Boy, I sure enjoyed fetching paints and supplies for a troll!

... I mean, I actually did, since he was such a dumb and loveable creature, but... still.

Thank you for making my point for me.

Did it feel like busy work, or was it just a funny quest that took all of two minutes?

You're right, I said "none" when I should have said "very few" instead. The Witcher 3 is far from perfect, but calling its quest designs busywork isn't a criticism that it really deserves.

PC, Xbox, and PS4.

The Witcher didn't really interest me because of the apparent abundance of busy work quests. If Cyberpunk isn't like that I'll give it a shot.

Can you think of examples? The Witcher is almost universally praised because none of the quests feel like busy work. Sure, there are tons of them that aren't relevant to the main story, but all the quests have their own little stories, and more than most (any?) RPGs I've played, none of it feels like bullshit.

I've learned that your definition of busywork is probably far different from mine, though.

Boy, I sure enjoyed fetching paints and supplies for a troll!

... I mean, I actually did, since he was such a dumb and loveable creature, but... still.

Please god, don't let them push it to next gen. I can't wait that long for this

That definitely seems like a possibility, unfortunately.

I did just see an article on GameInformer, though:

CDPR Confirms Cyberpunk 2077 Targeting Current-Gen Consoles

That's no guarantee, though, obviously.

PC, Xbox, and PS4.

The Witcher didn't really interest me because of the apparent abundance of busy work quests. If Cyberpunk isn't like that I'll give it a shot.

Can you think of examples? The Witcher is almost universally praised because none of the quests feel like busy work. Sure, there are tons of them that aren't relevant to the main story, but all the quests have their own little stories, and more than most (any?) RPGs I've played, none of it feels like bullshit.

I've learned that your definition of busywork is probably far different from mine, though.

PC, Xbox, and PS4.

The Witcher didn't really interest me because of the apparent abundance of busy work quests. If Cyberpunk isn't like that I'll give it a shot.

And you already saw their stance on microtransactions.

My problem isn't that 343i changed their art, or that they're responding to what fans want. I'm glad they did, and I think it's great that they are willing to do so. My problem is maybe just one of semantics. Even that paragraph there is something I take some issue with. The narrative is that they fucked up. I just think that's a shitty way to put it. They didn't fuck up--they just made something some people didn't like (excluding the MCC at this point, because even I'll acknowledge they fucked that up). The narrative is now "343 fucked up, and we made them fix it" rather than "343 made changes we didn't like, and they listened to us to make it better." Is that effectively the same thing? I dunno, maybe.

I'm one of the people who think their art was awful and that these changes are a recognition of that fact. I get where you're at as far as how people are describing things. I'm one of them, obviously. While they may be effectively the same thing, I think that their reasons for changing might be a combination of both. They went a direction people didn't like, they refused to genuinely hear and accept feedback, they screwed up along the way, overall numbers and feedback did make them fix it, but I think there's now a genuine want of them to listen to reasonable feedback to make things better.

Also, in the past they've claimed to listen and have totally not done anything of the sort. I'm not the only one who feels this way. Thus, it's hard for people (including myself) to acknowledge that they have listened instead of thinking that they just realized that everything they do is horrible and that they've finally gotten wise.

I hope all that happens. I fully realize that all the folks complaining about Halo will probably have been the ones to bring about the change that makes it truly great again. Just like all the folks complaining about Destiny might be responsible for Forsaken, which looks incredible. I think healthy criticism is great and necessary. I just don't like the way all too many folks express that criticism, and think not liking something makes it automatically bad. I'm always willing to listen to people with actual criticism and points of discussion, but so much of what I see is just "That thing sucks! It used to be better!"

There's the opposite problem. There are the homers who refuse to acknowledge when a thing isn't working or can be improved upon, even when the people complaining aren't just saying "OMG IT SUCKS" or something similar. Great way of stifling discussion or progress. As far as Destiny goes, I don't have much to say that hasn't already been said (positive or negative). Frankly, I don't feel like D2 has anything to offer beyond Raid stuff and Crucible. I don't post as frequently because no one really needs to hear that, and I feel like a lot of people may even agree. Ideally, Bungie will get this next expansion right. I'm gonna wait and see before I drop cash on it.

