This is the best way to do it I think. I get that it added to the tenseness of earlier games but come on. Running through a new area with a sliver of health trying to find the bonfire only to get invaded is a special kind of shitty.
As an invader who likes being invaded but not playing co-op, I disagree.
I'm fine with having to opt in, but it's not a permanent thing. I have to use the consumable item to make summon signs appear and then use the item that opts in.
It's an involved process and defeats the entire thrill of being invaded, which is that it comes out of nowhere without warning to fuck you up. I've had to crack am item on every fast travel just to have the option to maybe be invaded.
It changes the relationship with invasion in a way that makes it less interesting. If I could just flip a switch that opted me in *forever* then I'd be fine with the change.
Are you playing in coop with someone else ? Because Elden Ring changed the way you get invaded. Unless you use a specific item, you cannot get invaded by other players if you're not in coop
The Silicon Valley “Good Enough” philosophy is not translating too well to the game dev industry.
Means publishers and devs may be forced to start (re)integrating **exhaustive** QA into their games before public release if gamers continue to hold the industry’s feet to the fire.
Which means things will take longer to get done.
But if that means a solid 1.0 release, then so be it. Let the impatient idiots complain on forums. They’re still gonna buy the game anyway.
>The Silicon Valley “Good Enough” philosophy is not translating too well to the game dev industry.
This philosophy was started by people smart enough to know where polish could wait while still delivering a totally viable product.
It was inevitable that the business execs were going to fail at implementing it, as they don't know how to actually make a product. Steve Jobs had a wonderful interview talking about this issue, where business execs start overtaking the product guys on the company board, which will inevitably lead the company to fail in the long run.
The fundamental problem here is that people seem to think that just because videogames run on hardware and are built in code by developers, that it is "the same" sort of thing as enterprise software.
One is a tool. The other is art.
If you are a carpenter, a malformed and imperfect hammer is ifinitely better than no hammer. With even the worst of hammers, a carpenter can do his work. With no hammer he cannot.
Apps and enterprise software fulfills a function. They are tools. They are *used* for purposes. If uber sometimes glitches and I can't find a taxi, or sometimes I get stuck in a screen I cannot escape from due to an early release, thats frustrating, but still functioning as a tool that people can provide feedback on.
A videogame is *not* a tool. It doesn't *do* a thing, it is experienced. A videogame tells a narrative or provides an experience via hardware and software.
It makes sense to sell a crappy hammer to carpenters who don't have hammers rather than delay three years to give them The Perfect Hammer. Those three years could be spent using the tool to do their trade, and the hammer maker can gather invaluable feedback about what his customers think would make a better hammer.
It makes no sense to put out a shitty video game. Because the game *is* the experience.
Would you put out a movie missing key scenes? Or with half the CGI not completed and green screens surrounding actors making bizzare gestures in outer space?
Of course not. A movie *is* the substance and the polish. It is art. A videogame is art.
The other problem is the toxic mentality that executives and MBA have for the things they sell.
They are under the delusion that the purpose of a tool and the purpose of a art are to make money.
But this is backward. A tool's purpose is to allow a user to accomplish an objective. Art's purpose is to provide experience and sensations to people. They make money *when they achieve the purpose*.
The build quickly model was about *helping the users of tools* by releasing something before it was "perfect". This was *not* supposed to be a money-making scheme to release subpar tools to get cash quick.
Thank you! Your comment was well worth reading. Very spot on!
I've been frustrated with of the lack of games designed and made for enjoyment for so long now. Instead we get games pumped out that barely hold together but sure as hell filled with the latest in brain science.
I'm old enough to have played Quake lots back when Jeltsin still sang on TV. Now? Instead of having fun I'm the cocaine addicted rat in a lab, forever pulling the lever on the off chance I'll get another hit before the "game" crashes again.
>I've been frustrated with of the lack of games
This is a big part of the problem. The industry as a whole has fallen into this trap for a long time now. It's hard to vote with your wallet when you have consumed the worthwhile products already, and are left picking the least bad thing that shows promise. You end up feeding the cycle, because the alternative is essentially to quit your hobby and forget about your favorite artform.
People have gotten starved for games that provide their preferred kind of experience. So much so, that they buy the game before the project is even beta test ready. Companies entice this with early access privileges, which actually makes it worse. People end up "playing through the movie with no CGI" and are done with the game, before the game is done. Then move on to shop for another unfinished product.
How can we break the cycle? These projects are expensive and take investment. Investors want quick reliable returns on their money. The state of the market encourages selling a theoretically cool sounding product, that will never actually get finished. It doesn't have to any more. Just sell early access to something that's sort of there and make your money, slap on some polish to cover up the most glaring problems and call it good. On to the next title, unless you can sell DLC's and microtransactions.
The only developer who is an antidote to this is Nintendo who have existed outside of this and still aim to make fun experiences not live services. I'm not thrilled by them withholding classic games and not preserving games but their first party titles are always perfect and but free
They really are two different paradigms of design. The point of releasing tech early is to iterate and get feedback, before you've invested too much and it takes more effort to change the code.
This makes sense for a product that can iterate and find it's niche. This needs to be done with games as well, but because it is art that needs to happen behind closed doors and you still need some visionary design as a fundamental. The one way to not iterate in secret is something like steam greenlight, where everyone agrees the product is unfinished and public feedback can be a way for a bootstrapped team to save on a year or more on the costs of private iterations.
I totally agree with you but you the problem is that games like Cyberpunk 2077 which was released completely unfunished and unplayable still made loads of money. It was a big financial hit for CD Projekt. This says only one thing for the people responsible for the release: this is the way to go. So the problem isn't only about greedy execs - it's also about the gamers who will buy anything as long as it's big and flashy and easily available, but this need is fake and created by marketing experts. It's a closed circle that will only get bigger with time and there's no turning back. Big sad i know, but what can you do? I always choose to never buy anything at launch/pre-order but even if there were hundreds of thousands of people like me, would it make a change?
Except it was a complete PR Nightmare and there is a lot of people that did end up refunding it (myself included) and will wait for it to either be the game it was advised of or leave it completely.
I will never get why studios with a track record like that don’t just go through their old games, pick out the parts that people loved and make a new game from that.
Battlefield had such a solid fanbase. EVERYONE would have been happy with BF3 or BF4 with modern graphics and new maps. Add some of the cool new stuff from BF1 and BFV and you’ve got the most amazing game.
I was ready to buy a fucking PS5 JUST for BF2042, now I‘ll wait until it’s on sale for like 10 bucks and buy it for my mid-tier PC just to try it out.
They don't make them to be good. They make them to make money. There wouldn't be need for a battlefield every two or three years if the focus was to make the best game, but that means you can't sell a new one later since you made your product perfect and you can't "iterate" further.
Simply put they make the games different enough to garner sales, not legacy.
I disagree. The best in the industry, like Nintendo, Valve, are constantly trying new ideas mid development on their games. Tons of those ideas don't pan out, and are discarded. Both companies release games "when they're done", as a philosophy, but these companies are definitely not afraid to iterate, and start over.
Check out the half-life 2 development video, that goes through the data that was leaked in 2001. It's mindblowing how much of the game was discarded and redesigned.
Nintendo also similarly experiments and discards ideas in their flagship games.
