Look at this clown! First, they came out saying they weren’t even fans of the material. You have Henry Cavil in the lead role who is a super fan of the source materials arguing with you and the writers about the show. And then you finish it off by blaming the audience for your decisions. Mind you, the audience you have ultimately attracted is largely influenced by the decisions you have made throughout the production of YOUR show. The audience didn’t make this show, YOU did
If you're the executive producer, it's your fault that your team members fucked it up. If you cannot find a competent writer to properly express nuance on the screen, it's still your fault. You hired the wrong person to adapt the books. You are the boss, the final say, the one-ass-to-kick when things go wrong. The Witcher is not some nuanced story about regional distinctions in low-visibility communities told in short form, which seems to be his only acclaimed experience, followed by several production failures.
This entire interview comes down to "those lazy zoomers don't know how to appreciate good film." From the description of his past, massive failures it appears to be a problem with his process and ability, not an audience problem.
If you’re the executive producer, it’s your fault that your team members fucked it up.
Again though, that’s not true.
The Television producer hierarchy has Showrunner at the top, that would be Lauren Schmidt Hissrich. Tomasz Baginski was just an EP on 16 of the episodes, so would not have been in charge of determining the overall series plot.
This entire interview comes down to “those lazy zoomers don’t know how to appreciate good film.”
Yeah, his complaints are that Young Adult material is simplified to be able to hold their attention, that’s not controversial, that’s not new, that’s been the case for literally ever. It’s why book stores have Young Adult fiction separate from more complex and heady adult fiction.
The Witcher found success on TV as a YA show and that has forced them to simplify the plot, something one of the producers didn’t appreciate.
For Video games subtitles are ok. But with movies, I have them. They are too diszracting for me so I read subtitles all the time instead of watching the movie. If I wanted to read a book, I would read a book...
I know this is about video games but for movies it's often the case that they were mixed for a surround sound system and then just combined for the stereo out that most people end up using.
That's the answer in my book. I mainly use it for that very same purpose. Additionally, new games with their own game worlds and confusing made up words that sound different between characters.
Rarely, if ever. But if I watch something local it is usually news, game shows or something like that, not big screen productions that usually suffer from this "loud sound, silent speech" annoyance.
Unless it's some rural dialect. Then all bets are off. But then I have the same problem with many English dialects.
Germans are so used to dubs with comparatively louder voices due to it being recorded in a studio, that we also mix our movies that way.
I believe that the different "school" of filmmaking in Germany also plays a part. Classical german movies are more similar to stageplays with a focus on dialogues and the story itself, at the expense of a bit of immersion. Hollywood type movies on the other hand are meant to be watched on a big screen and try to be as true to life in dialogues as they can, meaning that they include noise and cut off sentences in the middle to make it seem like it wasnt acted at all, but that impedes the intelligibility of the things being said if you dont have a good audio setup. So you have the difference between clear but a bit stiff and immersive but sometimes intelligible.
Poor sound mixing is exactly why I watch most things with subs by default now. I got sick of constantly having to turn the volume up to hear dialogue and then quickly back down to avoid massive explosions etc.
I just encountered that when playing Fallout 76 for the first time. When I first started up the game everything was so loud so I turned it down to what I thought would be a good level. But when I played a holotape in a terminal it was so quiet AND even when I had subtitles turned on for some reason they didn't appear :/
And I feel this is an escalating problem. Sound mixing is generally horrible in both games and movies/TV. Unless you blow out your speakers during the higher peaks, you've got no chance of hearing dialogue.
Does anyone have any clue to why this is such a well-spread phenomenon? Why is it like this? I mean, I get it (kinda) at a cinema, but I think it's way overplayed there as well.
It seems tv audio engineers expect everyone to have a high end theater speaker setup: that's the only way to be able to hear it, apart from to use headphones, which is cheaper, but it's not a great solution. You'd think apps like netflix and Disney plus would be able to include a setting like video games that selects a different audio mix, or separate tracks for dialogue and sfx each with thier own volume slider.
For films, you have idiots like Christopher Nolan who's head is so far up his own ass he can probably see daylight. He purposefully mixes the audio poorly so nobody can hear anything, and likes it that way because .... something something something immersion artsy bullshit. I couldn't even finish watching Tenet, we turned it off halfway through because we had zero clue what was going on, and I will refuse to ever watch another Nolan film after that.
For games, I think it's just poor mixing, I doubt they mean to do it on purpose. They just don't invest in the proper audio people.
Interesting, I thought the sound mixing in films was poor because it was designed for cinema viewing and then not optimised for home setups. But I don't watch many movies on the big screen anymore. I thought at least some people were enjoying good quality mixing haha
That's a big part of it. And people can have so many different set ups now too. And there isn't time/funding to redo the mix for them all. There was a good article that covered some of the various reasons, I can't find it but some others...
The article I'm thinking of also mentioned mics changing, and actors not having to speak directly into it to get anything. So it opens up far more realistic acting, but makes capturing/mixing that dialogue more difficult.
That's really interesting too! I guess there are so many combinations of recording equipment, the quality of the mix, the streaming services spec, and the consumers set up, that they can't accommodate everyone.
I honestly am a huge Nolan fan but could not agree more with his audio lately. I was really frustrated in the theater during Dunkirk trying to figure out what the heck Tom Hardy was saying. Tenet, at times, was also pretty bad. I still really liked both movies, but they would have been better experiences if I could have not dedicated so many resources to hear a word in a garbled mess of voice.
Nolan movies are meant to be loud. Obnoxiously loud. I saw Dunkirk in 70mm IMAX and it was punishingly loud, and amazing.
Basically, Nolan movies can't be watched in any shared or multi-unit living situations. You need to crank them to "this is going to piss off the neighbours" volume. But that's specific to the types of movies he makes, which are experiences more than narratives.
Part of it is they are mixed in professional environments (studios) for professional environments (cinema).
