The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4: Proving some Points

[Mecha-Lenin]

I have an opinion I would like to share.

I like that these games came out and were as popular as they are (I have not played either personally, not my thing, but I have watched lets plays and they look great). I also like a couple of things about them which most people and/or "executives" would probably have argued would make "AAA" games fail.

The Witcher 3 proved:
1) You do not need intrusive customer punishing DRM to make a profitable game.
2) You can have paid DLC which actually adds substantially to a game, and free DLC for cosmetics and the like.

Fallout proved:
1) That graphics don't need to be "state of the art" for a game to be fun. Immersion is more important than "realism".

Both games also showed (most importantly in my opinion) that single-player only games can be enjoyable, popular, and profitable. The idea that single-player campaigns are not wanted anymore... is bogus!

Anyway, that were my thoughts.

 

[Hat]

Both games also showed (most importantly in my opinion) that single-player only games can be enjoyable, popular, and profitable. The idea that single-player campaigns are not wanted anymore... is bogus!

Who the fuck buys video games for the multiplayer campaigns?

 

[Derbydollar]

Who the fuck buys video games for the multiplayer campaigns?

Halo fans wow

The Witcher 3 proved:
1) You do not need intrusive customer punishing DRM to make a profitable game.

Most important point you listed. For example, does Ubisoft think they're going to get more customers with their draconian DRM nonsense?

 

[Mecha-Lenin]

Who the fuck buys video games for the multiplayer campaigns?

Sure, you have a good point. I was merely thinking from the angle of publishers and executives. Often, co-op or side-multiplayer will be shoe-horned into games (Halo 5 is a recent example of forced co-op mechanics) because there is the impression that "singleplayer only" will not sell.

The "free-to play" multiplayer model is also very profitable even though you don't have to pay anything. But people do anyway. They are the most profitable games nowadays. (one word: DOTA)

Also hasn't that "Overwatch" game Blizzard made cost 40 bucks or something?

 

[_blank_]

Also hasn't that "Overwatch" game Blizzard made cost 40 bucks or something?

It's a solid $60. Got my eyes on that one.

But more OT, I totally agree that I hope developers begin to relook at single-player games. I'm a gamer that enjoys more of an immersive exeperiance than having to deal with other players. For example, right now me and my best friend are playing the Orsinium exspansion for ESO and as much time as I've put into the game, a lot of it still feels very off for me. We're supposed to be some legendary heroes that are supposed to be saving Tamriel, and no matter where I look, I got some Khajit playing dumbass named Captain Frothy Blood Fart running around and aggro-ing the enemies I'm trying to stealth kill. I realize a large part of it is the campaign in Cyrodiil but I don't need the same people running around in the story-based part of the game.

Whereas in Fallout 4, I am having a complete and totally ball. I think I've clocked in about 40 hours thus far and have only done like two main questline missions - most of what I've been doing is exploring the Wasteland with Dogmeat, pillaging ruins, and pissing off Super Mutant camps by killing them one by one with my custom made sniper rifle I named Jenni Armageddon. I don't have any level 5 characters running around with a Deathclaw mount they obviously paid for instead of playing the game, and I don't have some mouthbreather wandering around in area chat asking people if they have any spare copper wire. It's a beautiful thing just to be able to immerse myself into a game and be able to play cat-and-mouse with an Assaultron.

Also one thing I wanted to mention with Witcher 3, not involving single player but something I appreciate, is just how good it felt just to open the game. Most of the time when you get a physical disc, you get the box, the disc, and maybe a flier in there. With the Witcher though, I got all that, plus the soundtack, a mini-compendium of the lore of the Witcher Universe, a game manual, a fold-out map of the Northern Realms, some decal stickers, and a letter from CD Projeckt Red actually thanking me for buying the game. Who even does this much anymore for something that isn't a collector's edition?

So yeah... nice stuff.

 

[Sweet and Savoury]

Ok let me toss out an idea here...

Think of all the fun your having in the Wasteland and now think how much more fun it would be if your two buddies could do it with you. Tag teaming mutants, decoying deathclaws and just generally having a blast.

Anything that's fun is more fun with friends!

Just my 2 cents

 

[A Random]

True, but some people can't play online with the people they'd like, due to lag issues and such. And some people just hate multiplayer period.

Having the option is one thing, but if it detracts from the single player mode or it's created as an afterthought, then it becomes a bad thing.

 

[c-no]

True, but some people can't play online with the people they'd like, due to lag issues and such. And some people just hate multiplayer period.

Having the option is one thing, but if it detracts from the single player mode or it's created as an afterthought, then it becomes a bad thing.

Yeah, some people just want a multiplayer mode that isn't just tacked on. Not only that, but since some games have multiplayer being more of a point than single-player, it can hurt the game itself if servers were to ever be shut down unless one had an extra controller, a friend, and the game had a sort of split-screen multiplayer mode.