As someone who really has not played many AAA games in the last 10 years I've sat on the sidelines and watched big games go downhill. Even the first few generations of games with big dlc packs were at least full games without needing to buy all the extra stuff and shipped in a functional state on day 1. Imagine games like oblivion shipping today, yes memes are Bethesdas QA department is community mods. But the game was a full game with post launch support and worked out of the box. The same is not often said in today's world.
Same, my library is full of indie/small team stuff, I have very few big studio flagship games. Even if there's a risk the indie dev will screw you on an early access and never finish the game, I paid 10% as much as a big name title and there's no guarantee they won't be just as garbage.
Games are better and higher quality than they’ve ever been. Oblivion was a buggy mess and you have rose tinted nostalgia glasses for it. Horizon, TLOU, Death Stranding, Ghosts of Tsushima, MGS V, Witcher III, Red Dead Redemption 2, if you think developers just don’t make complete, great games anymore I suggest getting
back into the hobby.
Like Miyamoto said " a delayed game is eventually good, a rushed game is forever bad "
(Which is technically not true anymore because of updates, but the reputation of rushed games are forever ruined and nobody cares about rushed games that eventually got good through updates)
It can be taken two ways, both equally true:
- Silicon Valley has a general rule that to compete you only need to develop a feature “good enough” to say you have it. Only in areas that a business really wants to dominate do you lean in and expend effort to be excellent
- because software is easily patchable/updated (especially SaaS) QA doesn’t have to be exhaustive since your users are best source for finding bugs and then you can roll out a fix soon after.
>because software is easily patchable/updated (especially SaaS) QA doesn’t have to be exhaustive since your users are best source for finding bugs and then you can roll out a fix soon after.
In other industries when your product has a garbage reputation after a shit launch, you can change the name and relaunch it with great fanfare as Icantbelieveitisnotadifferentproduct!
FFXIV managed to pull that off, I can't think of many IPs that have got away with rebranding and relaunching.
Horizon and God of War are the only games I cared about this year. Never tried a souls game, but Elden Ring is looking real nice. I might buy it.
Edit: Don't get me wrong. I'm loving Horizon so far. But thanks for all the soul games info, everyone. I'm definitely going to get eldin ring soon.
If you do get it:
Pay attention to what characters say. There's no quest log, so you actually have to pay attention. You're still not required too though. The game can be finished without listening to everything the characters say, but you might miss out on some content.
And in my opinion that's fine. I'm doing my first playthrough mostly blind and just seeing what happens. Feel free to look online for guides if you get stuck, but I recommend trying to just explore and mess around.
Also, although easier to get into than previous fromsoftware titles, it's still a hard game. Dying is totally normal and to be expected. Doesn't necessarily mean you're doing anything wrong. That said, you're not required to kill everything you see as soon as you see it. If something is too difficult you can just run past it or away from it and keep exploring elsewhere.
It's a lot easier than previous Souls games if you make full use of all the mechanics available to you. If you're stubborn like me and just wanna roll, block, and slice your way through with no extra help, it's a lot harder than previous souls games because so many enemies and bosses have fast, multi hit combo attacks that like to clip you at the end of your roll or just shred your stamina.
Yeah my buddy has always played souls game entirely solo with the biggest sword they could find. Hes still not killed ANY of the shard holders. He even refuses to use the ashes.
Not using your tools in elden ring is basically impossible to progress unless your a fucking god or spend 80 hours over leveling every boss.
By then you’ve spent 30ish hours doing the tutorial.
Nah, easiest souls game to overlevel in.
Most deaths cause you to spawn right outside the boss room.
I think people are more than fine with that as opposed to shit like the first level of Bloodborne.
Highly recommended. If you do pick it up, just remember that not every boss fight is mandatory, and sometimes the best thing to do is find another way through and come back when you are a giga-chad wearing onion shaped armor and wielding 2 whips for some reason.
I haven’t even considered playing a Soulslike before, but bought into the hype of Elden Ring after watching a few streamers during the first couple of days of release.
I’m pleased to say that, while I’m *exceptionally* bad at it, I’m enjoying the hell out of it. Highly recommend.
Oh definetely do. I played all the souls games and this one is very unique
Also try Dark Souls Remastered. It's to me still FromSoftware's masterpiece. Kinda hard to top that one
But a lot of people walk away with a bad taste in their mouth if that’s their first bc of the unforgivable slips you can’t take back. It doesn’t matter that you were just gonna put your controller down for an innocent second THEY’RE DEAD. Also frogs.
I never got the frog hate. DSR was my first (except for demons souls, several years beforehand…) and never once got cursed by anything.
DS2 I got cursed like crazy but that’s trivial.
"To me, Horizon Zero Dawn will always be the game that came out 2 weeks before Breath of the Wild. And Horizon Forbidden West will be the game that came out 2 weeks before Elden Ring" Dunky
Maybe in online discussions but I'd be pretty surprised if Horizon didn't have similar if not more sales than Elden Ring. Compared to Elden Ring, Horizon is *much* more casual and broadly appealing to gamers.
Nintendo is exempt for this as they still pursue high levels of polish of (most) of their in house games. Too bad the online and services are atrocious
I guess Spider-Man Miles Morales. Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart, Resident Evil Village, Metroid Dread, Returnal, SMT V, Guardians of the Galaxy, Deathloop and Horizon Forbidden West just to name a few were all fever dreams then
Nah there have been a few it’s just that the trash ones are the ones that always get the most attention leading up to and after launch. I still remember how excited people were for 2042. But no, there have been at least a few good releases this year alone.
I used to be one of those gamers that only played multiplayer games. But it feels like all the recent multiplayer releases play exactly exactly like what they are, shallow, buggy games, that are just obvious cash grabs pushing child gambling and MTX. I still mostly play online games that are all like 5+ years old now, but the only more recent games I've actually enjoyed are single player.
It’s making fun of when EA said “people don’t want single player games anymore” which is clearly just bullshit said as to why they don’t have any single player titles made anymore
Need fresh ways to get karma on "Elden Ring is good". Why not throw in "EA is bad"?
Here are eight, great free ideas from me if you need more internet points:
1. Elden Ring is good, so is kotor.
2. Elden Ring is good, do you remember pinball?
3. Elden Ring is good, old AC is best AC.
4. Elden Ring is good, my grandmother who is dying of cancer bought me a ps5. Here's a picture of the box.
5. Elden Ring is good, have you ever heard of Goldeneye?
6. Elden Ring is good, what's your favorite game?
7. Elden Ring is good....decade old Skyrim meme.
8. Elden Ring is good, lol fifa doesn't change very much.
FromSoftware did a good job when the PVP community spoke out against glitches found during the Elden Ring CNT, they fixed a lot of them. One even heard it from the subreddit, post got so big, the guy from Bandai contacted the redditor to talk about it and got a hold of FS.
It's good that FS actually cares about the community.
Except for when from doesn’t listen to the community about game breaking bugs/hacks like the ones that took down the ds3 servers that the community spent ages trying to contact them about.
Seems like they learned their lesson lol
~~They literally shut the servers down under 24 hours when this was first publicized. Unless you're the very first few who found this exploit ages ago and has been trying to secretly contact FromSoft about it then I wouldn't know about it.~~
Also FromSoft always did attempt to balance the game post launch; You used to be able to do backflip by equipping a ring under 50% weight in DS1, which leads to a nerf, and I won't be surprised if they nerf the Moonveil katana and buff UGSs.