Part of it is they can't mix for someone with a 10 year old tv using its built in speakers in a shared living room with street noise, 15 feet from the sofa and a brand new TV through a sound bar in a rural mansion 8 feet from the sofa, and someone using airpods over Bluetooth.
Plus people tend to listen to things at a volume similar to conversational level, but in a cinema you listen to things at a volume that would be considered impolite to your neighbors if you did it in an apartment block.
Finally, sound engineers are artists and dynamics (louder and quieter parts) are part of their craft. Actors are artists and their vocal performances also have dynamics.
A question to ask yourself is have you considered more actively participating in the sound delivery methods of your media? I'm not here to say "all people are watching TV wrong!" but I would ask if most people have even thought carefully about their sound delivery choices, their own EQ settings in their TV, how well tuned their environment is for active listening, and if they just need to turn their volume up?
I appreciate not everyone can blaze the sound on max — but if you do have to sacrifice some volume, maybe part of that tradeoff is clarity of dialogue?
Even in theaters, however, the sound mixing in Tenet was way off. And that may be bad setups at the theaters, but the fact that the complaint was so widespread indicates that the blame likely rests elsewhere.
You say this like there aren't plenty of movies and shows that don't have this problem at all, even YouTubers generally knock this out of the park.
Dialogue is one of the only things that should always be clear, it exists to tell the story and missing critical parts of that because they can't be assed to make sure it sounds half decent in more than one specific environment using one specific audio technology is not something I'm willing to support.
Nolan is just partially deaf imo. Dynamic Range is nice and especially for the 5.1 mix it's great. Still dialogue should be understandable and at least be mostly mixed to the center channel so I can boost it if I want.
Also the 2.1 mix needs to focus on dialogue. No one who watches in 2.1 cares for the dynamic range and subbass stuff imho.
I'm not saying they need to mix for everyone, but how hard is it to make a decent 2.1 channel mix? That would cover 99% of the people complaining with minimal effort.
This is why I think dynamic range compression should be a standard feature for TVs, phones, stereos, PCs and other consumer devices that output audio. Something to even out quiet dialogue and loud explosions would be a godsend for movie watchers everywhere.
I know Windows has a compressor of sorts built in, the audio equalization feature, and I wish there were a good equivalent for this on Linux.
Truth be told, with my auditory processing issues, I'd probably still be using subtitles in tandem with compression/equalization if it were an option. BUT, it'd still be nice to have for watching things late at night without waking other people up.
Funnily enough, watching TV in bed is the other reason I started watching with subs! I've since switched to bluetooth headphones for that and I find I don't usually need subtitles if I'm using them.
You don't. In The Netherlands we always watch with subtitles in theaters and at home for foreign movies/series (and sometimes even Dutch due to the mixing issues and trying to eat snacks ;) ). You read these without looking a them directly.
Huge agree. If I can watch Redline and Dead Leaves in their original language with English subtitles first and miss nothing when compared to watching the English dub after the fact, I think I can catch pretty much whatever most movies will throw at me just fine.
I don’t have to actually read them slowly, its like an extra thing giving me information. Like seeing words and hearing them in one go. It’s not distracting in the slightest
Where it does apply, you got an excuse for a second viewing.
Plus if we're talking about games, you generally should have some awareness of your surroundings even when watching subtitles. If you didn't, just paying attention to your UI while playing would be difficult.
As if my ADHD ass could choose to only pay attention to the subtitles anyway?
It's like reading a road sign while driving on the freeway. I can read the sign out of my peripheral vision, without focusing on it or taking my eyes off the road. I assumed everyone did this?
Agreed. I've always preferred the idea of expansions over DLCs, and would rather pay a higher one-time fee, than a dozen small ones that in summary turn out to cost more and provide less.
And they do have a good precedent with it too, witcher 3 expansions were better content than core game, well worth the asking price. If this one is even half as good, I'm in.
For predominantly single-player games, I fully agree. Sell me a meaty expansion, don't trickle things out as little pieces of DLC.
I don't think the expansion model really works for multiplayer games though. You end up fracturing the community. It's why I think cosmetic microtransactions are a net positive, but only in the context of multiplayer. It's why games like Apex, Fortnite, and CSGO are not only still relevant, but actively updated and improved for so many years after their release.
MMOs have done expansions well. I personally wouldn't ever pay money for micro transaction cosmetics, but I will buy every decent expansion for an MMO I'm playing.
100%. Charge me what you think is a fair price for your content and I'll pay for it if I also agree that it's a fair price. I prefer to pay for a full game, and then pay for actual expansions. I will not buy a battlepass or pay for microtransactions, no matter what. Funny enough, if a game is free, I usually immediately write it off as likely MTX-filled nonsense, but if they throw a $70 price tag on it and don't add MTX, I'm more likely to play it. Maybe I'm just getting old, lol.
I think that there is a legitimate case for very small purchases. Like, I can legitimately imagine, oh, a multiplayer game where people want one specific outfit or something like that. Or even certain things in single-player. I would have been fine buying a la carte additional radio stations for Fallout 4, for example -- one area where I wish that more content was available. I would be happy getting some kind of pop rock station, but I have no interest in a country station. And I don't really want to buy $40 or whatever of even pop rock radio stations, the kind of amount that would be required for the price to reasonably reflect the kind of cost involved in putting something like that together for a larger DLC. Making players buy a larger bundle with things that they do not care about for the sake of avoiding microtransactions seems unreasonable.
That being said, I also think that microtransactions have been hugely overused, and often they are for things that are quite expensive relative to purchasing a larger bundle.
All that being said, I did generally like the "expansion" model that games used to have, and which seems to be less common now, so I'm certainly not complaining at all about the Cyberpunk 2077 model here.
Literally this. Even in older games journalism there was a difference between additional content and true expansions. We used to call developers out for labelling something as an expansion that didn't have enough additional content. This is pretty close to what full expansions used to cost ($20-25 is what I remember for something like Shadows of Amn), and the amount of additional content fits.
