Games

16838 readers

568 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc..
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.

Comments.

No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works

Todd Howard says Bethesda is focused on finding ways to increase its output (www.videogameschronicle.com)

submitted 7 months ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Long development time per game is still a problem. It means they're less reactive to things in the industry like new innovations or what players actually want, it means that the people who finish a project are not the ones who started it, and it means that devs get burnt out working on fewer projects by the ends of their careers with less to show for it. I'm of the opinion that dev times need to work their way back to 3 years or so. Morrowind to Oblivion to Fallout 3 to Skyrim was such a better pace compared to what Bethesda put out since.

[–] slimerancher@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's a serious problem in AAA development these days. Hopefully they can find a way to improve it.

AI can probably help with it, not as a way to replace humans but to complement and help them get things faster.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Maybe, but I'd sooner expect the problem to be remedied by just making games smaller. Starfield had 1000 planets, but it would have been better off if it only had 5, and we know this because The Outer Worlds exists. Lots of other games are open world now that really shouldn't be and would have better off it they were just a list of missions that you could select from a menu.

[–] slimerancher@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I would actually like that. I have found that now I enjoy smaller games a lot more than big ones, but I don't see this happening any time soon. Publishers want you playing their games longer and longer, so that they can sell you cosmetics and other micro transactions. Also, when advertising, 1000 planets sounds more impactful than 5 planets.

Hopefully at least some of them will learn.