original tweet is from a MAGA guy, so it’s very easily actually about shitty people.

They’re competing with PC now and simultaneously trying to turn this into a vector to convert people to PS5. It won’t work, but the fact that there are PC versions at all show how they can’t just do what they want with impunity.

We’re in here talking about how big budget games are making the industry unsustainable, and after Infinite came and went without making a huge splash, you think the next one ought to be even bigger?

This is the kind of stuff you might know if you already know what’s ahead of you, like if you played it before, but as a first-time player of the game, not knowing what’s coming, I found it to be a poor experience when you only have a melee weapon but specced for guns.

I watch and listen to a lot of Giant Bomb and SkillUp, and both had praise for the multiplayer modes, warts and all. I can’t agree with all games media just being marketing, otherwise you’d never see bad reviews for the likes of those publishers spending all that money on marketing. It may not have worked for you, but doing all of those modes has done very well for the game.

It was also famous for having multiplayer modes that were just fun and didn’t ask you to commit your life to them. Some of those multiplayer modes were really cool.

They sell to the type of person who only buys a few video games per year. They’re easy to play, they look nice, and they have a lot of content for the money, so you can stretch your dollar.

It seems to be resonating pretty damn well for them. In fact, the competitive multiplayer has been praised for its simplicity and feeling a lot like the kind of multiplayer that we used to get so much of back in the 360 era.

Games got bigger to their own detriment. Halo and Gears of War are open world games now, and they’re worse off for it. Assassin’s Creed games used to be under 20 hours, and now they’re over 45. Not every game is worse for being longer, as two of my favorite games in the past couple of years are over 100 hours long, clocking in at three times the length of their predecessors, but it’s much easier to keep a game fun for 8-15 hours than it is for some multiple of that, and it makes the game more expensive to make, raising the threshold for success.

1. No

2. They sell video games. A lot of them.

The family is buying the shares as well, with Tencent having a minority ownership. Or might, rather. This is a consideration. It isn’t definitely happening.

I’d second Pillars of Eternity II except that it’s not actually on sale. It also doesn’t have gamepad controls, which is disappointing, so Steam Deck controls can be kind of slow.

I agree that the game should have a tutorial. The problem with the temple trial is that it only caters to one play style, so it’s not a good tutorial. I’d call the first game’s tutorial the cave with a handful of rats.

This whole article sucks. Here were the choices for player preference:

• PVE
• Couch co-op
• Online PVP
• Single player

Is it true that most players prefer single player games? Maybe. Last year’s unanimous game of the year was largely considered a “single player game”, but while it’s definitely not live service, it also won the award for best multiplayer. What does Halo count as? Halo 2 and 3 are single player, couch co-op, online co-op, couch PVP (not an option in this survey), and online PVP. If Halo 2 is your favorite game, it could be for any of those reasons, but they also all play off of one another to form a richer game as a whole. I wouldn’t want to exclude one of those things in favor of another.

Single-player games are a safer bet for new games…Make no mistake: the costs to make AAA single-player, non-live service games have inflated to astronomic levels. Leaks from Insomniac showed that PlayStation’s AAA flagship games, like Spider-Man 2, have budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. But there is a growing opportunity for AAA studios to make leaner single-player games.

Look, especially when you factor in costs, like the paragraph after this does, it’s correct to say that a safer bet is the one that can be made more cheaply, but even these examples of successes are cherry-picked. I could just as easily bring up Tales of Kenzera: Zau, Immortals of Aveum, or Alone in the Dark to show why offline single player games are risky.

What part of that was executive meddling?

I just played through it this year for the first time. It was overall very good, but the beginning and end of it are pretty rough. The beginning is tedious unless you’re playing a strength build, and the end is some real point and click adventure game moon logic to find out how to get to the final area and, in some ways, through it, that I would have never figured out without a walkthrough.

It’s also got great VOIP functionality. And it’s been a hot minute since I’ve used IRC, but you can automate tons of things in Discord around things like user roles. I play an old fighting game that has no ranked system, and all of that functionality, including running weekly tournaments, is handled by a Discord bot that runs on a Raspberri Pi.