I think a lot of people are used to the incremental and constant content release for live services games that are generally free. More is not always better, though...and free is not always free lol.
If there was something that was incomplete about Cyberpunk, it was the stuff that they've done to the game up to this expansion that fixed problems it launched with. A game isn't incomplete just because they add more to it later.
I think additional content is fine, even if it's expanding the story. That's not super unusual even going back years ago to Baldurs Gate 2's expansion finishing the story, and is often referred to as a trilogy due to the expansion, or Lord of Destruction.
It sounds like the changes made to the base game will be implemented even if you don't buy this DLC which is good. Base game changes and improvements to AI shouldn't be sold separately.
This is one of the things I love about Paradox games, when they release expansions they always release a free big patch with them to include all the non-expansion stuff.
It's weird to me that people say it was ever unfinished (prev gen consoles aside) It was buggy and wasn't the life simulator nerds wanted but the story is among the best in video games and the game play is incredibly satisfying. While also having the best looking graphics of any game to date.
I don't get that. Cyberpunk is by no means perfect. But how is it not a complete game? I put in a ton of hours and thoroughly enjoyed it. Are you saying that because the AI was bad, it's incomplete? Cause very, very few games are complete if that's the benchmark we use.
It got over hyped, but capital G gamers did what they do best and blew it out of proportion as if someone kicked their baby.
Note: I played on PC several months after launch. Maybe it was incomplete when it came out, but it sure as hell ain't now.
The totality of those expansions in a lot of cases ended up costing $30 and having similar amounts of content. Dishonored had two story DLCs for $15 each, part 1 and part 2. So...that's $30. Yeah, if there's a controversy here, there shouldn't be.
Not to mention the story was still very much on rails. Even if there were like what, 3 different outcomes? And on top of that, once you beat the game there is absolutely fuck all to do.
Honestly. I put about 50-60 hours into cyberpunk. I enjoyed every single hour of it. But once the main campaign was complete, there was just nothing left to do. I tried many times to jump back in and go do side quests or explore but the world is just completely empty.
I played for 60 hours or so, and I enjoyed it a lot. But they put a fatal design flaw into the game by forcing to you be V, and by putting a ticking time bomb in your head. That means that if you play logically, you'll follow the storyline quests in order to fix the big issue rather than spending the time slowly exploring the world they made. It also means that once you beat it, there's no fun in going back and doing it again, because you have to follow the same railroad tracks and go through the same story beats again. It cheapens the experience greatly.
Like you, the world holds no interest for me now that I have found a satisfying ending for V. The least they could have done was put in a "story mode," and a separate "open mode" where you can build any character (who isn't V) and live any life you choose, free from the main quest railroad.
I'll never understand why game designers would make an open world, and then slap on a "YOU HAVE TO SAVE YOUR LIFE HURRY UP!!! railroad quest as the main story. It's a lazy and utterly stupid design choice.
Counter point: Fallout 4 has you searching for your kidnapped son. I'm a father, in actuality. So to me that's an imperative too, but it didn't stop me from building skyscrapers in the interim. There was no real death clock, so I really don't get your criticism there.
Shit, final fantasy 7 is one of the greatest games of all time and that asteroid will sit there in the sky as long as you let it. You're reaching hard. The more I think on it, nearly every open world game has some imperative story point and they'll happily wait for you to get there. You get tuberculosis in RDR2 and you will live forever as long as you avoid the last mission. This isn't uncommon at all.
Whether there's a mechanical clock or not is irrelevant, this is about roleplaying and immersion. The player should be able to play in a way that makes sense in-world without being punished for it.
A good open world game should have lower tension moments sprinkled along the main story so it gives the player time to chill and explore the world.
I named two outstanding open world games recognized as being in the top 5 games of all time that utilize the exact same plot mechanic, either the criticism applies to them (and you aren't) or its invalid criticism.
You bring up immersion... rdr2 is considered the most immersive game ever. Rightly so. You still have imperatives you can ignore.
They do and i am, lots of games have this problem, which doesn't make it less of a problem.
Though my point was mainly that the fact that "nothing actually happens if you wait" isn't the issue, but rather the fact that it doesn't make sense for your character not to always priorize the main quest.
I haven't played fo4 because they neutered the dialogue, but in 3 there are similar stakes with you trying to find your father, and although that game isn't perfect about this either, there are times where the lead gets colder, and others where it's hotter, this counts as a shift of tension like i mentioned.
But that doesn't change the fact that narrative and gameplay are almost always at odds with each other in open world games. Even if dialogue or game state changes a little there's no need for you to actually follow the story if you don't want. Compared to Majora's Mask where there's a very real time limit to push you towards progress in each cycle.
Yet that doesn't mean developers should just give up trying to reconcile the two. There are ways to fit them together in a more satisfying manner and it's a valid criticism to point out when they are not
CDPR did something nearly every RPG or Open world game does. They made the main quest have a time count down that overwhelms/looms of side quests.
Skyrim does it. Why am I helping this dude recover his friend's bodies from a cave if Alduin the World Eater has returned and I'm the only one that can stop him. Fallout 4, is go find your infant son. BOTW, wtf am I doing fucking about when Gannon is on the rise? RD2, Arthur is imminently dying from TB but yet here I am romping around with no problem at all as long as I ain't doing the main story.
V dying from the chip is just like that, it's a flaw that many of these games have. Few games try to fix it, FNV has it so that the main quest factions that drive the story could do with your help/freelancing to put them in the best position. Morrowind makes it so you need to ingratiate yourself among the houses so you can be in a powerful enough political situation to deal with Dagoth Ur. This encourages you to do side quests.
I liked how this was handled in Spiderman 2018 - after major plot points, the main character would say 'looks like it'll take a while before the lab results (or whatever) come back, now's probably a good time to patrol the city', and the main quest wouldn't progress until you'd done at least one side activity - so if you wanted to just plow through the main quest it was just a small diversion, but it was also a great indicator that now was a nice time to spend some time playing around in the open world if you wanted to.
