▲ 195 ▼ Marvel's Wolverine motorcycle section and quicktime events are getting the wrong kind of attention because "the game plays itself" and "you don't have to press anything" (www.gamesradar.com) submitted 2 weeks ago by Mustachius_Grumpius@thelemmy.club to c/technology@lemmy.world 69 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (5 children) The game doesn't seem to be getting very many good reviews. permalink fedilink source hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 53 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children) "Offensively mid", the result of corporate rot of MBAs who don't play or understand games tgladmaxxing every game into samey mediocrity. It's a widespread cultural phenomenon. We've promoted finance people into postions of power instead of product people and the results are as obvious as they were predictable. A game for everyone is a game for noone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago I miss the days when people like Reggie Fils-Aime, Satoru Iwata (RIP), Gunpei Yokoi, and hell, even early Phil Spencer were in charge of the gaming conpanies they led. It only makes sense that a certified gamer or game developer should be put in charge of a GAMING company. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jtrek@startrek.website 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) Capitalism. The people making decisions aren't the people doing the work. The people keeping the profits (and thus the power) aren't the people doing the work. I'm confident that a lot of the stuff that's unpopular in games was put there because some ghoul thought it would be profitable, and the actual workers didn't want to do it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) I find "capitalism" an incomplete solution to this problem. Hollywood and the gaming industry used to understand how hits worked: most stuff would just about break even, some things would flop, and some small fraction of things would hit it absolutely out of the park. Understanding that, they put people in charge who understand media and understood how people reacted to media. But then something changed. People started being put in charge who understood business and finance, but not the media they ran, they didn't understand how people related to the media, and they didn't understand the diversified ecosystem necessary for making an occassional hit. Instead, they think everything has to be a big hit, everything has to be a guaranteed return on investment. How do you guarantee a hit? Pack it with everything everyone loves, get rid of anything some people don't like, and spend a TON of money on it. The media landscape, be it games, movies, or TV, is absolutely littered with very expensive products that take no risks and, because they take no risks, have nothing unique to offer; meanwhile, mid-budgets products have disappeared, leaving only indie keeping the arts alive in competition with shovelware and reality shows. I am invoking something other than capitalism, some undiscovered financial-anthropological principle, because this entire corporate media edifice is coming crashing down, something that as antithetical to captialism--they are losing money, they KEEP losing money, yet they KEEP DOING THE SAME THING. permalink fedilink source parent [–] architect@thelemmy.club 1 point 2 weeks ago* That ghoul was Epstein, just by the way. No this is not a joke. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 53 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children) "Offensively mid", the result of corporate rot of MBAs who don't play or understand games tgladmaxxing every game into samey mediocrity. It's a widespread cultural phenomenon. We've promoted finance people into postions of power instead of product people and the results are as obvious as they were predictable. A game for everyone is a game for noone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago I miss the days when people like Reggie Fils-Aime, Satoru Iwata (RIP), Gunpei Yokoi, and hell, even early Phil Spencer were in charge of the gaming conpanies they led. It only makes sense that a certified gamer or game developer should be put in charge of a GAMING company. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jtrek@startrek.website 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) Capitalism. The people making decisions aren't the people doing the work. The people keeping the profits (and thus the power) aren't the people doing the work. I'm confident that a lot of the stuff that's unpopular in games was put there because some ghoul thought it would be profitable, and the actual workers didn't want to do it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) I find "capitalism" an incomplete solution to this problem. Hollywood and the gaming industry used to understand how hits worked: most stuff would just about break even, some things would flop, and some small fraction of things would hit it absolutely out of the park. Understanding that, they put people in charge who understand media and understood how people reacted to media. But then something changed. People started being put in charge who understood business and finance, but not the media they ran, they didn't understand how people related to the media, and they didn't understand the diversified ecosystem