Re: Fallout 2 - here we come

On Mon, 06 May 2024 15:12:53 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 06 May 2024 12:49:52 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>

I can endure it... so long as the game keeps drip-feeding me new
content on the side. "Skyrim" is a perfect example; it's combat just
isn't very exciting... but there's enough other stuff - it's huge map,
lots of treasures, different faction quests to explore - that it can
(and did!) occupy me for months. But "Diablo"? I tired of that one
pretty quickly. Its dungeons all looked the same, half the monsters
were just re-colors of creatures I'd already battled on the first few
levels but with a few more hitpoints, and the difference between a +5%
sword and a +8% sword just wasn't enough to make me care. I played the
game through for its story but its extremely difficult for me to go
back and replay it.

>
The better sword is the carrot on the stick that keeps me playing. It
is the constant improving of my character that I find interesting.
>

It's also why I've so little interest these days in multiplayer games;
those are all about playing over and over again on the same maps. In
the early days, just the idea of being online and messing about with
friends was enough to overcome this deficiency, but - thirty years on
- even that novelty is gone. Similarly, my opposition to repetition is
why remakes and remasters don't excite me. Give me something new, not
a game I've already played!

>
Yeah, I love remakes and remasters. There is a market for these.
Someone should and will fill it.
>
I always assumed your tastes would be better served by the indie
market, but I think you complain about them as well.

I'm an equal-opportunity whinger! ;-)

I /love/ Indie publishers. I'm not crazy about their products.

Indies come up with a lot of interesting ideas. They aren't so tied
down that they're afraid to experiment. Triple-A studios are terrified
of doing releasing anything except a proven product, and
understandably so. When you're risking $100 million USD, you want a
pretty good guarantee of return. So it's up to the Indies to try new
things.

But there are several problems with this. The most obvious is that -
thanks to their much smaller budgets - Indie games have a lot less
polish. A second problem is Sturgeon's law applies to Indie games too;
they might have a lot of new ideas, but most of those new ideas are
stupid. And the tiny budgets of Indies means that there are /a lot/ of
Indie developers out there, which only amplifies the problem. Crappy
Indie games have inundated the market. Finally Indie games often are
ultra-focused on their new gimmick, to the detriment of the overall
experience (recently released "Exit 8" is a perfect example of this.
It's core gameplay is interesting... in short bursts. But there's not
enough actual game to make it worth the purchase).

So, yay for Indies! You guys are saving the hobby. But I've usually no
desire to buy or play their games.

It's the rare mid-tier publishers/developers that I tend to favor
most. They've the budgets to create solid games with just enough
polish and experience that I can overlook the rougher issues, while
still not being scared to take chances with new gameplay mechanics. I
get the necessary novelty without the aggravatingly bad design.

;-)