Both of the examples you gave are not counterpoints. They are examples of the exact same issue.
When I played FO4, I couldn't enjoy the building or storylines, because the game tells you that your son is all-important and that you need to rescue him from a world that is certainly going to destroy him. I'd have loved to sit around and carefully build the perfect post-apocalyptic town, but that stupid main quest was hanging over my head, and I'd have been a terrible virtual father if I let myself idly screw around instead of spending every ounce of energy searching for him.
It doesn't matter at all that the asteroid doesn't fall until you get to the spot you need to be, or that your son will never die and never age even if you play the game for 14 years, or that V lives forever because they never show him die in the game. It's an RPG, and it's specifically designed for you to immerse yourself in the game and "become" the character. A fake death timer is in some ways worse than a real one, because it breaks the illusion and reminds you constantly that this is a game.
The difference is, there was actually engaging content outside the main story quest in those games.
I'm at 67 hours in Cyberpunk and last time I logged in I spent 20-30 minutes just TRYING to find something to do. There was absolutely nothing that pulled you into the world. There's no base building mechanic. No fishing or hunting. Just.. empty lifelessness.
I'm not trying to say it's a bad game. The story was really fun. But if you are expecting some vast open world game that leaves you plenty to do outside the story... this just ain't it. At least in my own personal experiences. I dumped FAR more time into games like RDR2 and Fallout 4.
Not every open world game needs to be infinite, right? There was no base building mechanic... but why would it need one? There was one in Fallout 4, but it was pretty much entirely ignorable and only offered annoyance. A subset of people wanted to play the sims. There was no base building in GTA games either. Most open worlds don't have such a mechanic.
What I found it has is replay value. You can play that game multiple ways and it is markedly different. Same thing with Witcher 3, there's no infinite game mechanic. You start over and try different things. People loved that game and frankly CP2077 followed exactly the same framework, just "with guns". Why is it a problem with CP2077? Couldn't possibly be because there's a prominent trans character, or a pretty girl who won't sleep with your male character ...
I think the near clone that Cp2077 is of Witcher 3 really drives home the point. People didn't have a problem with the game, but certain groups have made it cool to nitpick one and not the other.
Why is it a problem with CP2077? Couldn't possibly be because there's a prominent trans character
Literally no one here is complaining about this, and you are the only one to bring this up. I have at least triple the time in Witcher 3 that I do in CP2077 and I never once completed the game in Witcher 3. Because there is so much more to do in that game. It is a more vibrant world, with more engaging side quests and little areas to explore.
There's nothing to explore in CP2077. It honestly feels like you are driving around in a vast wasteland for 90% of the game.
A lot of that is because there isn't a post game. So, you finish the quest lines and that's it. Witcher is the same way and it's fine, but Witcher was also a longer game with more interesting side content.
I'm torn because Skyrim was also a buggy mess. But it's my most played comfort game. The first few games, I couldn't finish the main quest. And it was soooo much worse than I ever experienced with cyberpunk. Both games I played within the first week of release.
One game, the dragon refused to be caught in Whiterun.
Another game, I caught him and he promised to let me ride him, but the guards never released him.
Another game, half the floor was missing from the floor of the greybeards manor. They were inside but there was a giant gap I couldn't cross over.
For the dark brotherhood, I couldn't complete that quest the first time when you hunt down Cicero because the room he was in also had no floor except for his area.
So many quests just wouldn't progress to the point I had the wiki open so I could use console commands to move quests forward.
I once got locked in during the werewolf quest when my companion was supposed to open the gate for me. He just stood there.
One quest where I fought three ghosts for the boss had a locked door behind me. I could never get that door to unlock with the fight. Sometimes I beat them all. Sometimes I could kill 2 and the third one just disappeared. The only fix was reverting to a save from before I ever entered the dungeon at all.
And so many more. Way more issues and game breaking bugs than cyberpunk. And yet I still hold Skyrim close to my heart. Especially as patches started coming and, more importantly, the Skyrim community patch mod. The modders are really what held up Skyrim.
It feels weird for me to hate what cyberpunk was when I live what Skyrim is.
“we want to make more money so we dumbed down the plot to idiot level and blame it on americans being dumb. Also we changed everything to be more emotional because that’s what tiktoks kids want, more emotion and less plot or something” [paraphrased of course]
The fact that I can open up ChatGPT right now and say "Write a Kotaku article about why Tetris is racist" and get a 100% believable result out of it should be a sign that they've been replaceable for a while now.
I also think it's botched Markdown but from the opposite perspective. When you have many points that end up parsed as several separate 1-item lists, you can write 1. 2. 3. and it will make it 1. 1. 1. since each list only has one point.
It's the training data. Every list the bot has ever seen has had the number 1 in it. All other numbers come up less than that.
The bot also has no memory of what it wrote before, and no clue what it will write next. It simply guesses what the next word will be based on what the last word was.
Another failure of these bots, they're Pre-Trained. It's the "p" in the name. So anything they generate will be based on the training data, with no changes to the algorithm based on interacting with users. You can "convince" the bot of anything and the second you close that browser window, the bot basically resets to factory defaults.
Lmao it's awesome, I haven't read Kotaku in ages, so I don't know if it sounds Kotaku-y enough, but holy damn I can totally imagine a human nutjob writing that shit
This sounds exactly like something Kotaku would write:
One of the key criticisms leveled at Tetris is the lack of diversity in its visual representation. The game predominantly features blocks of different shapes and colors, but the absence of any explicitly diverse or racially inclusive elements raises questions. In a world that is culturally diverse, the omission of representation within the game can be seen as a missed opportunity to promote inclusivity.
@Helldiver_M That reads exactly like a typical dumb shit Kotaku article. No wonder, because it was trained from human data. I don't know what's more shocking, that our News outlets by human is so bad we think a robot wrote it, or if the AI is that good that we think a human wrote it. Both perspectives are frightening.