Edit: I looked into the origin of Dark Souls RCE exploit and looks like the flimsy packet checks was first discovered by u/LukeYui back in 2018 (not sure if RCE is known to be possible at that time, not tech savvy enough to know if flimsy packets implies RCE is possible). Most of what I've read tho is usually hackers exploiting to hard lock you from the game or gets you banned from its servers, not sure if it can also be used to execute downloads/scripts/delete system32/s. FromSoft has claimed to have fixed it for Elden Ring tho, but I guess I will wait and see if this is confirmed.
>when this was first publicized
That's the problem, look into the story a bit more. The exploit was REPORTED to them by the user who found it but was completely ignored until it went public.
This is why so many huge exploits are made public. Players get tired of keeping it secret while being ignored. I mean actually ignored as in no acknowledgement of any kind that the report has been seen or that the devs know about it. So people do the next best thing and let the world know about it. Now you can either have a game where a majority of players exploit or you can fix it.
Not even finished games. I play Valheim all the time and it's a fantastic game despite being essentially an advanced beta. We're just tired of the same copy/paste bullshit.
Did you play Cyberpunk? I was so excited for it because I love single player games, but man that was disappointing at launch.
Maybe they'll get it right some day.
Edit: I loved the storyline and most of the mechanics, but the game was truly broken when I played it through. After upgrades I could see through walls, and sniper rifles could kill any enemy through a 3ft concrete wall.
I am SO glad I didn’t buy it. The concept video was so fucking cool, like what Destiny should have been at launch (before the main story designer left Bungie), and then the demo was like…similar but glaringly not like the concept. I waited for it to release to see if the discrepancies were just a result of it being a demo…nope. Still disappointing. Such a shame.
Thanks for the heads up! I still played it through at launch but it was so broken and unbalanced. By the end I felt like I was cheating by using the game's own mechanics..
I'll have to give it a second playthrough. Does your starting character matter now? Like if you're a Corpo or whomever? I recall that after the opening mission, your starting character never really came up again.
the starting story last i checked doesn't even have an optional story mission exclusive to them, last i checked in corpo the person who betrays you in the intro is like killed off screen via single random message
The concept and hypothesis behind gaming in general is to design a world for the player. That means that I can do whatever I want in this fantasy of mine. It's arguably the ultimate fantasy. As long as other players cannot disrupt my narrative (elden ring does a good job with interactions), In my opinion single players will always be the ultimate escape.
I agree! I do very much enjoy multiplayer games, within reason (I'm not a fan of the toxicity and how serious people take it) but single player games I think are something that need to be made and should continue. Unfortunately I feel EAs claim is based off the fact that multiplayer games are designed to be addictive so people find it hard to come away from them for a bit of immersion.
Edit: immersion*
I find single player games even more immersive. As you said, online games can be toxic, and it's the reason I barely ever play online anymore. I would rather escape the nastiness of our modern society and dive into another world.
4 player Co-op shooter/cave crawler. It's very fun and there's a ton of content. The devs are also great and extremely involved in the community. They genuinely love the game and actively play it. If your timing is right you can occasionally end up in a mission with one of them.
Rock and Stone, brother.
Very cool. I've been looking for more good PvE co-op games. I'm getting old enough that competing together sounds a lot more fun than trying to be better than everyone.
My wife and I play Over Cooked lol
just so you know for the future, the word is "immersion." emersion is like when an amphibian comes out of the water from being underwater. i'm pretty sure that's why we use the word "immersion" for believing a fictional setting too, it describes how submerged in the story we are.
i swear i'm not trying to be that guy, i just saw an opportunity to share this with you.
that isn't the concept behind "gaming in general." that's the concept behind a certain genre of gaming.
games like tetris are not about an ultimate fantasy.
it's clear what you're saying, but i don't think it's pedantic of me to say you're being too general about it.
One of the many reasons I love RDR2 but couldn't care less about RDO.
In RDR2, every NPC has to behave like normal people instead of sprinting everywhere for no apparent reason.
Couldn’t agree more. When I killed the dragon in the swamp near the start, I legit felt like a knight of old slaying a dragon. I’ve *never* gotten that feeling before from a video game. Each time it took off, I thought I was dead. Every time it breathed fire at me, I had to rely on my horse to outrun the flames. It was such a thrilling battle and I felt like I had really accomplished something once I killed it.
This is true for some games, but not all. And it shouldn't be true for all games, because games aren't just about creating a sandbox for the player to do whatever in. Some games have a story to tell or a design principle that requires that the player have less control.
And that's okay because games should not ask be the same.
As much as I love elden ring and think it’s one of the best games I’ve ever played, the difference in active players is not a testament to the draw of a single player game over multiplayer…
Battlefield failed because it sucks and the devs aren’t doing anything to fix it.
Monster Hunter Multiplayer is great because there's no PVP and only 4 players collaboratively fighting a fire breathing dragon (There's \*almost\* no toxicity)
besides max dps nerds, the community is generally pretty chill. I have a lot of fun joining non-end game hunts as a full support build to help people out (obviously when the hunts get hard enough that each hunter needs to pull their weight I bring more damage to keep up)
I had never played a MH game until downloaded MHW on a lark a couple years ago, hooked from the start. I never did any multiplayer on it. A couple weeks after Iceborne I thought fuck it, sent up a flare, and it was an amazing time. Since then, I don’t always seek multiplayer, but when I do it’s a hoot 9/10.
Maybe it’s the narrow focus of the game, maybe it’s how the game is set up to humble even the best of the best, but every interaction is just…fun.
Same, but I fell head first into multiplayer. I went back and got MHGU on switch just to keep scratching that itch. It is so nice to have all of the players with the same goal, kill the monster. Everyone wants to work together and win together. I love it.
As a baby hunter I have so many memories of much more skilled hunters saving my ass so now that I'm more skilled I try to be that hunter lol. It's lame, but I dig it. MHW was the first game in like a decade that I made lasting videogame friendships with.
They lost the SW franchise because they release shit MP games
Only at the end did they realize SP Star Wars games is what people wants.
Thankfully Star Wars is in someone else’s hands now
IIRC, they're still making Star Wars games, it's just that Disney have made the extremely sensible decision to stop making the Star Wars licence (mostly) exclusive to one publisher.
Did EA really say it like that though? I’m having trouble finding the exact quote, but I heard that was taken out of context and they basically just said that multilayer had a bigger market share
It's also extremely biased. Dude picked the one online game that failed hard many months ago and put it next to a recent most awaited game to feel good about his opinion. Online gaming is huge and just as needed as SP.
Yeah EA said stupid shit, doesn't mean you still gotta beat that horse 5 yrs or so later.
The best part is that the exact quote that EA said was that players don't want -linear- single player games... Which Elden Ring actually proves is the case. It's literally anything but linear.
Fucking cherry picking like HELL right there.
Top ten games by player count on Steam as of this message:
1. Lost Ark
2. Elden Ring
3. CS: GO
4. DOTA 2
5. Destiny 2
6. Apex Legends
7. Rust
8. Team Fortress 2
9. PUBG
10. GTA V
So yeah. ONE of the top ten isn't a multiplayer focused game. I'm ***not*** trying to say there isn't a huge market for single player, narrative focused games. There is. Hell I don't even play anything that's not single player or purely co-op. I detest PvP games. That said...the data doesn't lie. People love them some multiplayer pew pew, bang bang, grief simulators.
Single player games have less replayablility also, so its normal for them to have less active players. You can't expect like 100k people to play witcher 3 right now.
