ampersandrew

That game is worth putting up with its jank. You may not know exactly what the character is going to say, but each option is always channeling either James Bond, Jack Bauer, or Jason Bourne.

I don't know how worth it is to try to explain my idea of what a hypothetical better version of Starfield is, but the short answer is:

• only let you do one faction quest per playthrough
• those factions' quest lines already, in the real Starfield that exists today, intersect with one another
• change how different factions react to you and those other factions based on a system similar to the type of reputation system Obsidian has done before, not unlike Levine's "Narrative Legos" video, but it doesn't even have to be that advanced

It wouldn't involve grinding. If I still haven't articulated it well enough, don't worry about it, because that game doesn't exist anyway.

I'm going through some more of The Outer Worlds. Still really enjoying it. It's got a good pace to it.

Palworld is still my second screen game for podcasts and such. It needs some tweaking in the progression, but I'm at the point now where I can expand to additional bases.

I picked up Penny's Big Breakaway. It feels great to play. The boss fights are really interesting. This could and should have been one of the best platformers I've ever played, and maybe it still is, but some bugs and jank occasionally get in the way. If you're swinging from your yo-yo and hit a wall, you're supposed to do a small climbing animation, but it doesn't always work. Sometimes when riding your yo-yo, you'll kind of just skip and jump off with poor feedback for why. Sometimes you get stuck in a wall. The design for air dashing by pressing the button twice can often get eaten by other inputs, and that doesn't feel great. The bugs and jank are not the most prevalent part of the experience, but they happen enough to bring down my opinion of the game a peg or two. I'd highly recommend this game, but maybe wait a few months for a couple of patches.

My friends and I beat the main campaign of Quake II in co-op. It's much faster in co-op and with the compass feature than they intended, but I wouldn't have it any other way. Next we'll move on to the expansions.

Still labbing some stuff in Skullgirls for my Combo Breaker grind. It's painful going through replays for my losses, but it's necessary, and I took good notes.

I had been dipping my toes into the waters of loot games with Titan Quest, and I think I'm at the point now where I can say I see the appeal with the genre and I'll stick with it. For this game in particular, I do wish the bosses were more involved, because they don't really hit a crescendo that a boss fight should have. Due to what defensive options the game gives you and doesn't give you, they often just end up being running away from the guy in a circle until you can land some hits. Still, it's fun. After this game, I might check out the sequel, Grim Dawn, or V Rising.

The thing that Obsidian has done plenty of times is system-driven reputations. The thing that would be new is bending that into new playthroughs on NG+ that interact with your past playthroughs.

But this isn't a film. People replay systems-driven games all the time, because you can tweak the variables and make it feel new. RPGs have done this plenty of times. Interacting with a separate quest line that occasionally intersects with things you did in one of your previous timelines is something that there is absolutely a way to do, and Obsidian has made exactly that type of systems-driven RPG plenty of times.

On the other hand, an alternate perspective is:

• The average action game today has more going on in its story department than point and clicks did 30 years ago, and that's not even accounting for games with a much larger emphasis on story like an RPG.
• Baldur's Gate 3 and the last two Legend of Zelda games are great examples of actually thinking outside the box, not thinking of explicit answers that were hard coded into old adventure games as valid answers. Those types of games back then got a reputation for "moon logic" for a reason, and I'm not sure we're better off with games that give you a soft fail state for missing an essential item in an early area like old Sierra games.
• What you might call "handholdy", others might call "better UX" in a lot of cases, though there are certainly plenty of games that are a reaction to more guided designs; not just the above examples of Zelda and Baldur's Gate but also the likes of Elden Ring, Factorio, Dwarf Fortress, and Outer Wilds.
• People's attention spans didn't necessarily drop, and it's even harder to show that people are largely less educated than they used to be, but even if both of those things were true, neither would be demonstrated by the types of video games that came out over the past 40 years. People have built entire functioning computers inside of Minecraft, and Red Dead Redemption II certainly, without question, is doing more with its story than any adventure game from the 90s or earlier.

I would absolutely trust Obsidian to handle the NG+ angle that Bethesda was aiming for, because they would have known that the right way to do it is to not let you do every faction's quest line in the same playthrough.

I don't see a technical debt problem getting any better by ignoring the problem for longer. No better time to start than when they've got Microsoft's war chest to help aid the transition.

It's a real time game, but if you try just mashing buttons, you will die quite quickly.

We just got Baldur's Gate 3 last year, and Persona 5 is a mega hit. Turn-based RPGs are very much still alive.

Did you play Starfield? It's definitely got plenty of ideas. It just chickened out of some of them and wrote checks it couldn't cash for others. (Also, I think you meant astronomy, not astrology.)

I've got to say...both of those sentences are an absolutely wild perspective. The first on the history of the medium, and the second for thinking that Bethesda will make anything other than the type of game they've always made for the past 30 years.