Yet, there always has been a good journalism, either very quality reviews describing well the game in question, or very funny articles making fun of a game that is otherwise boring or bad.
I'm not saying the magazines of the time were totally devoid of good gaming coverage. Video Games and Computer Entertainment was a solid, substantial read... the layout was nothing special, but the writing was pure quality. Kind of helped that they were writing articles for adults and not edgy fourteen year olds, or nine year olds hopped up on sugar.
WTF that is a whole load of baloney, it's hilarious. Also a good reminder for us who lean left to remember to be critical when discussing such things too.
Believable as in imitates the writing style, sure, but what's the point if it's factually incorrect?
From the article:
The company joins a growing number of media entities experimenting with the technology [...] These trials have already led to a flood of error-laden, plagiarized, and poorly written content due to badly implemented — and, some would argue, inherently unsuited AI models — that still have a strong tendency to make up facts.
Hate on Kotaku all you want but they don't make shit up as often as AI does
I have found that one of the more effective ways to use ChatGPT for writing is to not just tell it "write me an article about..." But to give it a list of all the facts and basic arguments you want to include in the article and then tell it to use those. Takes more work to gather those bits of information ahead of time, but not a lot more work - you could basically do a bunch of Googling and copy and paste bits and pieces of what you find to use as your starting data.
To be fair, Kotaku does sometimes make shit up. Like the Persona 5-Smash crossover lyrics being ableist thing. And they tried to double down on it for awhile if I recall right.
And yes, ChatGPT makes shit up all the time. More often then Kotaku.
I know in a post gamergate world, we need to be diligent for things like dog-whistles. And hating on Kotaku is arguably in dog-whistle territory. I guess in my opinion Kotaku is so bad, that we should be able to safely mock the crap out of them. I'm even more happy to mock any chuds that want to keep non cis-white-males out of games. They just weren't relevant for this occasion.
On Steam being reviewed poorly is not a matter of rating from 1 to 10, but how many people would recommend it or not. It's completely valid that the vast majority of people would not recommend this game even if it's not a 0/10.
yes obviously, and none of that changes anything about the fact that very clearly OW2 isn't bad enough to deserve the title of worst rated game on steam
You tried to argue with someone else over this, but the fact that more people played it, being F2P, means that more people can agree that they wouldn't recommend it. Given how Steam ratings work, that makes it the worst rated. There's no arguing how it is. You seem to take an issue with it as if it meant Gabe Newell personally stamped it with a 0/10, which is not how it works.
In Steam, being 4/10 for thousands of people is worse than being 0/10 for a couple people.
Why would 47k people choose to play the game when it's the worst game on Steam? Literally worse than a game like Bad Rats: the Rats' Revenge that fundamentally doesn't function correctly. For reference, its peak today was about 20 players.
Before you reply with something like "marketing", you seriously think that if Bad Rats launched today, and with the same marketing budget as OW2, that it would achieve anywhere close to 47k players peak 10 months after its release?
Like I said: you're disconnected from reality if you think OW2 is the worst game on Steam.
leaving a negative review because of that would by definition be review bombing, because at that point you're not reviewing the game, but external context that surrounds it
"i liked overwatch 1" is not a valid review of the game overwatch 2, and people leaving reviews to that effect en-masse is pretty textbook review bombing
if you're reviewing specific things you don't like, that's reviewing a product
leaving a negative review because "OW1 was killed off" isn't doing that
if you want to discuss specific things you don't like, please provide some that would reasonably justify OW2 being literally the worst reviewed game on steam rn
leaving a negative review because "OW1 was killed off" isn't doing that
Leaving a review because "OW1 was killed off" and the intended transition route was a drastically inferior product, is in fact reviewing a product.
Context is actually an important part of reviews. Orcarina or Time looks like a shit game today, and needs the context of being a late 90's innovator to fully appreciate it. Likewise, a BoTW clone would look fantastic, a game changer, even...if a certain 2017 game hadn't already set the benchmark.
Calling something an inferior version of its predecessor, which was cynically shut down to push people to this inferior product, is worthy review information. It tells people that a superior product existed, and all this new product is, is the enshittification of it.
ow1 was shut down to avoid splitting the playerbase. when kaplan went on record saying that he'd fought to get ow1 owners a copy of ow2 for free everybody loved it, but now it's bad, actually? yes that makes sense
Orcarina or Time looks like a shit game today
comparing the entire landscape of gaming to a game is a very different thing to comparing it to a specific game
it would be like if somebody reviewed Baldur's Gate 3 by saying it was bad just because they liked the source powers from Divinity 2. as part of a review maybe it works, sure but as the bedrock and sole item of substance, it's useless.
your entire argument so far has been "I preferred the previous game therefore OW2 deserves to be the worst reviewed game on steam". even ignoring the fact that you've failed to articulate any differences past a vague notion of not liking that it's free-to-play, that's an almost laughably braindead take
And making comparisons between the two products is perfectly valid.
ow1 was shut down to avoid splitting the playerbase.
I'm sorry, are you an Activision/Blizzard employee?
I ask because only one of their employees could come up with such a bullshit statement. The core gameplay loops aren't different enough to cause that kind of split, and OW2 Is free-to-play. Anybody that wanted to voluntarily jump from OW1 to OW2 could have freely done so at literally no cost, if they so wanted.
They shut down OW1 to a) pump up the numbers for OW2 and b) to get OW1 players forcibly exposed to their F2P market.
when kaplan went on record saying that he'd fought to get ow1 owners a copy of ow2 for free everybody loved it, but now it's bad, actually? yes that makes sense
Definitely an Activision/Blizzard employee. Nobody else would miss the disingenuity of making such a statement about a free-to-play game.
comparing the entire landscape of gaming to a game is a very different thing to comparing it to a specific game
And my point is, taking into account the landscape, even in a macro level such as Activision's own behaviour with the series, including this very game, is relevant context worthy of being part of a review.
it would be like if somebody reviewed Baldur's Gate 3 by saying it was bad just because they liked the source powers from Divinity 2. as part of a review maybe it works, sure but as the bedrock and sole item of substance, it's useless.