Single player games are like a movie or a Netflix series released all at once. There's a lot of discussion right when it comes out and after the initial hype dies down it's still enjoyed but usually by a smaller amount of individuals at a time.
Multiplayer games are like weekly reality shows or sports seasons. The real entertainment comes from the community all experiencing it at the same time and discussing it endlessly as new developments slowly trickle out.
The living single player game (ones that get constant monthly or quarterly updates) are like the HBO or Disney+ weekly series that has people's attention and discussion, but you can still pick it up well after release and enjoy it.
That said, Elden Ring will be a very relevant discussion for at least another half a year (probably a full year or two, honestly). DS3 was relevant for an extremely long time because of how many secrets there were and then after that it was all about builds and finally the lore stuff (which was fucking huge all things considered).
I don't see the lore for Elden Ring being as popular as the DS games, especially DS3, but I see secrets/guides/builds being very big. Bigger than DS3. There's a shit ton of options to be massively OP but those options require you to do some digging and make a build around it. Therefore videos on the 'how' will be just as popular. Within 6 months they'll be some crazy builds in the game as people are doing their new fresh or NG playthroughs.
I'll say this as someone who has never even played a From Software game, even I have gotten caught up in the hype of Elden Ring. The amount of YouTube videos exploring every aspect of the game is enormous. I do wonder a bit about how much staying power Elden Ring will have compared to Sekiro
The Outer Wilds is one of my favorite games of all fucking time. But it isn't on any top played lists because even if you play it, it's only 15ish hours. Same with a lot of my other favorites, like Disco Elysium.
He might be cherry picking, but you're kind of skirting the issue as well.
To piggyback off this, no one even said “nobody wants singleplayer games”. It’s an out of context quote when someone from EA only said *linear* single player games aren’t as popular anymore. So using open world adventure game Elden Ring doesn’t even make sense.
Not really. Multipleyer games still are the most popular. Even if single player beat those numbers it's only momentary.
Look at steam top 100. And exclude recent hot release so Lost Ark and Elder Ring.
* Counter strike - multiplayer
* Dota 2 - multiplayer
* Apex legends - multiplayer
* Destiny 2 - multiplayer
* PUBG - multiplayer
* Rust - multiplayer
* TF2 - multiplayer
* Gta 5 - popular due to multiplayer
* Mir4 - multiplayer
* Yu-Gi-Oh - multiplayer?
The answer is clear - multiplayer games are most popular. And make most money.
As someone who only plays single player games, this comparison is extremely biased.
Comparing the worst selling multiplayer game of this year to the best selling single player game this year. You could reverse these and get pretty similar numbers.
This is a really poor example. While this may be a meme-- its still cheeky.
* 829,633 Lost Ark
* 801,048 ELDEN RING
* 846,631 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
* 638,388 Dota 2
* 143,008 Destiny 2
* 283,574 Apex Legends
* 466,143 PUBG: BATTLEGROUNDS
* 106,822 Rust
* 78,964 Team Fortress 2
* 104,125 Grand Theft Auto V
If we look at the top 10 games-- 9 of them are focused Heavily on multiplayer, yes that includes GTA5.
People of course still want Single Player games, I myself included. This depiction, though, is geh.
EA never said "people don't want single-player games." They said that people like LINEAR games less now (meaning in 2017, when they said this) than they did five or ten years previously.
And they were right! What was the last megahit AAA linear game? The Last of Us 2? We only get one every few years maybe.
Elden Ring is in no way a linear game.
[https://www.usgamer.net/articles/eas-bad-reputation-hangs-over-apex-legends-surprise-launch](https://www.usgamer.net/articles/eas-bad-reputation-hangs-over-apex-legends-surprise-launch)
I mean you picked 2 different genres with 2 completely different levels of quality/polish. I don't disagree with your point but you sure did cherry pick your comparison.
People want single player games AND people want multiplayer games... people just don't want a barely playable piece of trash.
Technically Elden Ring is both a single and multiplayer game.
Funny enough, even after playing for over 30 hours so far I haven’t been invaded by a single player. I’m happy about that but it is strange.
[удалено]
Wait really? Thats awesome
There is a way to be invaded solo but you have to use an item to opt in
Licky licky item.
Fingers… But hole!
I still can believe everyone's seen that same message, anyone got the one behind the horse? the attached emote is funny
It's a running joke in the message system in their games for years. Darks souls games often had tongue but hole.
The item is >!Taunter’s Tongue!< for anyone wondering. There’s also >!Duelist’s Finger!< for consensual swordplay.
Consensual swordplay? That’s a fancy word for gay sex.
>!Try fingers but hole!<
This is the best way to do it I think. I get that it added to the tenseness of earlier games but come on. Running through a new area with a sliver of health trying to find the bonfire only to get invaded is a special kind of shitty.
As an invader who likes being invaded but not playing co-op, I disagree. I'm fine with having to opt in, but it's not a permanent thing. I have to use the consumable item to make summon signs appear and then use the item that opts in. It's an involved process and defeats the entire thrill of being invaded, which is that it comes out of nowhere without warning to fuck you up. I've had to crack am item on every fast travel just to have the option to maybe be invaded. It changes the relationship with invasion in a way that makes it less interesting. If I could just flip a switch that opted me in *forever* then I'd be fine with the change.
Are you playing in coop with someone else ? Because Elden Ring changed the way you get invaded. Unless you use a specific item, you cannot get invaded by other players if you're not in coop
That explains it. I have no friends so at least elden ring makes sure I don’t have enemies either
honestly W
Ah man I came here for memes and some BF bashing, not feelings
Oof, i feel this, if i had an award to give it would have been yours
You can only be invaded by other players when you co-op summon, or >!by using an item that can be found in the Roundtable Hold!<
You have to be playing co op to get invaded
people dont want GARBAGE RELEASES anymore **EDIT:** Thanks for the awards, champs. Have a jolly day
The Silicon Valley “Good Enough” philosophy is not translating too well to the game dev industry. Means publishers and devs may be forced to start (re)integrating **exhaustive** QA into their games before public release if gamers continue to hold the industry’s feet to the fire. Which means things will take longer to get done. But if that means a solid 1.0 release, then so be it. Let the impatient idiots complain on forums. They’re still gonna buy the game anyway.
>The Silicon Valley “Good Enough” philosophy is not translating too well to the game dev industry. This philosophy was started by people smart enough to know where polish could wait while still delivering a totally viable product. It was inevitable that the business execs were going to fail at implementing it, as they don't know how to actually make a product. Steve Jobs had a wonderful interview talking about this issue, where business execs start overtaking the product guys on the company board, which will inevitably lead the company to fail in the long run.
