Support NeoGAF

[Vox Machina]

No they're not.

A game like BG3, where player expression has to be constantly considered is much more difficult to create than a linear narrative action adventure.

Same thing with TOTK or something along those lines.

The more player creativity you allow, the more chances for the game systems to grind together and break the game for the players.

Like I seriously can't believe you even said this.

Or a well-balanced RTS.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

No they're not.

A game like BG3, where player expression has to be constantly considered is much more difficult to create than a linear narrative action adventure.

Same thing with TOTK or something along those lines.

The more player creativity you allow, the more chances for the game systems to grind together and break the game for the players.

Like I seriously can't believe you even said this.

That was a hilariously bad take by him.

 

[Topher]

No they're not.

A game like BG3, where player expression has to be constantly considered is much more difficult to create than a linear narrative action adventure.

Same thing with TOTK or something along those lines.

The more player creativity you allow, the more chances for the game systems to grind together and break the game for the players.

Like I seriously can't believe you even said this.

I disagree. The reactions in BG3 are not very genuine at all. I love the game, but frowns, for example, are very forced and do not look natural. That is not easily done without highly advanced, expensive animation that Sony's studios have excelled at doing. I think that is what Heisenberg007 was getting at and I think he is correct based primarily on the fact that we see so little of Sony's level of animation in gaming.

Edit: reading your post again, I may have misinterpreted what you said.

 

[coffinbirth]

They should lean into RPGs more. They own Bethesda, Obsidian, inXile and the Playground studio making Fable, so it makes sense. The success this year of Baldur's Gate 3 shows that if you build a good RPG, the audience will come. In fact, Microsoft should be cracking the whip a bit more and giving some of these studios less freedom. I have no idea why inXile are straying from their excellent Wasteland roots to make a terrible looking BioShock Infinite rip-off. And Obsidian have arguably wasted a lot of time on some quite mid games when they could've been making the thing people actually want - Fallout: New Vegas 2.

LMAO, these guys have RPG's coming out of every orifice at this point....they're dropping the biggest WRPG of the decade in mere weeks, ffs.


"Cracking the Whip" "less freedom".

Maybe go tell that to 343i, but inXile and Obsidian are doing just fine and I'm sure the latter is in no rush to make a Fallout game you won't like.

 

[FinalBossWithTheMostPower]

I'm not sure if focusing on third-person action games are the remedy, here, but...

 

[Mr Reasonable]

A game like BG3, where player expression has to be constantly considered is much more difficult to create than a linear narrative action adventure.

I disagree. The reactions in BG3 are not very genuine at all. I love the game, but frowns, for example, are very forced and do not look natural.

 

[Bungie]

I enjoy the multiplayer/co-op experiences they always offer. Way more replayability & just good times with friends.

 

[TransTrender]

I'll just say no.
Make good games, whatever format that happens to be, don't force it to be a certain way because that's the hot trend.

 

[ahtlas7]

No, no, no. They should get someone at the helm who cares about games instead of self promotion. Xbox needs leadership.

 

[StueyDuck]

they should embrace making great games, the cinematic coined phrase is just console warrior fluff and holds 0 weight when it comes to actual criticism and scrutiny.

anyone thinking gears 5 or infinite or even redfall weren't trying to be cinematic is a bit blind (and probably bias).

outside of the Xbox Echosystem, the two biggest games of the last 2 years, elden ring and borkys minecraftlands adventure are 1000% 3rd person "cinematic" adventures.

again Xbox needs to make great games, lets get rid of the console warrior rhetoric and rather discuss the games themselves

 

[Topher]

Maybe I read him wrong. I thought he was talking about facial reactions in the game to dialogue and such.

 

[Oof85]

Maybe I read him wrong. I thought he was talking about facial reactions in the game to dialogue and such.

No, I'm talking about game mechanics working together.

You know how in some games you'll hit a part where you'll instantly fail if you miss a button prompt and have to start all over?

Or to take a darling from last year into consideration, remember how in Ragnarok you hit the portion where the kid goes off on his own and climbs the wall to Asgard?

There was nothing in that climb that allowed for player expression.
It was just a guiding hand pushing/pulling you forward.

Now take BG3 where you can stack crates to overshoot a wall or barrier. Or use the myriad of spells to bypass it.
Or Zelda where you can build something with various parts to fly over it.

My issue was how can something that's so restrictive ever be considered more difficult to create than something that has to account for so many possible variables?

 

[Topher]

No, I'm talking about game mechanics working together.

You know how in some games you'll hit a part where you'll instantly fail if you miss a button prompt and have to start all over?

Or to take a darling from last year into consideration, remember how in Ragnarok you hit the portion where the kid goes off on his own and climbs the wall to Asgard?