Your analogy falls flat because Divinity and BG, though they share much of the same inspirations and development staff, are very different games. OW2 is basically OW1 with some minor tweaks and microtransactions.
The problem with OW2's mtx though is that the game makes it as hard as possible to ignore its microtransaction nature as possible, and they willingly hamper the user experience to do so.
Other than the MTX, OW2 is so similar to OW1, that without it, these reviews would be saying that they're essentially the same game. So what they're saying now, that it's OW1 enshittified, is valid.
your entire argument so far has been "I preferred the previous game therefore OW2 deserves to be the worst reviewed game on steam".
If that's what you took away from my comments, then I'm afraid you cannot read. That, or you're unable to discern from different users. All I've said was that people calling OW2 basically enshittified OW1 is not review bombing, because it's a valid review.
even ignoring the fact that you've failed to articulate any differences past a vague notion of not liking that it's free-to-play
Because there are very few differences and none of them are improvements. Like the shrinking of team sizes and available modes.
Also, F2P can be predatory as fuck, and Activision/Blizzard have most certainly been so here. they've even broken sales laws in countries like Australia.
OW2 is so similar to OW1, that without it, these reviews would be saying that they're essentially the same game
All I've said was that people calling OW2 basically enshittified OW1 is not review bombing, because it's a valid review.
Because there are very few differences
Okay so you clearly agree that OW2 doesn't deserve to be the lowest rated game on steam, since "there are very few differences", and you liked OW1.
I don't really care what semantic nonsense or mental gymnastics you have to apply to convince yourself that whatever caused it to be ranked so low doesn't count as review bombing.
Okay so you clearly agree that OW2 doesn't deserve to be the lowest rated game on steam, since "there are very few differences", and you liked OW1.
I do agree it doesn't deserve to be seen as literally the worst game on Steam. I never said otherwise. I hate, hate, HATE the MTX system...but as you said, this doesn't make it literally the worst game ever. MTX aside the game still works and the core gameplay loop is fun while you're in a match. Big Rigs: Over The Road Racing this is not.
Would I hit the Recommend button on Steam? No. The MTX strategy is a deal breaker for me. Whenever I'm not in a match I feel like a fucking product. At that point I'd rather just fire up another shooter because I straight up don't want to deal with that shit.
OW2 isn't a bad game. It is a predatory game. It is debatable which is worse (I consider predatory to be much worse than bad). Being predatory is plenty reason enough for a bad review.
Optional? They added the new heroes to the battle pass…. Doesn’t seem that optional, unless you want to spend hours of farming the free tier… for me, that definitely deserves a negative rating.
I don’t know, I’ve never played LoL, but either way, I don’t see how that does it make it look better for OW.
And if we really want to make a comparison, let’s make it with OW1. There new heroes were unlocked automatically for everyone when they were released. Usually in a sequel dev try to make things better, not worse.
As far as I'm concerned they do. But my opinion doesn't decide the rating of a game any more than yours that's it's supposedly a better game than bad rats.
It's a product of everyone who votes giving their opinion, and the entire steam userbase has come to the consensus that Overwatch 2 is a particularly egregious example of it.
It cannot possibly be a review bomb when the reviews are legitimate opinions based on what the game is.
the previously referenced games all sit above 80% positive and yet have the exact same problems that you cite as OW2's reason for being bad
legitimate opinions
"the zeitgeist has told them that the game is bad" is not a legitimate reason for not liking OW2, hence accusations of review bombing
if you think there are legitimate reasons OW2 deserves the rating it has, by all means please provide them, but so far all you've given me are #badthings that also apply to basically all the popular F2P games on Steam.
it’s the game they gave me to replace the game i purchased.
if i bought a toyota camry, and 2 years later toyota said “sorry we can’t let you continue using your camry, here’s a corolla” you better fucking believe i’d be trashing toyota in every public space possible to warn potential customers.
in your analogy you bought a camry and mr toyota said "we're getting rid of this camry but don't worry i fought to get you a free corolla" and were fine with it and hailed mr toyota as a hero but then mr toyota left the company so the free corolla became poisonous and bad
Those games are not nearly as aggressive in their attempts to get you to buy shit. CSGO? a tiny ass fucking button to buy Prime. TF2? Don't even remember seeing a shop button.
OW2? Makes the worst, money hungry mobile free-to-play blush with how aggressive it tries to sell you shit.
tf2 drops crates every 30 minutes that's literally just an advert for the in-game store (which has a dedicated button pretty clearly labelled on the main menu)
If it does, I've literally never seen it, and I play regularly. The closest I ever got was the Halo MCC soundtrack in CSGO, and I'm pretty sure I only got that because I also have MCC on Steam.
my guy csgo crates were controversial enough a few years ago that people sued valve over them, and at no point did csgo come anywhere close to being the worst reviewed game on steam
how are you unironically out here saying that csgo doesn't drop crates?
You are really trying to downplay the power of marketing, but you seem to realize that gets people playing. Not only that but live service design is very effective at keeping people playing even when they are not having any fun whatsoever. Because they gotta grind the battle pass and such. Extrinsic rewards and habit-forming conditioning making up for a lack of intrinsic enjoyment.
Still, I would agree with you that it's not the worst game on Steam, but like I mentioned in the other comment, that's not what steam ratings mean. It means that the vast majority people would not recommend it, and that seems pretty reasonable.
i mean i ignored the second part because it was irrelevant
"You're entirely disconnected to reality if you think Overwatch 2 deserves to be the worst-reviewed game on Steam." doesn't say "deserves to be the worst game", so if we're playing the reading game maybe you should take the first turn
What’s the criteria for being deserving of the worst game on Steam?
It’s not a good game. Regardless of how good it is, it’s MUCH less than what was promised and people are voicing their opinion about its monetization model.