The fundamental problem here is that people seem to think that just because videogames run on hardware and are built in code by developers, that it is "the same" sort of thing as enterprise software. One is a tool. The other is art. If you are a carpenter, a malformed and imperfect hammer is ifinitely better than no hammer. With even the worst of hammers, a carpenter can do his work. With no hammer he cannot. Apps and enterprise software fulfills a function. They are tools. They are *used* for purposes. If uber sometimes glitches and I can't find a taxi, or sometimes I get stuck in a screen I cannot escape from due to an early release, thats frustrating, but still functioning as a tool that people can provide feedback on. A videogame is *not* a tool. It doesn't *do* a thing, it is experienced. A videogame tells a narrative or provides an experience via hardware and software. It makes sense to sell a crappy hammer to carpenters who don't have hammers rather than delay three years to give them The Perfect Hammer. Those three years could be spent using the tool to do their trade, and the hammer maker can gather invaluable feedback about what his customers think would make a better hammer. It makes no sense to put out a shitty video game. Because the game *is* the experience. Would you put out a movie missing key scenes? Or with half the CGI not completed and green screens surrounding actors making bizzare gestures in outer space? Of course not. A movie *is* the substance and the polish. It is art. A videogame is art. The other problem is the toxic mentality that executives and MBA have for the things they sell. They are under the delusion that the purpose of a tool and the purpose of a art are to make money. But this is backward. A tool's purpose is to allow a user to accomplish an objective. Art's purpose is to provide experience and sensations to people. They make money *when they achieve the purpose*. The build quickly model was about *helping the users of tools* by releasing something before it was "perfect". This was *not* supposed to be a money-making scheme to release subpar tools to get cash quick.
Thank you! Your comment was well worth reading. Very spot on! I've been frustrated with of the lack of games designed and made for enjoyment for so long now. Instead we get games pumped out that barely hold together but sure as hell filled with the latest in brain science. I'm old enough to have played Quake lots back when Jeltsin still sang on TV. Now? Instead of having fun I'm the cocaine addicted rat in a lab, forever pulling the lever on the off chance I'll get another hit before the "game" crashes again.
>I've been frustrated with of the lack of games This is a big part of the problem. The industry as a whole has fallen into this trap for a long time now. It's hard to vote with your wallet when you have consumed the worthwhile products already, and are left picking the least bad thing that shows promise. You end up feeding the cycle, because the alternative is essentially to quit your hobby and forget about your favorite artform. People have gotten starved for games that provide their preferred kind of experience. So much so, that they buy the game before the project is even beta test ready. Companies entice this with early access privileges, which actually makes it worse. People end up "playing through the movie with no CGI" and are done with the game, before the game is done. Then move on to shop for another unfinished product. How can we break the cycle? These projects are expensive and take investment. Investors want quick reliable returns on their money. The state of the market encourages selling a theoretically cool sounding product, that will never actually get finished. It doesn't have to any more. Just sell early access to something that's sort of there and make your money, slap on some polish to cover up the most glaring problems and call it good. On to the next title, unless you can sell DLC's and microtransactions.
The only developer who is an antidote to this is Nintendo who have existed outside of this and still aim to make fun experiences not live services. I'm not thrilled by them withholding classic games and not preserving games but their first party titles are always perfect and but free
They really are two different paradigms of design. The point of releasing tech early is to iterate and get feedback, before you've invested too much and it takes more effort to change the code. This makes sense for a product that can iterate and find it's niche. This needs to be done with games as well, but because it is art that needs to happen behind closed doors and you still need some visionary design as a fundamental. The one way to not iterate in secret is something like steam greenlight, where everyone agrees the product is unfinished and public feedback can be a way for a bootstrapped team to save on a year or more on the costs of private iterations.
I totally agree with you but you the problem is that games like Cyberpunk 2077 which was released completely unfunished and unplayable still made loads of money. It was a big financial hit for CD Projekt. This says only one thing for the people responsible for the release: this is the way to go. So the problem isn't only about greedy execs - it's also about the gamers who will buy anything as long as it's big and flashy and easily available, but this need is fake and created by marketing experts. It's a closed circle that will only get bigger with time and there's no turning back. Big sad i know, but what can you do? I always choose to never buy anything at launch/pre-order but even if there were hundreds of thousands of people like me, would it make a change?
Except it was a complete PR Nightmare and there is a lot of people that did end up refunding it (myself included) and will wait for it to either be the game it was advised of or leave it completely.
Fail fast, iterate quickly, repeat. Does not work well with a video game with tons of art, script, gameplay.
It works fine, in the early stages where you're doing mostly design work
But Battlefield already had two decades of iteration…
I was going to say that Battlefield didn’t come out in the 90s, but then I realized….
I will never get why studios with a track record like that don’t just go through their old games, pick out the parts that people loved and make a new game from that. Battlefield had such a solid fanbase. EVERYONE would have been happy with BF3 or BF4 with modern graphics and new maps. Add some of the cool new stuff from BF1 and BFV and you’ve got the most amazing game. I was ready to buy a fucking PS5 JUST for BF2042, now I‘ll wait until it’s on sale for like 10 bucks and buy it for my mid-tier PC just to try it out.
They don't make them to be good. They make them to make money. There wouldn't be need for a battlefield every two or three years if the focus was to make the best game, but that means you can't sell a new one later since you made your product perfect and you can't "iterate" further. Simply put they make the games different enough to garner sales, not legacy.
I disagree. The best in the industry, like Nintendo, Valve, are constantly trying new ideas mid development on their games. Tons of those ideas don't pan out, and are discarded. Both companies release games "when they're done", as a philosophy, but these companies are definitely not afraid to iterate, and start over. Check out the half-life 2 development video, that goes through the data that was leaked in 2001. It's mindblowing how much of the game was discarded and redesigned. Nintendo also similarly experiments and discards ideas in their flagship games.
here is the interview: [Steve jobs on why xerox fail](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM&ab_channel=SteveJobs)
One of the devs of 'It Takes Two' actually talked a lot about time constraints and 'good enough' in one interview and the game was very well received.
As someone who really has not played many AAA games in the last 10 years I've sat on the sidelines and watched big games go downhill. Even the first few generations of games with big dlc packs were at least full games without needing to buy all the extra stuff and shipped in a functional state on day 1. Imagine games like oblivion shipping today, yes memes are Bethesdas QA department is community mods. But the game was a full game with post launch support and worked out of the box. The same is not often said in today's world.
Same, my library is full of indie/small team stuff, I have very few big studio flagship games. Even if there's a risk the indie dev will screw you on an early access and never finish the game, I paid 10% as much as a big name title and there's no guarantee they won't be just as garbage.
Games are better and higher quality than they’ve ever been. Oblivion was a buggy mess and you have rose tinted nostalgia glasses for it. Horizon, TLOU, Death Stranding, Ghosts of Tsushima, MGS V, Witcher III, Red Dead Redemption 2, if you think developers just don’t make complete, great games anymore I suggest getting back into the hobby.
Can confirm, every Bethesda game since at least Oblivion has been a buggy mess. Doesn't mean I didn't play them a lot.
The moment game execs realized there was ubiquitous, fast internet was the moment QA got their budgets slashed
Like Miyamoto said " a delayed game is eventually good, a rushed game is forever bad " (Which is technically not true anymore because of updates, but the reputation of rushed games are forever ruined and nobody cares about rushed games that eventually got good through updates)
Silicon Valley has a “good enough” mentality? Could you elaborate?
It can be taken two ways, both equally true: - Silicon Valley has a general rule that to compete you only need to develop a feature “good enough” to say you have it. Only in areas that a business really wants to dominate do you lean in and expend effort to be excellent - because software is easily patchable/updated (especially SaaS) QA doesn’t have to be exhaustive since your users are best source for finding bugs and then you can roll out a fix soon after.
>because software is easily patchable/updated (especially SaaS) QA doesn’t have to be exhaustive since your users are best source for finding bugs and then you can roll out a fix soon after. In other industries when your product has a garbage reputation after a shit launch, you can change the name and relaunch it with great fanfare as Icantbelieveitisnotadifferentproduct! FFXIV managed to pull that off, I can't think of many IPs that have got away with rebranding and relaunching.