There was nothing in that climb that allowed for player expression.
It was just a guiding hand pushing/pulling you forward.

Now take BG3 where you can stack crates to overshoot a wall or barrier. Or use the myriad of spells to bypass it.
Or Zelda where you can build something with various parts to fly over it.

My issue was how can something that's so restrictive ever be considered more difficult to create than something that has to account for so many possible variables?

Yeah.....disregard my post. I misunderstood entirely.

 

[PixelatedBeast]

No, I'm talking about game mechanics working together.

You know how in some games you'll hit a part where you'll instantly fail if you miss a button prompt and have to start all over?

Or to take a darling from last year into consideration, remember how in Ragnarok you hit the portion where the kid goes off on his own and climbs the wall to Asgard?

There was nothing in that climb that allowed for player expression.
It was just a guiding hand pushing/pulling you forward.

Now take BG3 where you can stack crates to overshoot a wall or barrier. Or use the myriad of spells to bypass it.
Or Zelda where you can build something with various parts to fly over it.

My issue was how can something that's so restrictive ever be considered more difficult to create than something that has to account for so many possible variables?

This is almost an arguement of semantics, where mechanics meet level design. You could say the samething about how in BG3, the game take agency from the player and does the attack for you, when in God of War you actually have to remember button combinations in real time to pull off moves and avoid getting hit. Looking at it from that point of view, both games have restrictions to player agency, but you're trying to argue that the agency in BG3 is better when both serves a different purpose.

 

[coffinbirth]

I mean...
And before someone chimes in comparing it to ES 3pp, it's been completely overhauled. For instance, that second pic shows head tracking a POI.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

 

[Killer8]

LMAO, these guys have RPG's coming out of every orifice at this point....they're dropping the biggest WRPG of the decade in mere weeks, ffs.


"Cracking the Whip" "less freedom".

Maybe go tell that to 343i, but inXile and Obsidian are doing just fine and I'm sure the latter is in no rush to make a Fallout game you won't like.

I contest the idea that they have "RPG's coming out of every orifice". Yes, Starfield is the elephant in the room that is obviously very big and exciting, as well as Elder Scrolls in the distant future. Bethesda Softworks are the main breadwinner in terms of RPGs for Microsoft and i've got no issue with how they're being utilized.

But for the other studios under Microsoft's umbrella, I think people often confuse the potential and the legacy of those studios with what they're actually releasing. The new Fable for example has potential but it's coming from a brand new studio with an unproven track record making RPGs. It's easy to say the studio is made up of industry veterans but that's essentially meaningless until we play the end result. There have been many examples of games made by 'industry veterans' that turned out horrifically (see: the previous 'biggest WRPG of the decade' Cyberpunk 2077).

Obsidian have been lackluster for a while. The Outer Worlds was terrible and I view time used on a sequel as a complete waste. It's an "RPG coming out of an orifice", in the sense that shit coming out of my ass is something coming out of an orifice. And it's manpower that could've indeed been used on a new Fallout game if MS pointed them towards the IP. Pentiment was neat, i'm glad that exists, but it was also a small passion project and not the main event i'm still waiting for. Everyone thought that would be Avowed, with expectations of it being a grand Skyrim-like experience occupying our minds for 3 years following its initial CGI reveal. But Obsidian didn't really want to do that and I guess we all just gotta respect their freedom... the game they eventually revealed this year looks painfully generic. Grounded was a survival game and not an RPG.

InXile is another studio making so-called 'first person RPG' Clockwork Revolution, if you want to count that, which just looks like off-brand BioShock Infinite. I was so disappointed seeing it revealed because in my head I was thinking of something like a Wasteland game but with a massive budget thrown behind it. To paint a picture of my disappointment, it's like when EA got the Star Wars license in 2013 and everyone was imagining the potential of a KotOR 3 by Bioware - only to end up with Mass Effect Andromeda by Bioware.

 

[Ginzeen]

I contest the idea that they have "RPG's coming out of every orifice". Yes, Starfield is the elephant in the room that is obviously very big and exciting, as well as Elder Scrolls in the distant future. Bethesda Softworks are the main breadwinner in terms of RPGs for Microsoft and i've got no issue with how they're being utilized.

But for the other studios under Microsoft's umbrella, I think people often confuse the potential and the legacy of those studios with what they're actually releasing. The new Fable for example has potential but it's coming from a brand new studio with an unproven track record making RPGs. It's easy to say the studio is made up of industry veterans but that's essentially meaningless until we play the end result. There have been many examples of games made by 'industry veterans' that turned out horrifically (see: the previous 'biggest WRPG of the decade' Cyberpunk 2077).

