-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
PC Gaming Era | September 2018 - Queenie can’t save your wallet now
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
- Status
I own it. It's on the Windows Store... or at least it was. It seems like they may have removed it?? huh..
^EDIT: Huh I went and searched for it but didn't find anything. Did they remove it or make it region specific?
Well I got 4 Windows Store games on Steam, I'll wait for it :V
Hmm
Well I got 4 Windows Store games on Steam, I'll wait for it :V
Hello.For the first time in my life I have a build made of "recent" components.
It is modest, but I worked my asshole off to have it.
Still needing/wanting some upgrades like RAM and a bigger HDD, but it is here and is functional and that is all I could ask for atm.
Did you build it yourself? That's a fun little exercise if you've never done it before.
Yeah, looks like I has been removed, has no price anymore
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/deus-ex-go/9nh49pj27xw4
DX12 seems to be in. Win10 and DX12 GPUs are recommended as per the system requirements that were recently added to the store page.
More to the point, many if not most of Valve's high-profile departures over the past few years have been veterans or otherwise older employees either retiring or making the transition to retirement. John Cook, Marc Laidlaw, Erik Wolpaw, etc.
Last edited:
Ken Birdwell. :(
Is Woplaw definitely retired? I was trying to find out what he's up to lately since Jay Pinkerton came back. I know he's working on Psyconauts in some capacity.
And many more cool adventure games such as Blackwell series and the recent Unavowed.
Absolutely. Most companies do. It's a known entity vs risking someone brand new. Your previous reviews are open to the new hiring manager and they don't have to worry if you will be a good culture fit or not. MS even continues your tenure benefits when you return. For example after a certain amount of years you get more vacation, etc; upon returning your tenure is not reset but added on to.
Someone in the PnC thread linked to this podcast that focus on PnC Adventure games, gonna give it a listen later myself
https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-s68hu-93caf6
https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-s68hu-93caf6
He joked that he was going to "work at [his] niece's juice shop" and, IIRC, later clarified he was indeed joking and has no plans. Assuming he was born in 1967 as the internet says he was, that'd mean he would have at least been pushing 50 when he left Valve early last year.
man i'm now in the geforce now beta... this is pretty darn good even with my subpar connection. Pleasantly surprised.
Here's hoping that the implementation is at least a bit more robust this time. Like for example it would be nice if the game didn't always crash on the final cutscene on the DX12 path.
50 is still young these days. I know quite a few people who are in their 50s still working full time in gaming, usually in production roles. It's tough to retire that early in the US especially in gaming.
From my experience older people tend to leave for a variety of reasons including financial cushion, other income streams kicking in and overall living stability, not agreeing with overall direction, bored and ready for something new, family stage (ie kids off to college, need to move to support older family) etc. so you can only really speculate and watch what they do.
It's standard for everyone to say they have no plans as well. The industry can be very immature about people choosing to move on. Most people when they send out their farewell emails will say they are taking a break, spending time with family, friends,etc. A few months later you will find out they are in fact working on something or employed elsewhere.
Say the wrong thing at tech or gaming companies when you give notice and you can be escorted out by security that day. Most would rather avoid the potential drama.
Hey Durante , what is the name of the dungeon or quest or whatever from that Planescape dialogue picture you posted?
I want to look up its quest progression.
I've got this design theory on dialogue selection as gameplay that is...well...you could probably tell me:
That particular dialogue selection looks like the culmination of a sequence wherein you learn the history of some traumatic event from a variety of perspectives, then you get to pick how the different groups are judged. My guess is that upon choosing, you are presented with an outcome.
Do these outcomes occur exclusively from the following list:
1) Resolves in text, resolves quest, mentioned choice in ending
2) Resolves in text, resolves quest, gives player stat/ability
3) Resolves in fight, resolves quest
4) Resolves in fight or text, affects NPC behaviour within select area
5) Resolves in fight or text, affects companion behaviour within localized context
I want to look up its quest progression.
I've got this design theory on dialogue selection as gameplay that is...well...you could probably tell me:
That particular dialogue selection looks like the culmination of a sequence wherein you learn the history of some traumatic event from a variety of perspectives, then you get to pick how the different groups are judged. My guess is that upon choosing, you are presented with an outcome.
Do these outcomes occur exclusively from the following list:
1) Resolves in text, resolves quest, mentioned choice in ending
2) Resolves in text, resolves quest, gives player stat/ability
3) Resolves in fight, resolves quest
4) Resolves in fight or text, affects NPC behaviour within select area
5) Resolves in fight or text, affects companion behaviour within localized context
That area is called the Maze of Reflections, in the Fortress of Regrets. It's very close to the endgame (I believe it's the second-last screen.) You're talking to what are essentially your past lives, each of which did things that you encountered in your current life.