A review bomb is when people start jumping down the game's throat with negative reviews for shit unrelated/peripheral to the game. If they're triggered by the actual core design choices of the game it isn't a review bomb.
These reviews are because the game is a money grubbing downgrade from the game people bought and had taken away from them, and this is the first opportunity they had to publish a review on a storefront. The motivation being the actual game means it can't be a review bomb.
So if General motors was using slave labour to build their cars and feeding said labour with baby kittens, would you consider it a review bomb for someone to say 'You shouldn't buy the latest vehicle from General motors because of the way it is made'?
What if general motors came out and said that they think a great start to the day is to wake up and punch a dutchman in the face?
A review is, ultimately, a recommendation of whether or not you think other people should buy this product. If you can't recommend it because of something the company who made it did, to me, it's still a review. Because recommending that product is recommending financial support of that company. Not recommending it, is not supporting them.
For me a real review bomb would occur generally only in a case where a site like 4chan might suddenly spin a wheel of mayhem and pick a random game to just go shit on or something like that.
That's depends on the business model. For one-off payment games, it still does considerable damage, whereas they don't gain much by you continuing to play.
For subscription games, your point stands much stronger.
It's a free to play multiplayer game. If you continue playing it, you're providing value for some other player who might spend money, so just by being in the matchmaking pool, they've got you where they want you, and they won't care about your review.
Yes, I answered your question with a question because your scenario was as absurd as you perceived mine to be. So I'll answer yours directly: "yes, but not at that scale". Because at that scale, it's a review bomb.
No, it's still a review because you're still actively dealing with whatever it is you're complaining about.
"Hey, I really like/liked the core game play loop of this game but I think that it's gotten significantly worse than it was previously. It'd be nice if they changed it back?
All I want him to do is figure out the rights issues and do re-releases of the Black and White games. Populus, Dungeon Keeper and Magic Carpet games. Remasters would be nice, but just get them working 16:9 on modern windows would do.
There is somewhat similar game, where you do not have direct control of your units at all. And it is RTS. It's name is Majesty. And especially the first game is absolutely fantastic!
Because the sequel removed something that some people complained about. The individualistic behaviour and different patterns of different hero types. Now they are all braindead.
I'd be happy to shop there again if they put out Galaxy on Linux. Community launchers are cool, but I want the same support for automatic updates that their Windows customers get.
I started buying legitimate copies of games when I was finally able to afford it a few years ago. I love how GOG lets you actually keep the games forever and that's where I was getting games from at first, but then moved to Steam because of how much good they've done to Linux gaming. meanwhile GOG Galaxy for Linux has been a most requested and most ignored request for years.
I dropped Steam because it gradually made the client less and less user-friendly. It’s bad enough that I kinda have to use the Steam client, but then they had to do things like trash the old rendering engine and replace it with the bloat of a browser, and completely discard List View (which GOG Galaxy has just fine) and replace it with a tile view that can’t even display game names in plaintext (which GOG Galaxy also has an option for in its tile view).
And that’s on top of other issues with the platform such as how the Steam client forces updates. (Sure there’s various workarounds but at that point Steam stops being a convenience anyway.)
I never actually needed a launcher client anyway. I gladly buy direct-download installers from sites like itch and Humble and DLsite. I don’t have a fear of command line interfaces, lol, much less simply using File Explorer as my launcher. I’ll use a platform’s launcher willingly if it just offers benefits, but the drawbacks of Steam’s using it as DRM eventually turned out to outweigh whatever minor benefits it presented.
My problem with GOG is that every time I buy a game on GOG, something then happens to result in me having to buy it again on steam. Once it was that the GoG version lagged too far behind, several times it's been that workshop support has been added, or in one case, workshop became the only source for moding.
I like GOG for games that are too old to be on Steam, but yeah, any game that's on Steam I'll get there because of the additional features like Steam Workshop.
Same, I recently switched back to Linux and was disappointed they still haven’t made a client. Even just starting with native Linux game support would be something.
Same, Steam on the other hand had been killing it for Linux gamers. What's funny is if you go to the gog forums it's been like the number one requested feature for years.
My biggest problem with GOG is that Galaxy doesn't rival Steam, same as every other launcher. For example, GOG hosts a lot of older games, that used to be their bread and butter and even their namesake. These games generally don't have native controller support, so if I want that, I have to launch them through Steam anyway to use Steam Input. If I want to play something on a Linux device, which is now more likely than ever since I own a Steam Deck, the fact is that it's a pain in the ass to deal with GOG even with their minimal DRM stance (because they allow DRM now seemingly so long as it doesn't prevent the player from beating the game) because of the lack of support, making it more reasonable to buy games on Steam, even when it's a game that does support controllers (like how I own The Evil Within on GOG).
The big feature of GOG Galaxy is that you can pull every other launcher into it, but that doesn't matter to me when I still have to launch everything via Steam anyway. Feels like they're missing the point a little bit.
It looks like only the multiplayer is allowed to have an online requirement. It's DRM by another name, but at least I know how to avoid them. I too wish they didn't let those games on their store. But for me, the point of the launcher is to automatically update my games and make installing them easier. I want those features, and I want to be assured by their own support, that those things will work, even if community launchers for GOG games I bought previously or got in giveaways will suffice for now.
One thing I also like more about GoG is that you own the game you buy, you don't own a license (like on steam), you actually own it like a physical disc.
The games that are their original meat-and-potatoes, out of print classic games, don't really update much. In many cases, the developer hasn't been in business for quite some years.
I do not fucking understand this. You're never going to compete with Steam. But you have this niche of DRM free marketplace and you ignore the entire Linux community? A community that THRIVES on FOSS and DRM free software.
It's such an idiotic move to not develop a linux client. I will never fucking comprehend this.
Their apple support has always been pretty mixed at best. I always assumed they're the kind of gamers who are like "windows is for gaming, gamers use windows, sure you CAN do other things, but why would you?"
