So this is something that Harjit has never really thought about, but does the pricing of your game effect the game quality itself? Should it be considered?
A remaster of Bethesda Game Studios' 2008 action role-playing game, Fallout 3, is planned for release at some point in the future.
Would be nice if they had New Vegas ready as well, especially because of the show.
Hopefully this doesn't have the same performance issues as Oblivion Remastered.
Throw in all the DLC as well, like Oblivion and I'll definitely bite. I recall having one trophy left to unlock on the PS3 version with 100+ hours in my save. When my save file got corrupted, lol. Very sad day.
To be fair though, Bethesda was trash at Playstation ports anyway.
all devs sucked at porting to ps3 for the first like 3 years because no one had experience with the cell architecture. Even 1st party took a long while to get proficient with it, the difference between uncharted 1 and 3 is massive for example.
Oh oh oh I can do this too. GTA 7 will be made at some point in the future. Fallout 5 will enter development in the future too
Everyone there should know most gamers want New Vegas and Morrowind more than anything.
Which is why we won't get them. Gotta keep floating "support this one and it might happen".
Fallout Day's disappointing news that Fallout 4 is coming to Switch 2 is a shame, as this 17-year-old entry is more deserving of a new port.
Fallout 4 isn't the worst game in the franchise. It's either Fallout 76 or Fallout BOS that's the worst.
PC and all other modern consoles never got a remaster of 3, but obviously the switch 2 was the tipping point to make it a reality... ahuh
Meh, I thought 3 was garbage. I'm not a great fan of the franchise to be fair. They're like B-Movie films, really shallow and janky. 4 was definitely one of the better ones though.
So the article makes a snippy entitled statement and acts like that is going to encourage a publisher to give them what they want. Okay.
Fallout 3 game designer Bruce Nesmith explains that the upcoming remaster should revise the game's gunplay to be more modern.
Give us FO3 with all the dlc remastered like ESO. Load times faster, quality of life improvements, gun play improvements
I believe it shouldn't just be graphical they should make improvements where they can to make the game better. A simple face lift isn't what's needed
Still my favorite one. I remember getting a digital copy of FO3 when I got FO4(XBO). It was nice to finally play a stable version of the game. Then when I got a Series S it was an even better expierence. Quick resume and FPS boost made it feel like a whole new game. Updated gunplay would be very welcome though. One of the few things FO4 did better.
Such a short article for such a complex issue.
In my eyes I think price should be a factor, since it's one of the most logical ways to figure out value. For instance lets look at The Dark Below DLC pack from Destiny.
This pack costs $20 and I am pretty sure the first question someone has isn't whether or not it's good, but whether or not it's worth the money. At its core you get a couple of exotics, a new raid (with additional loot), a few story stages / PVP maps and one or two strikes depending on which console you own. This isn't a whole lot, especially if you really look at the strikes / story stages, which are more or less another room or two with a maybe a few reskinned enemies. While playing it I immediately thought of Borderlands 2, a game that didn't have the most enjoyable DLC expansions ever, but without a doubt offered relatively the same amount of content (I would honestly argue more, but lets keep it simple) for half the price. Now this is where the comparison is important.
If game A is in the same relative genre and is doing relatively the same thing at half the price, then one could argue that The Dark Below doesn't offer the value in a way that makes sense. You got some sort of basis for comparison and logic that explains how you're quantifying value. This is how a lot of things are viewed and compared and it makes a lot of sense (at least to many people) to base things off factors like this.
I could keep going with this, but this stuff gets really conceptual and I think most people can follow my basic point that cost is a basically a way to quantify value or at least your expectations for a given item. Similar to how you don't go into McDonalds or a fast food chain and expect their burger to be on par with a sit down restaurant like Chili's or Outback. The other thing that is important is understanding how reviews are generally viewed.
The thing about reviews is that they're generally a snapshot of THAT moment in time and things will change over time, which goes beyond just cost. Like when I reviewed Destiny I spent a lot of time talking about how much I disliked the loot system and cited how often legendary engrams would give me a rare item. Around a month after the game released Bungie changed the engram system and now you can't get rare equipment from a legendary engram. This is true for a lot of things. Electronics get revisions / firmware updates, glitches are patched in games and sometimes monumental changes occur (like Namco patching in online multiplayer in God Eater 2) that can vastly change a review.
Sure price shouldn't be the biggest or only factor that comes into play, but it should certainly play a role in determining the value and expressing what is and is not enough.