Computer RPG Games
Community for CRPG games and other RPG gaming discussions. Witcher, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Baldurs Gate as well as indie RPGs (Underrail, Avernum, Space Wreck etc.). Focus is on CRPGs, but discussion around JPRGs, ARPGs and hybrid games with RPG components is also welcome.
Tabletop/pen & paper RPG discussion is not a good fit for this community. Check out !rpg@ttrpg.network for TT/P&P RPG discussions.
Memes are not banned, but the overwhelming focus is on discussions, releases and articles. Try and post memes (on an occasional basis) that would make people who don't like memes admit "OK! That was a good one!".
Some other gaming communities across Threadi:
- Adventure Games
- Automation Games
- Cozy Games
- City Builders
- Horror Games (variety)
- Indie Games (variety)
- JRPG Games
- Lifesim Games
- Open Source Games (variety)
- Roguelike Games
- RTS Games
- Space Games (variety)
- Strategy Games
- Turn-based Strategy
- Tycoon / Business Sim Games
- Visual Novels
RPG Game communities on Threadi:
- Baldur's Gate 3
- Cyberpunk 2077
- Deus Ex
- Elder Scrolls
- Fallout
- Kingdom Come
- Mass Effect
- Starfield
- The Witcher
General gaming communities on Threadi:
Rules (Click to Expand):
-
Follow the Lemmy.world Rules - https://mastodon.world/about
-
Be kind. No bullying, harassment, racism, sexism etc. against other users.
-
No spam, illegal content, or games with excessive, non-artistic NSFW content (e.g. hentai or porn games).
-
Please stay on topic, cRPG adjacent games or even JRPGs are fine. Try to include topics / games that have a strong roleplaying component to them.
Thank you to macniel for the community icon!
view the rest of the comments
While I hate Microsoft, I don't think IO deserved more investment after what they did with 007.
Yeah they really fumbled that one huh
Ah yes, because sales metrics have a direct correlation to game quality.
I get that from a sales point of view, my comment makes no sense. Why would Microsoft and MGM not want to pay IO after that success? However, I can't find any articles about whether or not it's made a profit or how much said profits are, so this leads me to believe that the margins aren't as good as they would like. I doubt this game will have the same legs that the Hitman games do.
There are very few games out there expensive enough to not make back their development budget on 2.7M copies at $70, and that's if it never sold another copy after the first week. They're surely on pace to make a great return on their investment here.
Fair point, it does seem that it would be highly unlikely for them to not make a good return. That just makes Microsoft and Mgms decision a little confusing, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised at weird decisions made by studios.
That's $189 million made, compared to $200 million for development cost (not including marketing which is usually quite a big number too).
It's basically only just now breaking even according to their CEO. Well actually not even fully there yet.
For a company like Microsoft with a history of canning even profitable game studios just because they didn't make enough profit this tracks.
I didn't know the budget was out there, but I knew there was a possibility it got that high, using a benchmark of Spider-Man 2 at $300M, and Horizon: Forbidden West at about $200M; European studios tend to come in cheaper than their American counterparts, pound for pound. Still, they cleared the bulk of that expense in a week, and they'll have a very healthy tail on the game's sales from now until Christmas.
Minus whatever the cost to develop new content will be (which they've stated they will lean into heavily, similar to their previous Hitman games).
Yes, they're turning a profit, but not enough to fund their predicted cost for a sequel if it tracks even remotely similar percentages to the World of Assassins trilogy.
It would probably be way smarter if everything was funded out of a policy of austerity using the previous game's profits, but I don't think that's how it works, hence the people fired the minute this project was cancelled.
Selling well doesn't mean it's a good game, which is how I took their post.
I haven't played at all so can't comment either way on the game but I have seen a fair number of reviews say it's written well but kind of one note so certainly not everyone is happy.
My experience with it has been that it's a simulation of a story.
I mean I enjoy it quite a lot because of the story, playing as a young James Bond. That part is rather well done, with great voice acting and mocap etc.
The gameplay is something to be questioned though. After a while the combat is very samey and I'm kind of gliding through those parts. It's still enjoyable to me, just more for the story elements and how well those are executed. I would say it's a good story and execution of it,, but purely from a gaming stand point: I wouldn't say it's even on my top 10.
Although I'm unsure how relevant this is, since I am also playing Hellblade 2 and absolutely love it as both a story and game, and it looks insanely beautiful.
Microsoft also shut their studio down, not long after they announced a new Hellblade...
So not entirely sure what criteria they're using.
stares at Hellblade sitting in my library
I'll get there eventually
The first one is more psychedelic with trippy visuals, focusing on the mental aspect of psychosis a lot more, however the second Hellblade is more combat focused with a much more fleshed out story, characters, etc.
Both good but a great sequel imho.
007 is very positive on Steam, very positive on Metacritic user scores, positive in reviews. By all indications it runs well, and looks good, has above par writing for AAAs these days…
I’ve watched a lot of Bond too.
What do you think is wrong with it? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but your implication doesn’t point to anything obvious for me.
I don't take positive reviews on mainstream media seriously because, from what I've seen, people seem give things 10 out of 10 far too easily.
I find the game to be subpar. I haven't watched the original Bond movies so I can't tell if it's a good Bond story or not, however, the writing in general is poor. I felt nothing for the characters and MI6 is made to look like fools. Honestly I don't remember much of the story to really talk about it.
The AI in the game is a joke, it doesn't even compare to the AI in the Hitman games. They are quick to forget your last known position, they don't flank you, they are easily confused by the vaulting mechanic, they don't react realistically to their teammates being killed and they don't adapt to your tactics. It's just lame. Compare that to the Arkham games, we have intelligent AI that adapt to you. They will check in with each other to make it difficult to take them out individually without the others knowing. They rarely split up, usually checking areas in pairs, you know, basic tactics that a competent militant force would use to prevent themselves form receiving involuntary retirement. A game that is many years older has better stealth gameplay and AI.
The gameplay in general is barely there, it's trying far to hard to be a movie while not having the story to keep it engaging. Your choices have no consequences, there are entire sequences where you don't have to input anything and the have will play itself (the skydiving and dump truck sequences for example). The game only allows you to do things the way the devs want you to do it, and breaks when you try any other method. So much if this game can be cut out, there is a lot of time wasted with interactive cut scenes where you're either going from one point to another or you're having to walk around a room and press x. Don't get me started on the yellow plot paint, I'm so tired of games not allowing me to figure things out for myself.
I don't understand how the same people who made Hitman could make something so watered down by comparison.
Overall this game is a mess and the asking price is far too much for what it offers, even now with the sale.
Eh. Seems more "7/10 interactive movie" to me, like a lot of action games. Good AI is rare these days.
It does sound disappointing compared to Hitman, but I think that's unfair, as its likely not what the studio was contracted to do. I bet they were told to make a "broad appeal" action game, so they did.
I will admit, I haven't played it, so what do I know? And your take is not making me want to.
...And it probably doesn't fit this sub. It's not really an RPG.