Obsidian have been lackluster for a while. The Outer Worlds was terrible and I view time used on a sequel as a complete waste. It's an "RPG coming out of an orifice", in the sense that shit coming out of my ass is something coming out of an orifice. And it's manpower that could've indeed been used on a new Fallout game if MS pointed them towards the IP. Pentiment was neat, i'm glad that exists, but it was also a small passion project and not the main event i'm still waiting for. Everyone thought that would be Avowed, with expectations of it being a grand Skyrim-like experience occupying our minds for 3 years following its initial CGI reveal. But Obsidian didn't really want to do that and I guess we all just gotta respect their freedom... the game they eventually revealed this year looks painfully generic. Grounded was a survival game and not an RPG.

InXile is another studio making so-called 'first person RPG' Clockwork Revolution, if you want to count that, which just looks like off-brand BioShock Infinite. I was so disappointed seeing it revealed because in my head I was thinking of something like a Wasteland game but with a massive budget thrown behind it. To paint a picture of my disappointment, it's like when EA got the Star Wars license in 2013 and everyone was imagining the potential of a KotOR 3 by Bioware - only to end up with Mass Effect Andromeda by Bioware.

Cyberpunk wasn't horrible by any means. It had a rough launch because of bugs and performance issues. Still a good game. It's a step down from the witcher 3. Phantom Liberty looks great. Can't wait for that

Clockwork Revolution looks good. It's still 2 years away. I like what I saw. Let's see what InXile can do with MS money and resources. Their a good studio.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I think they should be embracing as many types of games as they can. Obviously, Xbox has a reputation as a shooter console and they will probably always lean a bit that way.

They've been doing great with the variety, especially with the smaller projects. Just focus on doing what they've been doing (releasing well reviewed/received software, Redfall aside), just hopefully with a bit more reliable cadence. That would be my recommendation for them.

 

[Oof85]

This is almost an arguement of semantics, where mechanics meet level design. You could say the samething about how in BG3, the game take agency from the player and does the attack for you, when in God of War you actually have to remember button combinations in real time to pull off moves and avoid getting hit. Looking at it from that point of view, both games have restrictions to player agency, but you're trying to argue that the agency in BG3 is better when both serves a different purpose.

A turn based game is understood to be player command-based, whereas someone can play a game labeled action adventure yet be put off by the game forcing you to slow to a walk for an exposition dump.

One is the entire methodology of the game and the other is the game taking control away from you to force you to hear what the developer wants.

It's nowhere near the same.

Listen, I didn't come in here to bash cinematic games but someone made a frankly silly comment and I addressed it.

Let's end it here because my next will be to say exactly why and how immersive leaning games differ and dwarf cinematic titles. And nobody needs that.

 

[coffinbirth]

I contest the idea that they have "RPG's coming out of every orifice". Yes, Starfield is the elephant in the room that is obviously very big and exciting, as well as Elder Scrolls in the distant future. Bethesda Softworks are the main breadwinner in terms of RPGs for Microsoft and i've got no issue with how they're being utilized.

But for the other studios under Microsoft's umbrella, I think people often confuse the potential and the legacy of those studios with what they're actually releasing. The new Fable for example has potential but it's coming from a brand new studio with an unproven track record making RPGs. It's easy to say the studio is made up of industry veterans but that's essentially meaningless until we play the end result. There have been many examples of games made by 'industry veterans' that turned out horrifically (see: the previous 'biggest WRPG of the decade' Cyberpunk 2077).

Obsidian have been lackluster for a while. The Outer Worlds was terrible and I view time used on a sequel as a complete waste. It's an "RPG coming out of an orifice", in the sense that shit coming out of my ass is something coming out of an orifice. And it's manpower that could've indeed been used on a new Fallout game if MS pointed them towards the IP. Pentiment was neat, i'm glad that exists, but it was also a small passion project and not the main event i'm still waiting for. Everyone thought that would be Avowed, with expectations of it being a grand Skyrim-like experience occupying our minds for 3 years following its initial CGI reveal. But Obsidian didn't really want to do that and I guess we all just gotta respect their freedom... the game they eventually revealed this year looks painfully generic. Grounded was a survival game and not an RPG.

InXile is another studio making so-called 'first person RPG' Clockwork Revolution, if you want to count that, which just looks like off-brand BioShock Infinite. I was so disappointed seeing it revealed because in my head I was thinking of something like a Wasteland game but with a massive budget thrown behind it. To paint a picture of my disappointment, it's like when EA got the Star Wars license in 2013 and everyone was imagining the potential of a KotOR 3 by Bioware - only to end up with Mass Effect Andromeda by Bioware.

This is why I pointed out why it's weird to clamor for a game you won't even like.

 

[SHA]

I'll begin this by saying that I own all consoles, so there's no fanboyism or even brand loyalty to a particular company. I go with whatever is the best value prop at the time.

