From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
Starfield only getting one nomination--and in a category it has no chance of winning--is not at all what I would have expected going into this year.
I don't know if that speaks to how nuts this year has been for new releases or to how much Starfield fell short, in light of the fact that its player counts on Steam are starting to fall below Skyrim.
I don't think starfield does anything worth giving it an award for. You should give awards to things that do something unique or took a risk. Starfield is a very safe game that didn't really do anything unique or risky. They just made Skyrim in space.
Us space sim types would tell you it took a few steps back as far as genre standards go. And I wasn't even expecting much on that side of it.
The space elements were a big part of the marketing. I knew better than to expect atmospheric flight or anything but simple space combat, but intra-system travel being only done in menus and the space sections being put in small lightboxes with planet renderings was rather shocking. That's 20th-century stuff. It's especially bizarre given how much of the Bethesda magic has leaned on roads in the past, and there aren't any roads outside of cities. Even the cargo runs are 100% in menus, without talking to a single person.
I agree, I don't think it's a space sim and I don't think fallout or Skyrim in space is unique.
Skyrim isn't full of unskippable cut scenes.
Starfield player counts will go way up once the modkit is released. Every single one of those people playing Skyrim on Steam have modded it out the wazoo.
They might go up but I'd be surprised it will rival Skyrim. I'm a Skyrim fan, yet I'm not enticed to play Starfield for reasons beyond me. It feels like it's lacking something and I can't put my finger on it. I don't believe mods would make much of a difference, but who knows, maybe I'm wrong.
I modded Skyrim (and Oblivion) because the vanilla game was exciting already, in spite of its flaws. I couldn't be bothered otherwise.
For me, it's the vast expanses of procedurally generated nothingness in Starfield that turns me off the most, especially combined with the menu-based fast travel heavy way you get around.
The magic of Bethesda games comes from their handcrafted open worlds, always full of things to see and explore and get sidetracked by. Its the feeling that kicks in when the horizon first opens up after you exit the sewer/vault/customs office and you realize that you can just pick a direction and start walking and you'll come across something interesting.
Starfield doesn't do that. You can't just pick a direction and go, it's all fast travel. And if you're down on a planet you can, but there is no magic to be found because it's all procedurally generated emptiness between copy-pasted points of interest.
In their ambitions to have a bigger scope than ever they sacrificed the very thing that made their games so compelling to begin with.
And if you're down on a planet you can, but there is no magic to be found because it's all procedurally generated emptiness between copy-pasted points of interest.
I think the perfect example of this are the caves that show up sometimes.
First time I found one, I thought "neat, I wonder what's in there." So I go exploring and find out that... nothing. Nothing is in there. It's just an empty cave. So I find a second one, hoping that was a fluke and again... nothing.
The procedurally generated content is severely lacking in a reason for even existing.Nothing is worth exploring in Starfield because there's just nothing there.
This is exactly my thought. In Skyrim, every tree stump looked like it had the benefit of a beauty pass by an artist. In Starfield, it's very clear that most of the ground was never looked at before I got there, and there's no reason for me to look at it now
Depth is what Starfield is lacking, imo. It fixes a lot of what both skyrim and f4 did wrong (there're backgrounds, they affect your skills, and they come up from time to time, to mention one), but they regressed so hard on other things. They tried new stuff but the delivery was so limp dicked that everything landed awkwardly, or not at all. Think the game suffered because of scope creep, honestly, if they had limited the game to just a handful of planets, they could've tailored the experience and they wouldn't feel so empty.
And as always, their obsession to let you do everything in one playthrough hurt the game hard. There's very little reason to go for a second playthrough.
Like, they did a good job with most of the game's mechanics, but everything else is mid as hell. Very forgettable.
Frankly Starfield didn't even deserve the nomination. It didn't do anything unique or deserving of merit beyond just existing. I tried it, and while it has some interesting parts it's just shallow and bland. The lore had huge potential but got Swiss-cheesed by the game mechanics and wasn't developed at all - in what was supposed to be a Bethesda RPG. They need to yeet Todd and bring back the Obsidian folks.
If BG3 doesn't win the game of the year, someone paid someone off, lol
If tears of the kingdom doesn't win game of the year, then the show is rigged from the start, rofl.
Jk of course, I just like the conspiracy theories of these things.
I don't know about Game Of The Year. But Zelda definitely deserves a few catagories under it's belt.
My money is on BG3 for Goty. It addressed a ton of the complaints there had been circulating about modern games for the last 10 years.
I only played totk and wonder at the moment but I think every entry on the list would be justified to win it. With the amount of great games we had this year, it's already impressive to be on the list.
Here's to who ever you're rooting for to win!
Dave the Diver is developed by Mintrocket. Mintrocket is not an indie company, it is not acquired by Nexon, it's actually a sub-brand / division by Nexon. It is a sub-division of a giant company.
There are many indie devs that rely on being nominated to Indie category awards, for exposure, for the ability to stay afloat in business. What Dave the Diver is doing, is to take over a slot that might be the make / break event for smaller indie companies.
Think about the reason why there are specialized bundles for indie games, why people retweet / share info for indie exposure.
Dave the Diver should be competing in other categories, just not in indies.
Also Nexon is scummy kinda like EA of Korea, shutting down games abruptly, fined for loot box exploitations, they have market cap of $17B.
Excerpt from an interview with the devs: https://www.gameple.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=207557
Q. '데이브 더 다이버'가 순수하게 개발로만 흥행한 것인지에 대해 의문이 있다. 한 인디 개발자들은 넥슨이 인디 시장까지 침범하는 것이 맞는가? 하는 목소리도 있다. 그에 대한 짧은 소감을 부탁한다.
Q. There are questions as to whether ‘Dave the Diver’ was a success purely due to development. One indie developer said, “Is it true that Nexon is invading the indie market?” There are also voices saying: Please give your brief thoughts about it.
황재호: 딱 잘라 말하면 우리 게임은 인디 게임이 아니다. 인디는 우리보다 더 적은 리소스에서 더 힘들게 개발하는 개발자들을 존경한다. 해외에서 GJA 인디게임 후보에 올라간 것이 있다. 해외에서 보는 정의가 조금 다른 것 같다. 넥슨의 압도적인 지원을 받는 것과는 다르게, 우리에게 자율권을 준 것이다.
Jaeho Hwang: To put it simply, our game is not an indie game. Indie respects developers who work harder and with fewer resources than we do. There is a GJA indie game candidate from overseas. It seems that the definition seen overseas is a little different. Unlike receiving overwhelming support from Nexon, they gave us autonomy.
While I agree at heart, the term indie sucks for this reason exactly. It fits the definition and most indie games you'd find wouldn't actually fit the definition.
I'm shocked that RE4 got a GotY nomination. I thought there were rules against remakes or remasters getting Game Awards nominations; am I wrong, or did that change at some point?
Honestly, there should be weight classes for awards like this. Best game under $20 full price or over $50 for each category. Sure, BG3 is a masterpiece, but it also had $100 million investor cash up front. Comparing the score from BG3 to whatever Danny B is working on right now isn't a fair comparison, and my dude deserves more awards