this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
63 points (95.7% liked)
Games
16828 readers
1235 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why wouldn't it work? I mean, if CP2077 came out in EA a lot of the shit CDPR scrambled to get fixed, all the plans they changed based on the response, etc might have been lessened or not even a problem since it would be expected to be unfinished. And I say this as someone who didn't have a problem with what I got with the game at launch, personally.
Of course, teasing it all the way back in 2012 and showing off concepts that never materialized didn't help either.
Cyberpunk is less systems driven than BG3 and naturally less segmented compared to BG3's three act structure. Both of those things make it less ideal for an early access period, not that it wouldn't work at all. The 2012 tease was as early as it was in order to recruit talent to work on the game, but production wasn't in full swing until The Witcher 3 was done.
This is why I wish linear/act structures games would make a comeback
They care more about putting a dumb whatever the heck on some random ass mountain with nothing else on it and boring exploration so you can claim your game is "an open world xxx% bigger than Skyrim/red dead redemption/etc"
Red dead is one of the only games I think does open world well because the story was still linear and had acts. You could have just released the prologue and the valentine area as early access and people would have tested everything out and have fun with it. Similar with bg3 and act 1.
The other one is genshin impact actually, but that game is live service and released the world in parts. So each part of the world feels like it has meaningful exploration since there's more than just a korok on this random ass mountain. There will be at least 5 puzzles, the zones have their own stories, quests, and plot lines, and doing that let's you explore a good majority of the zone. If you were to speed rush the msq on a lot of these open world games you would only really explore 10% of the world.
The older I get the more I hate these open world games. They feel directionless. In terms of world building the newest (open world) pokemon game was easily the worst. The gym leaders and rival gangs had no agency wnd very little personality and impact because you could "defeat them in any order*" (*not really)
When I saw the Witcher 1 remake was not going to be linear anymore I pretty much lost all interest in it.
Yeah, there are tons of games that are open world that probably shouldn't be. I don't know that I would champion RDR2 though. For as many systems as they put into the game for the open world, the meat that I was there for was the story, where they forbid me from getting creative with any of those systems at all, so it really took the wind out of my sails.