Oh, sure, but his age when combined with his long tenure at Valve, the post-Valve chapter of his life being a blank page he'd yet to even doodle on, and the fact he hasn't reappeared in the industry (or indeed anywhere else) in the ~18 months since paints a rather clear picture. He may pop up somewhere in the future, of course, but it's safe to say his days of working full time are behind him.
Do the dialogue selections change based on things you have done in earlier quests?
Or is it more a matter of, the earlier quests gave you perspectives (depending on how or how thoroughly you resolved them) and then you use that information to choose how you want the game to be resolved from a static pool of choices.
Last edited:
Probably discounting the main game to entice people to buy it and the new DLC.
I believe it's not so much changed, but are added. If you obtained certain information or a skill, that becomes an option in the dialogue.
That screenshot is from Durlag's Tower, which is a (huge) extra (but completely optional) dungeon added to BG1 in the Tales of the Sword Coast expansion.
It has been a rather long time, but I think it was like this: through various environment hints, items, and dialog (i.e. with other golems) you learn the history and the reasons for the creation (and ultimate downfall) of the tower. That dialog choice then asks you to consider what you learned, and think about it from Durlag's perspective. I believe there is actually just 1 "correct" choice which will resolve the challenge without a fight and let you continue on. So it's actually not particularly involved from a gameplay design perspective in that case -- it's "just" a basic puzzle, only it's based on checking your understanding of events and characters rather than, say, moving a few boxes around :P
There's one other option I considered posting. That one is actually from Planescape, and very different in its design:
That one has more varied choices, without a single "correct" option, but in this case many of them are subtle or don't have a gameplay impact at all (if you only conceive gameplay as the stuff that happens with stats and items and enemies and rewards and so on). When we originally had this discussion back on NeoGAF, it was about the design impact of the dialogue wheel (which was seen as this new dumbed down system, not the good old thing we want to return to -- go figure), and Shake Appeal made a pretty solid series of posts. It boiled down to this, regarding the above:
That screenshot is from Durlag's Tower, which is a (huge) extra (but completely optional) dungeon added to BG1 in the Tales of the Sword Coast expansion.
It has been a rather long time, but I think it was like this: through various environment hints, items, and dialog (i.e. with other golems) you learn the history and the reasons for the creation (and ultimate downfall) of the tower. That dialog choice then asks you to consider what you learned, and think about it from Durlag's perspective. I believe there is actually just 1 "correct" choice which will resolve the challenge without a fight and let you continue on. So it's actually not particularly involved from a gameplay design perspective in that case -- it's "just" a basic puzzle, only it's based on checking your understanding of events and characters rather than, say, moving a few boxes around :P
There's one other option I considered posting. That one is actually from Planescape, and very different in its design:
That one has more varied choices, without a single "correct" option, but in this case many of them are subtle or don't have a gameplay impact at all (if you only conceive gameplay as the stuff that happens with stats and items and enemies and rewards and so on). When we originally had this discussion back on NeoGAF, it was about the design impact of the dialogue wheel (which was seen as this new dumbed down system, not the good old thing we want to return to -- go figure), and Shake Appeal made a pretty solid series of posts. It boiled down to this, regarding the above:
Yeah, so, this has been my specific issue with dialogue choices as "gameplay" for a long time.
Right off the bat, you're interacting with a system of quaternary, septenary, whatever, but they are still discrete choices that are dictated through vagueries of language. You're never solving anything within a given ruleset because the ruleset is non-existent. By the very nature of language and storytelling, the designer is often looking to surprise (or consistently has the option and motivation to "surprise"), which leads to consistently inconsistent rule states.
This probably comes across like a bunch of word salad, so I'll try to use examples to clarify:
In a standard game system, the rules of interactivity and "success" are often explicitly stated and then reinforced through feedback. When the user press the mouse button when the cursor is over top the monster's head, the head takes damage. The user learns that that is a path towards success within the analogue space of (monster head size vs. movement vs. mouse movement vs. gun vs. etc). These are discrete rule states that have a determined outcome. The designer may try to surprise the user by having monster #2 explode into a rage when shot in the head, so the user can then learn to identify based on the shape/colour/whatever of a monster to know whether to shoot it in the head or not to achieve the maximal success state.
With dialogue options in a story-based game, there is no probably way for the user to test outcomes. There is "learning" insomuch as gathering information before making choices, but the user can't test and analyze outcomes because options can't be re-taken or re-answered.