It's sometimes disappointing to see Microsoft keep trying to push a variety of games in different genres beyond the typical FPS or over-the-shoulder action adventure (e.g. Pentiment, Hi-Fi Rush, Flight Simulator,...) only to be critically successful but commercially a flop. Say what you wanna say about the war chest or fear of industry consolidation, but Microsoft gives their studios at least SOME creative freedom and they try to fill up GamePass with a variety of experiences.

Sony, on the other hand, seems to have found what works best for them commercially and they don't seem very eager to move beyond these "cinematic", Michael Bay-ish, overly emotional games like TLOU. Not only that but at least TLOU was born like such a game. Now God of War, Final Fantasy, and arguably Spider-Man have been transformed into these cinematic third party action adventures. The "movie-game" meme is real. That said, I have played all of those Sony exclusives and they are great. There's a reason why they appeal to people and sell so much. But I feel that that's money at the cost of progress, curiosity and innovation of the industry.

Microsoft is a behemoth company, it's not that they're struggling. But they do have a much lower market share when compared to Sony in the gaming industry worldwide. I just hope Sony doesn't rest on their laurels and can start going beyond these kinds of games.

You're still living in tlou shadows, literally after the second part, Sony has fallen from ips consistency, I speak as an old ps fan, the brand isn't strange from me, there's no brand immunity to any platform and when mistakes do happen we shall mention them.

 

[PixelatedBeast]

A turn based game is understood to be player command-based, whereas someone can play a game labeled action adventure yet be put off by the game forcing you to slow to a walk for an exposition dump.

One is the entire methodology of the game and the other is the game taking control away from you to force you to hear what the developer wants.

It's nowhere near the same.

Listen, I didn't come in here to bash cinematic games but someone made a frankly silly comment and I addressed it.

Let's end it here because my next will be to say exactly why and how immersive leaning games differ and dwarf cinematic titles. And nobody needs that.

If someone can play an CRPG and understand they will not have the same controls a melee based combat game, then so too can someone play a "cinematic" 3rd person action adventure game and understand there will be moments in the story they cant skip.

If you want to give your opinion for why you prefer to play CRPGs than 3rd person action games, then go ahead. This forum is for opinions, but if you think you're going to make a point and try to compare two games with dfferent styles of play to draw a subject conclusion of which are better, then yeah, we really dont need that.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Microsoft should just embrace releasing games period. We will start there.

 

[Loope]

This is all you need to know. Somehow sony's games are supposed to be completely different than any other modern adventure games. This was yet another hyper focused talking point by ms fandom. I don't take to these games all the time myself, but the noise machine has been going on for a long time and it's obnoxious. I think it might have started with last of us, where the line was that you should skip the game and watch the cutscenes on youtube.

Naughty Dog do relly a lot on cutscenes and those big actions pieces, but somehow it's not as much boring as i thought it would be. I played through UC4 on pc and i actually really enjoyed the game and the gameplay. Sure the scale this wall and that wall eventually gets a bit boring, but it is a well balanced game.

But this is Naughty Dog, they're experts at it, if someone tries to emulate that, things might go south pretty quickly and these are expensive games to make. The attention to detail, set pieces, sound (oh the sound), animation (for obvious reasons) etc. takes a huge ammount of talented people working together.

 

[Oof85]

If someone can play an CRPG and understand they will not have the same controls a melee based combat game, then so too can someone play a "cinematic" 3rd person action adventure game and understand there will be moments in the story they cant skip.

If you want to give your opinion for why you prefer to play CRPGs than 3rd person action games, then go ahead. This forum is for opinions, but if you think you're going to make a point and try to compare two games with dfferent styles of play to draw a subject conclusion of which are better, then yeah, we really dont need that.

For the record I do think titles which lean towards immersive simulation have greater highs and challenge players more but that's neither here nor there for this thread.

My original post in this thread was just the refuting the hilariously erroneous claim that narrative focused linear action adventure games are more complex and intensive to create than system heavy games that lean towards immersive simulation.

That's it.

Idk why you or anyone would take issue with such an "no duh" tier assessment but go off.

Like, does anyone really think that Prey, Thief/Deus Ex or the System Shock titles are less work to make than something like Uncharted, or the Star Wars: Survivor series(years span of scale and time adjusted)?

Cmon son

 

[Mythoclast]

Games have been coming out with cutscenes and a story since the 90s so why all of a sudden are these things such an affront to gaming? It just seems funny how many of the same people who call Sony game design outdated also seem to want gaming to be stuck in the 16 bit era.

Im not gonna do the math, but I can already tell that the cutscene/gameplay ratio of the new God of Wars, FF and Spiderman is just insanely higher than the older games on previous consoles. If you played the old GOWs you’ll know what Im talking about