necessary for making an occassional hit. Instead, they think everything has to be a big hit, everything has to be a guaranteed return on investment. How do you guarantee a hit? Pack it with everything everyone loves, get rid of anything some people don't like, and spend a TON of money on it. The media landscape, be it games, movies, or TV, is absolutely littered with very expensive products that take no risks and, because they take no risks, have nothing unique to offer; meanwhile, mid-budgets products have disappeared, leaving only indie keeping the arts alive in competition with shovelware and reality shows. I am invoking something other than capitalism, some undiscovered financial-anthropological principle, because this entire corporate media edifice is coming crashing down, something that as antithetical to captialism--they are losing money, they KEEP losing money, yet they KEEP DOING THE SAME THING. permalink fedilink source parent [–] architect@thelemmy.club 1 point 2 weeks ago* That ghoul was Epstein, just by the way. No this is not a joke. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago I miss the days when people like Reggie Fils-Aime, Satoru Iwata (RIP), Gunpei Yokoi, and hell, even early Phil Spencer were in charge of the gaming conpanies they led. It only makes sense that a certified gamer or game developer should be put in charge of a GAMING company. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jtrek@startrek.website 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children) Capitalism. The people making decisions aren't the people doing the work. The people keeping the profits (and thus the power) aren't the people doing the work. I'm confident that a lot of the stuff that's unpopular in games was put there because some ghoul thought it would be profitable, and the actual workers didn't want to do it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) I find "capitalism" an incomplete solution to this problem. Hollywood and the gaming industry used to understand how hits worked: most stuff would just about break even, some things would flop, and some small fraction of things would hit it absolutely out of the park. Understanding that, they put people in charge who understand media and understood how people reacted to media. But then something changed. People started being put in charge who understood business and finance, but not the media they ran, they didn't understand how people related to the media, and they didn't understand the diversified ecosystem necessary for making an occassional hit. Instead, they think everything has to be a big hit, everything has to be a guaranteed return on investment. How do you guarantee a hit? Pack it with everything everyone loves, get rid of anything some people don't like, and spend a TON of money on it. The media landscape, be it games, movies, or TV, is absolutely littered with very expensive products that take no risks and, because they take no risks, have nothing unique to offer; meanwhile, mid-budgets products have disappeared, leaving only indie keeping the arts alive in competition with shovelware and reality shows. I am invoking something other than capitalism, some undiscovered financial-anthropological principle, because this entire corporate media edifice is coming crashing down, something that as antithetical to captialism--they are losing money, they KEEP losing money, yet they KEEP DOING THE SAME THING. permalink fedilink source parent [–] architect@thelemmy.club 1 point 2 weeks ago* That ghoul was Epstein, just by the way. No this is not a joke. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) I find "capitalism" an incomplete solution to this problem. Hollywood and the gaming industry used to understand how hits worked: most stuff would just about break even, some things would flop, and some small fraction of things would hit it absolutely out of the park. Understanding that, they put people in charge who understand media and understood how people reacted to media. But then something changed. People started being put in charge who understood business and finance, but not the media they ran, they didn't understand how people related to the media, and they didn't understand the diversified ecosystem necessary for making an occassional hit. Instead, they think everything has to be a big hit, everything has to be a guaranteed return on investment. How do you guarantee a hit? Pack it with everything everyone loves, get rid of anything some people don't like, and spend a TON of money on it. The media landscape, be it games, movies, or TV, is absolutely littered with very expensive products that take no risks and, because they take no risks, have nothing unique to offer; meanwhile, mid-budgets products have disappeared, leaving only indie keeping the arts alive in competition with shovelware and reality shows. I am invoking something other than capitalism, some undiscovered financial-anthropological principle, because this entire corporate media edifice is coming crashing down, something that as antithetical to captialism--they are losing money, they KEEP losing money, yet they KEEP DOING THE SAME THING. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] architect@thelemmy.club 1 point 2 weeks ago* That ghoul was Epstein, just by the way. No this is not a joke. permalink fedilink source parent