Secondly, due to the nature of language, vagueries always will exist. It falls on a priori knowledge and capability COMBINED with the perceived knowledge and capability of the designer/writer to create rule-set-compatible choices.
Too often, even high quality, "interesting" choices look like this:
The user learns red choice = X, yellow choice = Y, blue choice = Z
Then they are presented with the choice between aquamarine, orange, indigo, pale green, and brown
Now, many people like this because it more generally reflects "real life"...as we never really know how a human will react to anything, even if we can statistically measure probable outcomes.
So often this is used (abused?) by designers to drive home some point.
Ex: Encounter a town of red lizard people. Their society has no laws of ownership, they just use anything and everything of each others'. Go to different town full of dark dwarves, big trial, immigrant red lizard is on trial for stealing. As the jesus outsider, you are picked to be the independent judge.
A) Red Lizard guilty of crime, but actually innocent as he didn't know any better
B) Red Lizard guilty of crime, and morally wrong as he should act in the laws of the society he's in
C) Red Lizard innocent as breaking an unknown law doesn't make someone morally culpable and his own society trained him not to think of resources as having ownership.
D) Red Lizard innocent as all groups should not have possession laws
You make your choice, then you find out that the Red Lizard government was running low on resources and desperate so they trained up infiltrators to go out and steal from other societies to maintain their living state.
But then you find out that the Lizard infiltrators were picked at birth, so they knew nothing but their training!
Then you find out that any Lizard infiltrators that are caught by outsiders are denied by the Lizard government to maintain plausible deniability, so even if freed, will never be able to live in their home state again!
Then you find out that the Lizard government was only lacking resources because the 1% were wastefully hording their necessary resources!
So DAMN, either you have put an innocent Lizard to death or released a despicable spy!
It's a false choice. You are making a gameplay decision without knowledge of outcome and no way to test it beforehand.
I mean, I guess I don't see the issue. Actually, the scenario you outline sounds like a game I want to play.
I've always considered systems subservient to the experience in RPGs -- and if someone purposefully constructs dialogue in such a way as to subvert my expectations, and does it well, then that can actually be great.
It's not a false choice because you have incomplete information. Dealing with incomplete information and making choices based on it is perfectly fine. Looking beyond dialogue and RPGs, it's actually the basic principle of many strategy games.
I've always considered systems subservient to the experience in RPGs -- and if someone purposefully constructs dialogue in such a way as to subvert my expectations, and does it well, then that can actually be great.
It's not a false choice because you have incomplete information. Dealing with incomplete information and making choices based on it is perfectly fine. Looking beyond dialogue and RPGs, it's actually the basic principle of many strategy games.
Plus, that's what replays are for.
(We need more short but wide RPGs, like Age of Decadence)
Thanks for reminding me one of my worst video game purchase ever. I bought it at launch ffs, and I couldn't even push myself to continue playing.
Freaking ERA and their hype culture, I absolutely fell for it.
Today I learned that if you set privacy settings to "Friends can request to watch my games" in your broadcasting options, then nobody (including your friends) would be able to watch your streams on Steam. I had to temporarily switch my settings to "Everyone can watch my game" in order to make it work. Also, the broadcast seems to support only 30 FPS and kinda botched my performance at 1080p quality, but at least I know it's possible to steam with music playing on the background and viewers would hear it.
On the other side, some of my friends now know my musical tastes and I'm kinda ashamed of this, I'm not sure I'll ever stream anything again, especially with this streaming thing working only while being open to everyone.
On the other side, some of my friends now know my musical tastes and I'm kinda ashamed of this, I'm not sure I'll ever stream anything again, especially with this streaming thing working only while being open to everyone.
I guess modern take would be an animated choice wheel with one option inside it. Something like this:There's one other option I considered posting. That one is actually from Planescape, and very different in its design:
I guess because it feels like less like a game and more like a series of "things happening".
And yeah, it is a false choice.
If any option can have literally the opposite expected outcome (or it may not!) then it is a choice based on nothing.
It's like picking your class at the beginning of an RPG; you can like that you get to pick probable laser bolts vs huge sword, but you have no information as to what that will actually mean for strategic or reactive play. Being a laser man could mean that you are a glass cannon or it could mean that you are a laser-armor defensive powerhouse. Pick what you want the next 50 hours to be!
It's bad game design.
A real world example: In Shadowrun Dragonfall, upon leveling up, I was given the choice of picking an "Etiquette". This, presumably, would offer me the ability to enhance or bypass my way through a situation. In actuality, Etiquettes are basically keys - they unlock situational doors to bypass combat or puzzles.