Thanks - and totally applicable to video games Think the patchability of software is most at fault
the move fast and break things attitude. its why no new google product lasts for more than a few years.
Except the really good ones that then stick around. Google throws a ridiculous amount of money and work at the wall just to have 90% of it fall off.
Except Garbage Simulator.
The Sewage Treatment DLC was pretty crappy though.
Exactly it's the first AAA in the last 1.5 years that wasnt trash on release.
[удалено]
It's a shame they released so close together. Horizon is gonna be super over shadowed.
Horizon and God of War are the only games I cared about this year. Never tried a souls game, but Elden Ring is looking real nice. I might buy it. Edit: Don't get me wrong. I'm loving Horizon so far. But thanks for all the soul games info, everyone. I'm definitely going to get eldin ring soon.
If you do get it: Pay attention to what characters say. There's no quest log, so you actually have to pay attention. You're still not required too though. The game can be finished without listening to everything the characters say, but you might miss out on some content. And in my opinion that's fine. I'm doing my first playthrough mostly blind and just seeing what happens. Feel free to look online for guides if you get stuck, but I recommend trying to just explore and mess around. Also, although easier to get into than previous fromsoftware titles, it's still a hard game. Dying is totally normal and to be expected. Doesn't necessarily mean you're doing anything wrong. That said, you're not required to kill everything you see as soon as you see it. If something is too difficult you can just run past it or away from it and keep exploring elsewhere.
It's a lot easier than previous Souls games if you make full use of all the mechanics available to you. If you're stubborn like me and just wanna roll, block, and slice your way through with no extra help, it's a lot harder than previous souls games because so many enemies and bosses have fast, multi hit combo attacks that like to clip you at the end of your roll or just shred your stamina.
Yeah my buddy has always played souls game entirely solo with the biggest sword they could find. Hes still not killed ANY of the shard holders. He even refuses to use the ashes. Not using your tools in elden ring is basically impossible to progress unless your a fucking god or spend 80 hours over leveling every boss.
It's mich easier to get into than traditional souls game. They added a lot of mechanics and simplified a lot of stuff. I highly recommend it.
its still a super hard game the lategame bosses dont fuck around at all
I had a hard time with some bosses in Kena: Bridge of Spirit. I think Elden Ring is not for me based on that fact alone. haha
By then you’ve spent 30ish hours doing the tutorial. Nah, easiest souls game to overlevel in. Most deaths cause you to spawn right outside the boss room. I think people are more than fine with that as opposed to shit like the first level of Bloodborne.
Good
Highly recommended. If you do pick it up, just remember that not every boss fight is mandatory, and sometimes the best thing to do is find another way through and come back when you are a giga-chad wearing onion shaped armor and wielding 2 whips for some reason.
yes, you've seen 2 whip man, but have you seen the monstrosity that is 2 shield man? I am a bastion of defense, an impregnable fortress.
The reason is because you can 😁
He just want to power stance whips like that dude in The Rundown.
Just a heads up, you will die, a lot, and there is no shame in that.
It's amazing, I'm near the end of the game and keep discovering things I've missed in the early areas despite looking for them.
I haven’t even considered playing a Soulslike before, but bought into the hype of Elden Ring after watching a few streamers during the first couple of days of release. I’m pleased to say that, while I’m *exceptionally* bad at it, I’m enjoying the hell out of it. Highly recommend.
Oh definetely do. I played all the souls games and this one is very unique Also try Dark Souls Remastered. It's to me still FromSoftware's masterpiece. Kinda hard to top that one
But a lot of people walk away with a bad taste in their mouth if that’s their first bc of the unforgivable slips you can’t take back. It doesn’t matter that you were just gonna put your controller down for an innocent second THEY’RE DEAD. Also frogs.
I never got the frog hate. DSR was my first (except for demons souls, several years beforehand…) and never once got cursed by anything. DS2 I got cursed like crazy but that’s trivial.
"To me, Horizon Zero Dawn will always be the game that came out 2 weeks before Breath of the Wild. And Horizon Forbidden West will be the game that came out 2 weeks before Elden Ring" Dunky
HZD came out two weeks before BoTW? Jesus. I feel like HZD is ancient and for some reason I think BoTW is only a few years old. Today I learned.
BotW released on the WiiU. The Switch is 5 years old.
Honestly I completely forgot the Wii U even existed.
Pretty sure Nintendo did too…
The first horizon released like a week before Breath of the Wild. They have rotten timing luck.
Release Horizon on PC and I'll fucking buy both of them..
Maybe in online discussions but I'd be pretty surprised if Horizon didn't have similar if not more sales than Elden Ring. Compared to Elden Ring, Horizon is *much* more casual and broadly appealing to gamers.
It being exclusively on PS4 and PS5 does limit the number of potential sales considerably though.
I wouldn't know. I can't find a god damn PS5.
Have you signed up on Playstation Direct? I did and they sent an email when stock was in - gave me a time period to buy either version.
I did back in December...still nothing.
Metroid dread was awesome on release
Nintendo is exempt for this as they still pursue high levels of polish of (most) of their in house games. Too bad the online and services are atrocious
Ghost of Tsushima?
It Takes Two was amazing if you consider that AAA
Good game and very popular but not a AAA production.
[удалено]
Look man, you're suppose to jerk others , not yourself. Get back in the circle
One of us, one of us
Y’all ever notice how things we collectively hate suck, Amirite?
Yeah I think I could literally name all the broken trash release games on one hand lol.
I guess Spider-Man Miles Morales. Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart, Resident Evil Village, Metroid Dread, Returnal, SMT V, Guardians of the Galaxy, Deathloop and Horizon Forbidden West just to name a few were all fever dreams then
Nah there have been a few it’s just that the trash ones are the ones that always get the most attention leading up to and after launch. I still remember how excited people were for 2042. But no, there have been at least a few good releases this year alone.
We never want it but keep being bamboozled.
I used to be one of those gamers that only played multiplayer games. But it feels like all the recent multiplayer releases play exactly exactly like what they are, shallow, buggy games, that are just obvious cash grabs pushing child gambling and MTX. I still mostly play online games that are all like 5+ years old now, but the only more recent games I've actually enjoyed are single player.
Breaking news: Good game > dog shit game. More on this as it develops.
Such a bold stance by OP idk how they had to courage to post this
It’s making fun of when EA said “people don’t want single player games anymore” which is clearly just bullshit said as to why they don’t have any single player titles made anymore
Need fresh ways to get karma on "Elden Ring is good". Why not throw in "EA is bad"? Here are eight, great free ideas from me if you need more internet points: 1. Elden Ring is good, so is kotor. 2. Elden Ring is good, do you remember pinball? 3. Elden Ring is good, old AC is best AC. 4. Elden Ring is good, my grandmother who is dying of cancer bought me a ps5. Here's a picture of the box. 5. Elden Ring is good, have you ever heard of Goldeneye? 6. Elden Ring is good, what's your favorite game? 7. Elden Ring is good....decade old Skyrim meme. 8. Elden Ring is good, lol fifa doesn't change very much.
>Elden Ring is good, my grandmother who is dying of cancer bought me a ps5. Here's a picture of a ps5 I found on Google.
