Silent_Buddha
Legend
Well, it's been the bestseller on Steam since the PC version came out, so maybe...
Regards,
SB
Regards,
SB
The economy is in general problematic by design since it is profit driven. Everyone has to "cannibalize" from each other's income to get profit and thats exacerbated by the fact that growth is tight to the issue of debt, which adds even more pressure or incentive to increase profits at any costs. And the most "efficient" but destructive way to do that is to use the fast food model. Standardize to reduce cost, target urges that can be satisfied for the short term, use behavioral economics and psychological factors to dictate habitual consumption (its a myth that products/services are designed only around needs. They are designed to create or increase needs or their urges too), all at the expense of quality. The Fast Food industry grew immensely during the "good times", and they targeted on the fast access, limited time, work needs, parental insecurities due to limited time etc. They sacrificed health and the eating habits became unhealthy in many regions of the world because of that industry.
With these kind of industries the market changes to accommodate even more the "fast food" consumption. With entertainment and social media there are costs on the mental well being.
Quality and social benefit is many times "inefficient" in our economy. It requires more expensive processes, more time, more effort and when it comes to entertainment, sophistication is harder to digest, less likely to be consumed. So it is better to make people consume cheap, "brain dead" products and cultivate those habits.
You can see this becoming more and more apparent in music, games and movies.
This is why I am font of Bhutan's economic model, that focuses on Gross National Happiness instead of Gross National Product
Remember when a movie would be considered a success if it made 10's of millions (after marketing etc.) in profit? Those days are gone, and everything has to be a billion dollar blockbuster or it's considered dead in the water.
In my opinion, that's because the suits running these businesses don't know, understand, or love the industries that they're in. They just know how to count coins. So everything ends up purely financially driven rather than artistically. Ideally, it's a balance of both.
As for how this translates to Days Gone's sequel.. I don't think Sony expects all their 1st-party games to break 10 million sales. That was definitely not the case for AstroBot Rescue Mission (they only sold 5M PSVRs IIRC) or smaller titles like MediEvil.
Had Bend made a smaller, shorter to develop title with their old team size, then perhaps they had already achieved the threshold mark for greenlighting a sequel. However, considering how the studio grew up to over twice its size, they had to pay for an outsourced engine, they hired TV actors for voice and mocap, etc. then I guess the threshold needs to be pretty high.
The game directors already clarified that the game recouped its investment. But if it made a profit of "only" $20M out of a $100M investment then it's really risky to greenlight a sequel, because production costs are only going to be bigger and there's no guarantee that the franchise isn't going to lose money next time. It's a matter of proportion.
Thats how capitalism works. Capitalism is the economy that focuses on capital accumulation. Which comes from profit. Thus the system partly motivates such behaviors like greed, partly forces such behaviors (debt, real interests plus inflation, competition, risk). Then you have the people with artistic and creative vision trying to survive and get as much out of what the system provides. But from those that succeed, we dont see those that vanish or that will vanish by the new models.I don't think the problem is capitalism. I think the problem is greed coupled with ineptitude.
People seeking to make a profit is absolutely fine by me. However, I find it contemptible when people try to make out like bandits at every turn. Especially when that's done by harming others.
Remember when a movie would be considered a success if it made 10's of millions (after marketing etc.) in profit? Those days are gone, and everything has to be a billion dollar blockbuster or it's considered dead in the water.
In my opinion, that's because the suits running these businesses don't know, understand, or love the industries that they're in. They just know how to count coins. So everything ends up purely financially driven rather than artistically. Ideally, it's a balance of both.
Kaz Hirai was a great balance of both. Phil Spencer is a great balance of both.
Don Mattrick was a coin counter. Jim Ryan is a coin counter.
And look what that ends up doing to their positions in creative industries.
There is also the matter of the widening gap between the haves and have nots. I do think that's a problem and a significant factor in this - more and more people have less and less money to spend on frivolities - but as pointed out by @ToTTenTranz that's more the purview of RPSC.
Personally, I'd like to see them shift gears a bit with a sequel. I didn't think the story was particularly interesting or particularly well executed. It was fine, it was serviceable. It was also full of uninspired, cliché characters. Deacon I liked, but I could take or leave almost everyone else.
The hordes were the best part. Upgrading the bike and weapons was engaging. The scavenging and crafting were well implemented and fit the rest of the game.
I'd like to see less focus on a traditional story. Make it more akin to the Soulsborne games. Expand on the presence of bases, so I can fetch them better weapons, more ammo, and more materials for upgrading the place. Perhaps even just a single main objective, like in Zelda Breath of the Wild.
what do you mean here?Pretty bad open world design. "Leaving mission a-" anyone that thinks this is good game design in an open world game shouldn't be put in charge of such a thing (on a big scale).
what do you mean here?