What am I choosing here? Corporate, Shadowrunner, Academic, Socialite, or Gang. These literally could have been named A, B, C, D, and E, as the specificity of the choice doesn't matter. While having a Corporate Etiquette presumably would help me in a dungeon that is set in an office building, that isn't actually the case. I'm not relying on my forethought of what the situational outcome may be, I'm relying on my presumption of what the designer might do. I'm hoping that the designer is going balance out all of the etiquettes equally so that I get as much bypassing no matter what I choose, but of course, that's not actually what happens.
To put it more succinctly: it doesn't matter what I choose, it only matters what situations the designer puts down the road.
I am granted the choice of a key off the key ring, boy I hope the designer puts a lock that fits it down the road.
So as "flavor" it's cute that after I kill enough people, my character can then be very very Posh (whereas before all that killing, he was only able to be business-savvy), but as game design, it's a terrible false choice.
And yeah, it is a false choice.
If any option can have literally the opposite expected outcome (or it may not!) then it is a choice based on nothing.
It's like picking your class at the beginning of an RPG; you can like that you get to pick probable laser bolts vs huge sword, but you have no information as to what that will actually mean for strategic or reactive play. Being a laser man could mean that you are a glass cannon or it could mean that you are a laser-armor defensive powerhouse. Pick what you want the next 50 hours to be!
It's bad game design.
A real world example: In Shadowrun Dragonfall, upon leveling up, I was given the choice of picking an "Etiquette". This, presumably, would offer me the ability to enhance or bypass my way through a situation. In actuality, Etiquettes are basically keys - they unlock situational doors to bypass combat or puzzles.
What am I choosing here? Corporate, Shadowrunner, Academic, Socialite, or Gang. These literally could have been named A, B, C, D, and E, as the specificity of the choice doesn't matter. While having a Corporate Etiquette presumably would help me in a dungeon that is set in an office building, that isn't actually the case. I'm not relying on my forethought of what the situational outcome may be, I'm relying on my presumption of what the designer might do. I'm hoping that the designer is going balance out all of the etiquettes equally so that I get as much bypassing no matter what I choose, but of course, that's not actually what happens.
To put it more succinctly: it doesn't matter what I choose, it only matters what situations the designer puts down the road.
I am granted the choice of a key off the key ring, boy I hope the designer puts a lock that fits it down the road.
So as "flavor" it's cute that after I kill enough people, my character can then be very very Posh (whereas before all that killing, he was only able to be business-savvy), but as game design, it's a terrible false choice.
but tomorrow is the holidayBack to work tomorrow, goodbye holidays...
edit: or non US?
That's such a bad way to think about it. How can you ever immerse yourself in any game, let alone a role playing game? The etiquette is meant to represent your character, and his or her field of expertise. A character with a high charisma value (which you can level up), could even have half a dozen by the end of the game, but that's the exception to the rule, most of you character won't have more than one or two. They are meant to be roleplayed, and since this is a video game, it only gives you rare situational advantages.
It's also not random, the Shadowrunner option will only help you in situations where the knowledge of Shadowrunner "etiquette" makes sense. I have seen the Corporate etiquette used most often in office building, or at least in interactions with corporate types. Maybe Dragonfall wasn't very good at using all etiquettes equally, that would be bad design, I agree.
It's perhaps not optimal from a game systems viewpoint, but that's not the point. You choose who you are, and the game tries to reflect that.
Teeth
You are still just thinking in systems, which, again, are not inherently more important than the player experience. You make choices while building your character in Shadowrun to better reflect who you want that character to be. That's roleplaying. Good design is then to make most reasonable choices as relevant as possible in the game.
Ultimately, I guess we'll never agree on this. You seem to maintain that systemic importance of choices is only thing that counts; and I absolutely do not support such a stance in any way, shape or form in RPGs -- the dialogue from PST I posted above is basically the peak of the genre for me.
A philosophy of game design that cannot result in the actual best game in the genre must be utterly faulty.
You are still just thinking in systems, which, again, are not inherently more important than the player experience. You make choices while building your character in Shadowrun to better reflect who you want that character to be. That's roleplaying. Good design is then to make most reasonable choices as relevant as possible in the game.
Ultimately, I guess we'll never agree on this. You seem to maintain that systemic importance of choices is only thing that counts; and I absolutely do not support such a stance in any way, shape or form in RPGs -- the dialogue from PST I posted above is basically the peak of the genre for me.
A philosophy of game design that cannot result in the actual best game in the genre must be utterly faulty.
- Status