New Prey should have been named Psychoshock in following the traditions of Systemshock (shock to the systems), and then Bioshock (shock to the bio/biodome). In Prey you are constantly being put into shock in regards to your psyche, as even more evident at the very end of the game. Arkane has Harvey Smith, who worked on the original System shock and even Deus Ex with Warren Specter. You could say Arkane IS the spiritual successor to Looking Glass Studios, and this is why they emphasized the whole "Looking Glass" technologies in 'new' Prey. I'm actually happy Prey ended up the way it did, although I really did like the original Prey and wouldn't mind a direct sequel to that either.. I just think new Prey was such an awesome and needed game in this day in age.
Internally, a lot of people at Arkane were referring to the project as Typhon. But, it's funny how people associate the title Prey. They always think of the portals, or Tommy... when Prey 2 wasn't going to have portals. And Tommy was only a side character with minimal time in the whole game. From 3DR original concept, up through Human Head's game... the theme of the title... was that you were the prey, being hunted by an alien force. And, this is something carried across in the new game. Yes, I do feel it could've/should've been called something else. But, I don't have any problems with it being called Prey. And, people from Human Head have said they love the game, and felt it does capture the hunter/prey dynamic very well. But, even so, I'm glad they didn't try to title it something with "Shock" in the title. I think Typhon would've been the right way to go, but, the game's themes run through on their own. You can clearly see where the inspiration comes from. It doesn't need to be ham-fisted into the title to get people to realize it.
I was just saying that in terms of what they were going for and how the game did fall in line with the other "shocks", this game could have easily been called Psychoshock. If it did get that name it would have probably had a lot of expectancy to be a lot more like Bioshock or follow that story somehow, so I completely understand why it was not named that. In the same vein, I don't think naming it Prey was also the best idea because of the other expectancy that was caused with that name. Either way, it's one of the best games that came out that year.
He makes a lot of Fallout 4 lore videos. I've watched quite a few of them and they're pretty good. I'm not surprised that Ox is promoting the game as his channel is highly dependent on it. What he basically says is that those who like Fallout 4 would like Fallout 76. However, even though I'm a huge FO4 fan I'm not excited about 76 at all. Even Ox's own videos shows that many of the same game-breaking bugs that affected FO4 still plague FO76. The game footage I've seen also seems to indicate that the game is too easy, even for enemies with skulls (FO4's survival mode has kind of spoiled me). I dunno, I might consider it if there is huge sale on it, but I have little interest right now.
https://www.pcgamer.com/fallout-76-players-launch-3-nukes-at-once-crash-server/ Fallout 76 players launch 3 nukes at once, crash server
Same, it's not for everyone but as usual, all the youtube 'reviewers' have jumped on slamming it for clicks and round and round we go. Most of the anger is purely because it is an MP game and many people feel this is not in keeping with Fallout's single player history. It's nowhere near as bad as some people are making it out to be imho but I would agree that it does have some issues, and hopefully, Bethesda will commit to improving it. Keep in mind the ESO was an atrocious dumpster fire when it released but I would argue it is easily the best MMO out there these days.
If that event was enough to crash a server, then that is just... This really seems like one of the easier things to check during QA. How many simultaneous nukes + effects, can the server handle etc. I'm actually a bit flabbergasted on the idea of end game content being; Launch Nukes -> Have fun with the fallout, but hope the engine / server can handle the effects thereof.
Really seems obvious that Bethesda farmed this out to the new Austin studio, and that studio just wasn't up to the task. I get that Bethesda is working on Starfield... but, if you're going to push your new game onto a studio... maybe, you should make sure that studio is up the task before so. Saying in interviews that you had to bring in other studios to help... doesn't make things look better. It's just a glaring warning sign that something is wrong.
oxhorn the few videos i have watched the guy seems like a lore guy. fallout 76 barely has any lore for him to cover, and some of it is outright contradictory. Not sure why he is backing 76 at all as a lore guy.
I honestly believe that a lot of the bugs that are still present in FO76 that were present in previous Fallout games using this same engine can only be explained by saying the developers are incompetent, or have no interest in fixing them at all.
They're invested in this engine, in both time and training. It's also likely that any new engine would need serious work (i.e., time and money) to get to a point where they could use it to build their games. It's simpler and cheaper in the short term to just keep Frankensteining this Gamebryo/Creation engine monstrosity, and nothing will change that unless their games start to sell badly. I get why they stick with this engine. I just wish they would actually move forward. I want an Elder Scrolls game that can compete with Witcher 3 for atmosphere (Or any other recent open world game). I don't believe or get immersed by a "capital city" that only has a dozen people in it. But I suppose Todd Howard actually believes the sentence " It just works " which he says at just about any chance he gets. Spoiler: Todd Howard it just works
If they're invested, then why don't they fix it? You should care about the things you're invested in.
I agree. But I'd guess, complacency? They don't consider it an issue? Their games still sell well enough for them to keep doing it? Recreating their assets in something new is too much of a bother? I can keep guessing, but that is all I can do.
Ladies, it's very simple: 1) Stop pre-ordering 2) Don't buy a released game until it's been across at least two dozen reptuable review sites/channels -- and If it's even remotely crap, don't buy it. Until the above happens, studios will be tempted to release crap because... people keep buying it. Therefore there's no incentive to do anything else. They simply respond to market demand. The change starts with you, and I, and every other gamer. If you want quality games, stop buying them unless they're mind-blowingly procreating incredible. This will set the bar for studios to achieve sales. If you as the customer do anything else, you get what you deserve. You buy crap games, they'll continue to make crap games. Spread the word.
It's likely that they cannot fix the issues without a complete remake - things like physics being tied to FPS are likely a core part of the engine. Console gamers also probably care less about these things and/or are used to them, and they are their largest audience. We PC gamers may find it intolerable but we're the minority (and as PC hardware gets more and more expensive, we will remain the minority). What I find puzzling is the things that they CAN address but won't, like FOV and push-to-talk. Bethesda seems really stubborn in this way, forcing gamers to play using their guidelines as opposed to how gamers actually want to play. Other issues, like getting stuck in animation or stuck in terrain, is just lazy programming.
Lol what a pos. And that guy has the nerve to say all that is even bigger bs. Wouldn't buy this even if it was 5$