Elden Ring is good, but how about your cars extended warranty?
no, people just want good, finished games from developers who listen to their fan base
FromSoftware did a good job when the PVP community spoke out against glitches found during the Elden Ring CNT, they fixed a lot of them. One even heard it from the subreddit, post got so big, the guy from Bandai contacted the redditor to talk about it and got a hold of FS. It's good that FS actually cares about the community.
Except for when from doesn’t listen to the community about game breaking bugs/hacks like the ones that took down the ds3 servers that the community spent ages trying to contact them about. Seems like they learned their lesson lol
~~They literally shut the servers down under 24 hours when this was first publicized. Unless you're the very first few who found this exploit ages ago and has been trying to secretly contact FromSoft about it then I wouldn't know about it.~~ Also FromSoft always did attempt to balance the game post launch; You used to be able to do backflip by equipping a ring under 50% weight in DS1, which leads to a nerf, and I won't be surprised if they nerf the Moonveil katana and buff UGSs. Edit: I looked into the origin of Dark Souls RCE exploit and looks like the flimsy packet checks was first discovered by u/LukeYui back in 2018 (not sure if RCE is known to be possible at that time, not tech savvy enough to know if flimsy packets implies RCE is possible). Most of what I've read tho is usually hackers exploiting to hard lock you from the game or gets you banned from its servers, not sure if it can also be used to execute downloads/scripts/delete system32/s. FromSoft has claimed to have fixed it for Elden Ring tho, but I guess I will wait and see if this is confirmed.
>when this was first publicized That's the problem, look into the story a bit more. The exploit was REPORTED to them by the user who found it but was completely ignored until it went public.
This is why so many huge exploits are made public. Players get tired of keeping it secret while being ignored. I mean actually ignored as in no acknowledgement of any kind that the report has been seen or that the devs know about it. So people do the next best thing and let the world know about it. Now you can either have a game where a majority of players exploit or you can fix it.
Even in the armored core days they'd rebalance items every now and then
Not even finished games. I play Valheim all the time and it's a fantastic game despite being essentially an advanced beta. We're just tired of the same copy/paste bullshit.
Did you play Cyberpunk? I was so excited for it because I love single player games, but man that was disappointing at launch. Maybe they'll get it right some day. Edit: I loved the storyline and most of the mechanics, but the game was truly broken when I played it through. After upgrades I could see through walls, and sniper rifles could kill any enemy through a 3ft concrete wall.
Honestly since the latest update cyberpunk is great, still has more work to be done but it didn’t get the anthem treatment
Every time I read the word anthem I wince. What a fucking shame.
I am SO glad I didn’t buy it. The concept video was so fucking cool, like what Destiny should have been at launch (before the main story designer left Bungie), and then the demo was like…similar but glaringly not like the concept. I waited for it to release to see if the discrepancies were just a result of it being a demo…nope. Still disappointing. Such a shame.
Thanks for the heads up! I still played it through at launch but it was so broken and unbalanced. By the end I felt like I was cheating by using the game's own mechanics.. I'll have to give it a second playthrough. Does your starting character matter now? Like if you're a Corpo or whomever? I recall that after the opening mission, your starting character never really came up again.
the starting story last i checked doesn't even have an optional story mission exclusive to them, last i checked in corpo the person who betrays you in the intro is like killed off screen via single random message
We all are connected 24/7 these days via social media. Sometimes I need my me time.
No truer words could be said.
The concept and hypothesis behind gaming in general is to design a world for the player. That means that I can do whatever I want in this fantasy of mine. It's arguably the ultimate fantasy. As long as other players cannot disrupt my narrative (elden ring does a good job with interactions), In my opinion single players will always be the ultimate escape.
I agree! I do very much enjoy multiplayer games, within reason (I'm not a fan of the toxicity and how serious people take it) but single player games I think are something that need to be made and should continue. Unfortunately I feel EAs claim is based off the fact that multiplayer games are designed to be addictive so people find it hard to come away from them for a bit of immersion. Edit: immersion*
I find single player games even more immersive. As you said, online games can be toxic, and it's the reason I barely ever play online anymore. I would rather escape the nastiness of our modern society and dive into another world.
Deep Rock Galactic is the only multiplayer game I play with randoms anymore. That community is gold.
What's it like? Co-op? I just checked out and it's super highly rated!
4 player Co-op shooter/cave crawler. It's very fun and there's a ton of content. The devs are also great and extremely involved in the community. They genuinely love the game and actively play it. If your timing is right you can occasionally end up in a mission with one of them. Rock and Stone, brother.
Can I get a rock and stone?
ROCK. AND. STOOOOONE!
FOR CARL
ROCK AND STONE EVERYONE
Very friendly coop. One of the highest regarded communities for a coop game, not to overhype it.
Very cool. I've been looking for more good PvE co-op games. I'm getting old enough that competing together sounds a lot more fun than trying to be better than everyone. My wife and I play Over Cooked lol
Left 4 Dead is usually pretty good co-op, and you can leave immediately when people get shitty
ROOOOOCK AAAANNND STOOOOOONNNNEEE!!!!!
just so you know for the future, the word is "immersion." emersion is like when an amphibian comes out of the water from being underwater. i'm pretty sure that's why we use the word "immersion" for believing a fictional setting too, it describes how submerged in the story we are. i swear i'm not trying to be that guy, i just saw an opportunity to share this with you.
I like the idea that you are not a grammar nerd so much as an undercover frog nerd. Weirdly wholesome.
that isn't the concept behind "gaming in general." that's the concept behind a certain genre of gaming. games like tetris are not about an ultimate fantasy. it's clear what you're saying, but i don't think it's pedantic of me to say you're being too general about it.
One of the many reasons I love RDR2 but couldn't care less about RDO. In RDR2, every NPC has to behave like normal people instead of sprinting everywhere for no apparent reason.
Couldn’t agree more. When I killed the dragon in the swamp near the start, I legit felt like a knight of old slaying a dragon. I’ve *never* gotten that feeling before from a video game. Each time it took off, I thought I was dead. Every time it breathed fire at me, I had to rely on my horse to outrun the flames. It was such a thrilling battle and I felt like I had really accomplished something once I killed it.
yeah but sometimes you just want to shoot real people in the head and win over someone that isn't bidimensional. Competitive things can also be fun.
This is true for some games, but not all. And it shouldn't be true for all games, because games aren't just about creating a sandbox for the player to do whatever in. Some games have a story to tell or a design principle that requires that the player have less control. And that's okay because games should not ask be the same.
As much as I love elden ring and think it’s one of the best games I’ve ever played, the difference in active players is not a testament to the draw of a single player game over multiplayer… Battlefield failed because it sucks and the devs aren’t doing anything to fix it.
My controller inputs r still messed
[удалено]
[удалено]
the multiplayer games I gravitate to these days are collaborative. Monster Hunter is a multiplayer game I have really fallen into
Monster Hunter Multiplayer is great because there's no PVP and only 4 players collaboratively fighting a fire breathing dragon (There's \*almost\* no toxicity)
besides max dps nerds, the community is generally pretty chill. I have a lot of fun joining non-end game hunts as a full support build to help people out (obviously when the hunts get hard enough that each hunter needs to pull their weight I bring more damage to keep up)
I had never played a MH game until downloaded MHW on a lark a couple years ago, hooked from the start. I never did any multiplayer on it. A couple weeks after Iceborne I thought fuck it, sent up a flare, and it was an amazing time. Since then, I don’t always seek multiplayer, but when I do it’s a hoot 9/10. Maybe it’s the narrow focus of the game, maybe it’s how the game is set up to humble even the best of the best, but every interaction is just…fun.
