Gaming

32214 readers

62 users here now

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.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

Whom@beehaw.org

The_Hunted_One@beehaw.org

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

chloyster@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

Larian's unfair advantage (credistick.com)

submitted 2 years ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/gaming@beehaw.org

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This post was inspired by two things I saw recently: The connection between these two items is not obvious, but it is interesting. The lemon problem WeFunder, for the uninitiated, is a crowdfunding platform for (primarily) technology companies. It allows community-oriented startups to sell a small % of ownership to their users and supporters.

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Scrath@feddit.de 54 points 2 years ago (3 children)

He’s right on all counts. Larian is – today – in an unparalleled position as a developer of RPG games. They have great experience, multiple studios, a supportive community, and a huge IP.

All of that, except maybe the supportive community, are traits which the huge gamestudios/publishers like EA and Ubisoft also have. I'm pretty sure it would be hard for ubisoft to claim inexperience when developing the next assassins creed for example.

I think the main difference, as mentioned in the article, is the vision. Ubisoft wants to make the next games in their money making franchises. Larian wanted to make a good game.

[–] Blapoo@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 years ago

The gaming industry is designed to fail in this economy. The objectives of "maximize return" and "make something fun" rarely overlap. Best they can do is trick people into habitual play and hope they can't distinguish between an occasional dopamine drip and fun.

Games with narratives, no financial gimmicks, and good old-fashioned fun mechanics (subjective) will always get my attention. Fuck EA, Activision, ubisoft, Bethesda. Got too big. Priorities got twisted. I pity the designers and creators with passion there.

[–] Schaedelbach@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago

I agree 100% with you! Just a tiny thing I'd like to add: Ubi does, aside from some shitty practices, microtransactions and a ton of stupid money grabbing games, actually makes also a lot of good games. Their "Indie" games series form a couple of years ago had some games where you could feel the love the people making them put in. Valiant Hearts will forever be one of my favorite gaming experiences be!

[–] kurcatovium@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

I would say CD Projekt is somewhat similar to Larian. Or maybe I should have written was in the time of Witcher 3. Although I find Cyberpunk very nice and unique game, the hype and broken promises + state of game during release was more like Ubisoft or any other big game cashgrab company. Unfortunately. I sincerely hope Larian won't repeat CDP's mistakes.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.de 42 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Great article. Make your community your unfair advantage. But why call it unfair? Unfair to whom? To those who try to nickel and dime their players with MTX and the same shit every year? Nah i don't think that's unfair. Unfair only perhaps to indie developers, but then again everyone starts somewhere and they could imagine that when they are doing quality work that a community will flock around them.

[–] all-knight-party@kbin.cafe 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Because it's a clickbaity word, it's not actually unfair by any means, just a different method to secure funding.

[–] stopthatgirl7@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I swear, the word “clickbait” has completely lost its meaning, with the way folks throw it around like they do.

[–] all-knight-party@kbin.cafe 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sort of using it as a catch all umbrella for "wording a title in such a way to try and get people scrolling by to rubberneck" and go "oh, unfair? That sounds controversial".

It's an absolutely good move to word it in such a way that piques curiosity, and yes I'm sure there's a line in there somewhere between being clickbaity with no real substance, and using intriguing wording in a title, I'm just so critical of wording things that way that I'd make an abysmal journalist.

And this article absolutely has a lot of substance, I wouldn't say the whole thing is clickbait by any means, just that the word is used in a similar fashion in the title, sort of a hook that relies on an emotional knee jerk of wanting to see how unfair it really is or not.

[–] stopthatgirl7@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yeah, that’s called a “hook,” not “click bait.” A hook is meant to, like the name suggests, hook you in. Click bait is something of low value designed just to make you click on it so you look at at ads it’s trying to feed you.

It’s the difference between “childish” and “childlike.” One is good, the other is not.

[–] all-knight-party@kbin.cafe 1 points 2 years ago

It's just an unfortunate aspect of the word clickbait. A hook baits you to click, definitively, and so the true meaning of clickbait will be diluted and used as a shorthand for a range of types of titles. You're right, though, clickbait has a seriously negative connotation, and I was kind of a dick in my comment for going straight to that instead of saying hook.

[–] gamer@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

I think the author was using the word “unfair” semi-sarcastically as a reference to the twitter drama.