Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'NMA News and Information' started by TorontoReign, Aug 21, 2015.
Oh that is hilarious! Thumbs up!
Oh he's competent at it; we just all hate what it is. He designs games that sell to the masses, because they say 'yes'. They are marketing to the fantasy empowerment crowd; and they don't want an RPG ~they want Westworld on the PC & Consoles.
*It should go without saying, that that is not the 1973 trailer.
Of course, it is the story plot of Fallout 5, now that you have androids and shit
Anyone got a link to this? I'd love to hear the full thing.
Do any of you think they'll come up with new enemies like flying deathclaws? I see they brought back the behemoth enemy, why do those things exist again?
Aw yeah, after hairy deathclaws we get feathered deathclaws
The Bloodbugs (Giant Mosquitos) in F4 do look pretty cool. I must admit the Deathclaws look good as well. Why does Bethesda have to fail at so much, yet pull of enough for you to be interested?
Everyone keeps saying westworld like that's supposed to be some meaningful insult. I have no idea what they're trying to say though.
Some of the things I mentioned are here:
Because there are some talented designers at Bethesda who do good work on occasion.
The problem is their writing and world design leave a lot to be desired.
Hence why if Bethesda's classic narrative problems still widely exist in Fallout 4, they should fire Emil if they have any respect for themselves.
But Emil wrote the "arrow in the knee line" so he obviously must be a genius. I bet the "it just works" line that Todd repeats all the time was written by Emil too.
Hmm, I dunno about you, but I got what he means. If I can get it, than this is a bad sign. Ask the people around here, they will agree.
Context is everything. I remember an interview with Chris Avalon where he praised Beth marketing team, impressed by their early involvement.
Are you saying that game design isn't\shouldn't be influenced by user input, has a better metric for mainstream titles, or just rant at (mainstream) reviewers not reflecting your taste?
I am not going to guess the context here e.g. are we talking about gameplay mechanics or background lore. But according to Todd FO4 pre-production is the exact opposite of that, at least as far as creating a huge verity of concept arts for the dev team.
To be fair this is the reason why perks were invented, and ignoring Beth character design direction (I haven't got up to date on that) "this" has been said/thought by pretty much every godman game designer I know, including Josh Sawyer (who did in Pillars of Eternity and in new vegas increased the interval due to user input).
Yes, by definition a AAA game is designed for mainstream consumption... I wonder, have you seen game of thrones and think that it is sooo successful because of its intricate plot and intrigue (much reduced from the books) or the sex scenes (at least one in each episode), action, high production values in the flavor of the "month" setting and or hype.
Depends on who you ask, most of the reviewers prefer Beth "problematic" narrative" - Coming a full circle from the first comment.
This reminds the 'clarity, clarity, clarity' rule of writing. Simply put it encourage to always use what the largest number of readers will understand without getting bumped out of the story...
By definition it's simply amount of money they plan to spend on PR.
The short answer is that it's because the focus of their games is on the spectacle of the setting rather than on the characters you create.
You are right, context is everything. He said that line during a game design panel. I doubt it was said just to praise the importance of good marketing.
Reviewers aren't a good choice for user input for a moltitude of reasons, especially for games like the ones Bethesda makes that to be properly judged should be played for an amount of hours reviewers clearly don't have, especially when it's Bethesda itself that doesn't give them the time to do it (remember the early FO3 reviews done in 16 hours of gameplay in a controlled environment?).
“Armed with the knowledge that higher review scores meant more money for them, game producers were thus encouraged to identify the elements that reviewers seemed to most notice and most like–detailed graphics, scripted set piece battles, ‘robust’ online multiplayer, ‘player choice,’ and more, more of everything,”[...]“Before you cry in despair, keep in mind that all these people wanted in the end was the best game possible–or, more precisely, the best-reviewed game possible.”
Considering how the mechanics in their games are half baked and the setting makes very little internal sense...what do you think?
Yeah, but you can think of good reasons for not giving them at every level, do you? Todd apparently can't.
Even better, despite him thinking that picking perks is so much fun he couldn't even think of good ones considering that the majority were just skill booster.
And this doesn't tell you anything?
Everyone knows mainstream Reviewers are incorruptible sources of nuanced and intelligent criticism and feedback.