Absolutely. I enjoyed playing a bit of Smite at one point in time (mostly that big open area map) and some Heroes of the Storm, but I'm not a big MOBA guy. Decided one day to give League of Legends a try, why the hell not ya know?
I have never been called a 'fucking fag' and been told to kill myself more times in a 5 minutes period of time in the entirety of my 40 years on this flying shitball of a planet. Not in public school, not on Xbox Live while playing Halo, not from my abusive family, never.
Uninstalled that shit 10 mins later and went back to TF2 where I get called that only once an hour.
Yeah, I don't know what it is about the League community, but they are some of the worst people I've interacted with in games. I've heard that apparently Riot has cleaned up their community a bit since the early days, but first impressions are tough to overcome.
I enjoy League mechanically, played a lot, but it just got to be such a net negative that I can't do it anymore. I enjoy trying my best to win and I adore that feeling of a team coming together, but the toxicity was just too much.
They got more aggressive about banning people for chat stuff a long while ago. But the same people just find ways to be just as toxic with game mechanics and other more subtle communication.
That's why I liked hots, the capability to block chat from the start and for everyone.
It's not really a problem in non-competitive modes, as people usually just use on-map alerts.
The Witcher 3 is one of the best selling games ever, and is considered by critics and fans alike to be one of the best games of its genre ever. This guy is a fucking clown.
Yes, came here to say this. Thank you for your services. American executive never own any failures. Claw back their bonuses, fucking brain piece of shits can't even do their jobs anymore.
Yea but that’s only because the game has lots of pretty, moving pictures. And the books have pretty covers.
I’m American, so I can’t even read. I noticed some symbols in the show that could be conceived as trying to impart words or ideas, and it just turned me right off.
You might be asking yourself: “If I can’t read, then how did I understand and respond to this topic?”, and I would then respond: “SHUT UP VOICES IN MY HEAD!”
Great comment, but could have used a more realistic scenario of using a screen reader/dictation software to comment. It’s okay though, I get that you needed to simplify it for the American audiences.
Simplifying is really different from what they did which is completely alter characters, unnecessarily kill off characters, introduce new plots that didn't exist, etc. The Lord of the Rings movies, and the recent Dune movie both did a lot of that but are considered fantastic adaptations. Even Game of Thrones was an excellent adaptation for the first ~5 seasons and had huge mass market appeal while still being complex.
man the dune movie was so interesting sounding and watching it was such a … idk… it was an experience. There was so much stuff that seemed so loosely strung together to the point of feeling almost baffling. I wouldn’t think LoTR or early GoT are comparable?
You might need to go back and watch it again. I had a completely different experience, and I found the plot rather cohesive. It's one of the best movies I've ever seen in my opinion.
I felt like Dune needed some prior knowledge of the books to really follow the plot. Not because the plot wasn’t cohesive, but because so much plot was condensed into a movie that was already 2 and half hours long. It’s not the fault of the movie, the book is just dense. But it does end up disorienting for the average viewer who can’t instantly adjust their understanding of the universe to fully follow the plot.
That's fair. I never read the books or even watched the original movie, but I do have fans in my circle that have given me a bit of an indirect knowledge of the Duniverse. Even still, the acting, the cinematography, the music, everything in this movie is just amazing to me.
It 10000% needed some sort of prior knowledge. Me and my SO were both so baffled by it I went and watched a YT video about it, because I was determined to figure out wtf I just saw. After I saw the video (it was like a very lengthy extrapolation of the universe/etc) THEN it all made sense.
For context I went to see Interstellar without knowing what the plot/etc was, that was cohesive. The new dune was … it was not that imo. I get they’re different types of stories, what have you, but the narrative/plot devices in it were like esoteric at best and I don’t feel like it gave you enough to really “figure it out” while it was happening? Ehm like a bunch of different snapshots strung together in a movie.
Also to be honest after the whole lore dump on the world , it feels like they could have done so much more with it and just chose really… bland stuff. I believe my original takeaway was: I wish they would have just done a series with it. Which, sadly tend to have poor track records but idk.
I feel like it would have catered so much more to the characters and sort of political situations and really built up the world in a way that a movie can’t or just doesn’t have the airtime for. I also feel like with how they shot scenes that had SO much subtle backstory/lore you’d only know from being very familiar with it, something like a series would have really immersed the viewer IN the culture and world, not just kind of witnessing it for 2 1/2 hours of ???.
That's odd because I barely had second hand knowledge of the story, and it made perfect sense to me. Which part in particular did you find confusing before you looked it up yourself?
Going to be completely honest, a lot of it. It probably wasn’t a good fit for me overall but it was just generally hard to sit through or pay attention to because a) didn’t make sense b) was boring/felt pointless/meaningless (in context).
Which idk, for example, I love David Lynch and adore his style; a lot of it can be pretty abstract/artsy. I can sit through that because it is engaging (to me). I get artsy stuff, it doesn’t have to be like p l o t driven constantly. Like the only things coming to mind rn is when they get to the spice planet or whatever and they have the convo with the idk gardener, and the whole time I was just like “why is this in here? why do I care about this interaction? I know I’m never going to see him again.” The whole thing with spiderman’s girlfriend was also just? boring? and very scripted? Like I get being prophesized or whatever sure, but it was just very “ah good we’ve met! anyways”. And it was supposedly super important finding her and ?
Also the whole thing with the trial was also like almost there, like it was soooo close to being really polished. The scene is probably one of the better ones imo, but they just didn’t sell why it was important enough? It’s really hard to explain.
All of the stuff though made sense aaafter seeing the YT video and it made the movies approach make more sense. I just needed something to bridge the gap.
It took itself too seriously and the acting felt very meh, the plot was very meh, and while I overall appreciated the cinematography, it was not enough to sell the rest of the movie.
It’s entirely reasonable to think that someone in the writer’s room also wasn’t happy with the show direction. How about you listen to them when they explain why the shitty decisions were made instead of just assuming every writer sucked perfectly equally.
Gaming
Top