The Good:
Good looking game
Story is well executed in a technical sense
Combat is well balanced, feels dangerous but accomplishable
The Bad:
Generic as fuuuuck concept. Look I know "Biker guy in The Walking Dead" might be right up your alley, but it's not a standout alley at all in concept, and that's is a problem I have with it.
Just plain bad sound design, nothing "sounds" right, way too much is just plain silent or missing for sound
Pretty bad open world design. "Leaving mission a-" anyone that thinks this is good game design in an open world game shouldn't be put in charge of such a thing (on a big scale). Like, this is basic, well established BS here. Combined with the open world feeling kinda dead (ironically), well...
Overall:
I can see why Sony didn't want a sequel. The game's director comes off as... well a slightly air headed and angry. Anecdote: Way before release I told him over twitter that "Biker guy in a zombie apocalypse open world game" with exactly zero obvious unique selling points story or gameplay wise wasn't the most attention grabbing concept in the whole world. So maybe throw something, anything, at it, some spin. He responded, but kind of negatively and seemed entirely oblivious to the game being generic as criticism. And while looking up something, I found he cut player decisions like in a BioWare game. He stated it was because, "Players didn't get it". Well they "didn't get it" because you failed at making them get it; Mass Effect 3 sold 7 million copies. That's an entirely respectable number even almost a decade later... like, c'mon, it's not "the players" fault here.
That being said... I'm having fun, I can see why other people had more so. I dunno, a sequel that took care of that problem I mentioned in the previous paragraph seems to me anyway like a good business proposition. Throw something at it. Go full Resident Evil or Kojima and throw bugfuck nuts plot points rather than "grounded" stuff, or Zach Snyder even and have robot zombies and zombie tigers and shit. Throw recruitable party members like a BioWare game. Just, something, that stands out gameplay and/or storywise. Sony Bend put a good amount of hard work into this, it doesn't feel like they deserve to be sluffed off as a "support" studio, at least not without another go around. At least, not if they can come up with a more interesting concept for that second go around.
I dont see whats too bad with this, unless they actively prevent you from leaving an areaOpen world game
+
You are leaving the mission area warnings during missions.
It's just kind of weird in an open world game.
This happens in GTA, Red Dead Redemption, Far Cry, Watch Dogs and many more. I feel I see this warning way too much in open world games.You are leaving the mission area warnings during missions.
It's just kind of weird in an open world game.
The Good:
Good looking game
Story is well executed in a technical sense
Combat is well balanced, feels dangerous but accomplishable
Agreed. I liked John Garvin's interview, but he does come off as the artistic type that doesn't really understand how others can see things differently than him.I can see why Sony didn't want a sequel. The game's director comes off as... well a slightly air headed and angry. Anecdote: Way before release I told him over twitter that "Biker guy in a zombie apocalypse open world game" with exactly zero obvious unique selling points story or gameplay wise wasn't the most attention grabbing concept in the whole world. So maybe throw something, anything, at it, some spin. He responded, but kind of negatively and seemed entirely oblivious to the game being generic as criticism. And while looking up something, I found he cut player decisions like in a BioWare game. He stated it was because, "Players didn't get it". Well they "didn't get it" because you failed at making them get it; Mass Effect 3 sold 7 million copies. That's an entirely respectable number even almost a decade later... like, c'mon, it's not "the players" fault here.
So from his perspective, what he sees is just some random person on Twitter ranting at him that his game is generic before they've ever even played it.Anecdote: Way before release I told him over twitter that "Biker guy in a zombie apocalypse open world game" with exactly zero obvious unique selling points story or gameplay wise wasn't the most attention grabbing concept in the whole world. So maybe throw something, anything, at it, some spin. He responded, but kind of negatively and seemed entirely oblivious to the game being generic as criticism
Weird, I can't recall such issues and I got the platinum on it...great game, bit slow to get going (and maybe that's the issue?).Title probably should be updated to reflect the existence of a PC version.
Anyway, I bought it at launch just to reward them for doing such a reportedly good PC port, but now that I have a little time, I started to play it (even though I likely won't come even close to finishing it) just to see it in action for myself.
Still in the beginning (basically the tutorial) and the whole "you are leaving the mission area" is getting REALLY annoying. I just wanted to move around a rock to approach the enemies from a different direction and I get ... "you are leaving the mission area." C'mon, seriously? I just want to move around this freaking rock. I'm not even close to leaving the mission area. Aaauuuuugggghhhhh.
MGS V did such a better job with handling missions in an open world environment.
That said, the port is actually really good. The one place where many PC ports mess up is the key bindings (here's looking at you Yakuza: Like a Dragon) and they even got that right without any hidden un-changeable key binds. Kudos.
So far, mechanics feel solid. Even the shooting feels "appropriate" at the start. Not a fan of the QTE's in the game, but meh, it's at least not super annoying.
Graphics hold up nicely as well. So, even if I never finish this, it's money well spent, IMO, to support a quality PC port.
But, goddamn the leaving mission area messages are ANNOYING.
Regards,
SB