If not, shouldn’t we judge what a game does or doesn’t do only once it is released?

Play Destiny and Titanfall 2. Then go back and play Halo. The weight and physicality of movement is severely diminished. Halo feels like you are floating across the ground, not running on it. But Halo also felt way better than anything before it.

Man, this must be some kind of record. I haven't seen you be correct about anything since Super Meat Boy > Limbo. Can't wait to see how long it lasts.

Well, I think I'll end up being right in 6 days… a prediction 3 years in the making.

https://destiny.bungie.org/forum/index.php?id=75334

Also note in that thread I was right about No Man's Sky.

4. Microtransactions?

In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?

Play Destiny and Titanfall 2. Then go back and play Halo. The weight and physicality of movement is severely diminished. Halo feels like you are floating across the ground, not running on it. But Halo also felt way better than anything before it.

Man, this must be some kind of record. I haven't seen you be correct about anything since Super Meat Boy > Limbo. Can't wait to see how long it lasts.

Play Destiny and Titanfall 2. Then go back and play Halo.

I haven't played TF2, but I've switched between Destiny and Halo plenty.

The weight and physicality of movement is severely diminished. Halo feels like you are floating across the ground, not running on it. But Halo also felt way better than anything before it.

While Halo's movement definitely comes across as slow and floaty when felt back-to-back with a game like Destiny, this isn't really a new thing. Halo has never been very punchily kinetic with its movement. Go back to 2001, and there were plenty of folks who noted that it felt sluggish and floaty after playing, say, Quake.

In terms of the comparison with games like Destiny, I also view this as being more of a loudness war thing than a real evolution in game quality. Halo feels excellent when I'm actually engaged in the game; it's only if I rapidly switch between it and Destiny side-by-side that Destiny feels "better."

And none of this invalidates the desire to build on the past anyway, because Destiny is a totally different game than Halo and doesn't scratch all of the same itches. Even if Destiny's movement is both better and applicable to a Halo-like experience, why not take that and apply it to a Halo-like experience? Why not take advantage of that nostalgia AND build a fresh experience that stands toe-to-toe with the new stuff? These things aren't mutually exclusive.

It's not easy. It's harder for newer games to be better, but when they are better they can be a lot better.

I guess I just mostly disagree. And it's not like it's just for stuff that I played back in the day and have nostalgia for; like, I tried the original Doom for the first time around 5 years ago, and I think it's easily one of the best first-person shooters I've ever played.

There are definitely tools in the developer's toolbox that they have today that they didn't have decades ago. Plenty of games today would never have been able to work the way they do, if they'd been made back then. But the toolbox was already expansive enough to do some things very very well, and not everything has had that much room for direct improvement; and some things haven't improved at all, because nobody has been trying to improve upon them.
There weren't a whole lot of good electric guitar riffs coming out of the 19th century, but some of those symphonies are still quite nice.

the way Halo felt, looked, and played is really a product of its time. Halo played and looked great, but there are games now that play and look better.

Play and look better at what? I've never played a game that's anywhere near as good at being Halo as Halo is. And while Halo does still exist and can be played, the possibilities in that style of game are hardly exhausted.

Play Destiny and Titanfall 2. Then go back and play Halo. The weight and physicality of movement is severely diminished. Halo feels like you are floating across the ground, not running on it. But Halo also felt way better than anything before it.

When you forge ahead you can create an experience for the ages. When you move back into nostalgia, you create an experience for the moment.

If you think it so easy for new games to strictly better old masterpieces, how is the "experience for the ages" any less ephemeral than that nostalgic experience for the moment?

It's not easy. It's harder for newer games to be better, but when they are better they can be a lot better.

the way Halo felt, looked, and played is really a product of its time. Halo played and looked great, but there are games now that play and look better.

Play and look better at what? I've never played a game that's anywhere near as good at being Halo as Halo is. And while Halo does still exist and can be played, the possibilities in that style of game are hardly exhausted.

When you forge ahead you can create an experience for the ages. When you move back into nostalgia, you create an experience for the moment.

If you think it so easy for new games to strictly better old masterpieces, how is the "experience for the ages" any less ephemeral than that nostalgic experience for the moment?