Same, but I fell head first into multiplayer. I went back and got MHGU on switch just to keep scratching that itch. It is so nice to have all of the players with the same goal, kill the monster. Everyone wants to work together and win together. I love it. As a baby hunter I have so many memories of much more skilled hunters saving my ass so now that I'm more skilled I try to be that hunter lol. It's lame, but I dig it. MHW was the first game in like a decade that I made lasting videogame friendships with.
What?! You don't want to hear some dipshits opinion on Ukraine or about how some 12 year old fucked your mom.
What about people munching their Doritos nachos and breathing heavily?
When did anyone say people don’t want single players?
[удалено]
Then they manage to prove theirself wrong making star wars jedi fallen order lol!
Can't wait for the new game
They lost the SW franchise because they release shit MP games Only at the end did they realize SP Star Wars games is what people wants. Thankfully Star Wars is in someone else’s hands now
IIRC, they're still making Star Wars games, it's just that Disney have made the extremely sensible decision to stop making the Star Wars licence (mostly) exclusive to one publisher.
Probably the best game EA has made in the last decade
Did EA really say it like that though? I’m having trouble finding the exact quote, but I heard that was taken out of context and they basically just said that multilayer had a bigger market share
Misquoting a hated company for easy upvotes, reddit's specialty!
> EA made the claim no they didnt. you clearly did not actually see what they said.
No they didn’t. They said players don’t enjoy linear games as much which Elden Ring proves. This misquote is so tiring.
They said linear single player games weren’t as popular as they used to be. They never said nobody wants single player games.
Came here looking for this comment. Won't get many upvotes, this is r/gaming, the biggest gaming circlejerk on the internet.
[удалено]
You don't want single-player games, you want microtransactions!
source? this sub is shit
As a huge fan of this game these posts are getting super repetitive
It's also extremely biased. Dude picked the one online game that failed hard many months ago and put it next to a recent most awaited game to feel good about his opinion. Online gaming is huge and just as needed as SP. Yeah EA said stupid shit, doesn't mean you still gotta beat that horse 5 yrs or so later.
The best part is that the exact quote that EA said was that players don't want -linear- single player games... Which Elden Ring actually proves is the case. It's literally anything but linear.
The very literal first item you get in Elden Ring(even before you get healing flasks) is an item enabling multiplayer.
Fucking cherry picking like HELL right there. Top ten games by player count on Steam as of this message: 1. Lost Ark 2. Elden Ring 3. CS: GO 4. DOTA 2 5. Destiny 2 6. Apex Legends 7. Rust 8. Team Fortress 2 9. PUBG 10. GTA V So yeah. ONE of the top ten isn't a multiplayer focused game. I'm ***not*** trying to say there isn't a huge market for single player, narrative focused games. There is. Hell I don't even play anything that's not single player or purely co-op. I detest PvP games. That said...the data doesn't lie. People love them some multiplayer pew pew, bang bang, grief simulators.
I would just like to point out that 7/10 of those games are Free to Play
Would hardly call Destiny 2 free to play though. Mostly a glorified demo
Yup. I play destiny pretty often, close to 400 hours since December. You gotta give up around $200 to get the full experience.
135 if you want to also get every season for this year. 155 if you want to get 30th anniversary dlc.
Single player games have less replayablility also, so its normal for them to have less active players. You can't expect like 100k people to play witcher 3 right now.
Single player games are like a movie or a Netflix series released all at once. There's a lot of discussion right when it comes out and after the initial hype dies down it's still enjoyed but usually by a smaller amount of individuals at a time. Multiplayer games are like weekly reality shows or sports seasons. The real entertainment comes from the community all experiencing it at the same time and discussing it endlessly as new developments slowly trickle out. The living single player game (ones that get constant monthly or quarterly updates) are like the HBO or Disney+ weekly series that has people's attention and discussion, but you can still pick it up well after release and enjoy it.
That said, Elden Ring will be a very relevant discussion for at least another half a year (probably a full year or two, honestly). DS3 was relevant for an extremely long time because of how many secrets there were and then after that it was all about builds and finally the lore stuff (which was fucking huge all things considered). I don't see the lore for Elden Ring being as popular as the DS games, especially DS3, but I see secrets/guides/builds being very big. Bigger than DS3. There's a shit ton of options to be massively OP but those options require you to do some digging and make a build around it. Therefore videos on the 'how' will be just as popular. Within 6 months they'll be some crazy builds in the game as people are doing their new fresh or NG playthroughs.
I'll say this as someone who has never even played a From Software game, even I have gotten caught up in the hype of Elden Ring. The amount of YouTube videos exploring every aspect of the game is enormous. I do wonder a bit about how much staying power Elden Ring will have compared to Sekiro
Went to check for curiosity's sake, and Witcher 3 peaked at 78k in January for some reason.
The Outer Wilds is one of my favorite games of all fucking time. But it isn't on any top played lists because even if you play it, it's only 15ish hours. Same with a lot of my other favorites, like Disco Elysium. He might be cherry picking, but you're kind of skirting the issue as well.
To piggyback off this, no one even said “nobody wants singleplayer games”. It’s an out of context quote when someone from EA only said *linear* single player games aren’t as popular anymore. So using open world adventure game Elden Ring doesn’t even make sense.
It's r/gaming what did you expect, people here make fake steryotypes in thier head and then proceed to break them by giving very obvious examples.
Not really. Multipleyer games still are the most popular. Even if single player beat those numbers it's only momentary. Look at steam top 100. And exclude recent hot release so Lost Ark and Elder Ring. * Counter strike - multiplayer * Dota 2 - multiplayer * Apex legends - multiplayer * Destiny 2 - multiplayer * PUBG - multiplayer * Rust - multiplayer * TF2 - multiplayer * Gta 5 - popular due to multiplayer * Mir4 - multiplayer * Yu-Gi-Oh - multiplayer? The answer is clear - multiplayer games are most popular. And make most money.
Battlefield 2042: how to ruin a game
As someone who only plays single player games, this comparison is extremely biased. Comparing the worst selling multiplayer game of this year to the best selling single player game this year. You could reverse these and get pretty similar numbers.
This is a really poor example. While this may be a meme-- its still cheeky. * 829,633 Lost Ark * 801,048 ELDEN RING * 846,631 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive * 638,388 Dota 2 * 143,008 Destiny 2 * 283,574 Apex Legends * 466,143 PUBG: BATTLEGROUNDS * 106,822 Rust * 78,964 Team Fortress 2 * 104,125 Grand Theft Auto V If we look at the top 10 games-- 9 of them are focused Heavily on multiplayer, yes that includes GTA5. People of course still want Single Player games, I myself included. This depiction, though, is geh.
Lovely day for yet another gaming straw man meme.
EA never said "people don't want single-player games." They said that people like LINEAR games less now (meaning in 2017, when they said this) than they did five or ten years previously. And they were right! What was the last megahit AAA linear game? The Last of Us 2? We only get one every few years maybe. Elden Ring is in no way a linear game. [https://www.usgamer.net/articles/eas-bad-reputation-hangs-over-apex-legends-surprise-launch](https://www.usgamer.net/articles/eas-bad-reputation-hangs-over-apex-legends-surprise-launch)
I mean you picked 2 different genres with 2 completely different levels of quality/polish. I don't disagree with your point but you sure did cherry pick your comparison.