After a short absence and a scrapped first take, the PUGCast finally returns with episode six. After introductions all around, the show kicks off with the now customary Scott Rates the News. Topics up for the Northern Irishman's consumption this week include Bethesda E3 speculation, FIFA 15 electric shock therapy, Majora's Mask 3D changes, exploding kittens, and Kayne West trying his hand at game development.
The panel then turn their attention to what they're currently playing. Discussion points include Evolve and its infamous Wraith, Austin vs. Mawson in Mario Kart 8, Telltale Games and the pacing of their titles, Naughty Dog nostalgia, and Mass Effect, and more.
The main roundtable discussion topic this week comes off the back of the release of The Order: 1886 for the PS4, and the backlash it receives over – amongst other things – its length. The panel talk briefly about the game, before opening the discussion up to debate the importance of the duration of video games in general.
It has been recently revealed by an artist that a sequel to the 2015 title Evolve was in the works. However, this project wouldn't last long.
Was this game ahead of its time? A few years later games like Dead By Daylight, Friday the 13th and other asymmetrical games exploded onto the scene.
if lm not mistaken it started the asymmetrical pvp matches. Evolves logo was a nod to their concept.
A sequel to Sony and Ready At Dawn's action-adventure game, The Order: 1886, would have featured larger-scale battles as well as multiplayer.
I missed it when games use to have a multiplayer to them.
Hope Sony revives the game at one point
Killzone, Resistance, Uncharted, TLOU, Motorstorm. Great times. Its a shame how far they've fallen this generation
Why add multiplayer when the single player (despite enjoying it for what it was) had flaws?
You'd work out the issues with how you craft the single player then once you’ve perfected it do multiplayer after.
https://www.videogameschron...
"Two sequels were planned for the franchise, The Order 1891 and The Order 1899. While the third game was never in development, Weerasuriya says he had planned where the story of the franchise was planned to go, if he had been able to develop the full trilogy."
...
Alas, we'll also might never get the PC version of 1886, which is currently residing in some dev's hard drive, nearly ready for a release if required.
It’s a shame we didn’t gave its chance to this franchise.
Game world was very interesting, and gameplay could have evolved to a major hit with sequels.
Not even speaking about graphics that were way ahead of their time.
If "we" is sony, i agree. I liked the game but it was metacritic that contributed to it's death. It's a shame.
No, we are "us," the gamers who rated it so low on Metacritic, hurting... Killing its sales. I agree it is a shame. I loved this game.
No it is not, it is us has a community which crucified this game, which is happening much too often.
I think MP being co-op would’ve been awesome. Essentially, I always viewed this as Sony’s take on the Gears series.
However, it really failed to measure up to what I expected. I definitely saw the potential but there were some things that really bogged it down for me like the forced slow walking segments (which I know was to hide loading), the repetitive warehouse werewolf fights, not enough variety in enemies, oddly we fought more humans than Darkstalkers, and the stealth sections were infuriating.
One thing there’s no denying though, this damn game was a looker. Such a shame at the wasted potential.
IGN : One former Bethesda developer has cautioned that loading screens will probably always be a part of its games because of the way they're designed. Here's why.
Thanks for the insightful information!
Now I wanna see if all those that were complaining about loading screens on Starfield will give a hard pass on both upcoming Bethesda RPGs like TESVI and Fallout 5.
If you can´t stand load screens, stay away from those games. Period!
I don't think you understand the difference between them though and what makes Starfield and TES / Fallout different when it comes to loading screens.
When you're playing TES or Fallout, if you are doing a mission you have the choice to walk to your objective where on your travels you will run into many different encounters getting completely sidetracked, it's fun as it feels like you are exploring the world more. However with Starfield you don't get that choice because you can't walk to a new planet, the loading screen is more mandatory, even the Outer Worlds fell into this issue, so when you are constantly going to space, travelling from planet to planet there's a lot more loading screens involved where it slowly becomes more tedious in comparison.
What Bethesda needs to do is work on reducing the loading screens and fitting more within it. For example when you enter a town in TES it should load the entire town, houses, castles, sewers etc included, same goes for Fallout, take the Vegas Strip in Fallout New Vegas, it was chopped up into multiple segments where going back and forth doing missions become a chore nearer the end.
if they scaled down the "1000" planets to 10, 4 main hub. 6 unexplored, but actually filled with tings to do and explore, the thing Bethesda used to be good at. People like Obscure thin we shit on Bethesda just to shit on it. No we want better games.
It's a design choice they've chosen. RDR2 kind of proves the whole 'loading interiors' or 'having different events go on' isn't what's stopping it.
RDR2 didn't have you walk into a massive structure like a Starfield base/facility though, right? I'm sure log cabins are a lot easier to handle
That won't affect the need to load content. That's just static designs with a few interactibles. And did we forget RDR2 has towns you don't load into with multiple buildings, dynamic events, and ties to the world as a whole. You load areas to manage the specific scripting and the number of elements that need tracking constantly in that area. Bethesda designs it so you can leave a trail of cheese wheels from town to town, RDR2 designs it so the world interactions are randomized by a few factors and come to you.
Like I said, it's a design choice.
Ok but you can still have more seamless "loading screens" starfield has no excuse for how much its gameplay flow sucks. You're basically saying it will always suck because we don't want to spend the effort on improving that aspect. Hell every open world survival game has object permanence, from valheim to the forest, and that doesn't have tons of loading screens
I haven't played oblivion as yet but does it have loading screens? No one is talking about it.
Fun fact, the remastered version of days gone still has loading screens. It is not the instant load like you see on PS5 and series titles but you will have to wait a bit to load into certain sections. I am not sure why they didn't polish them out and no one is talking about it.
Oblivion has loading screens but it’s nowhere near the wait times it used to be (from what I remember) so the whole experience feels a lot better.
Agreed about Days Gone remastered, it definitely feels like it’s mostly a visual & feel (dualsense) remaster without much focus on optimization (I expected no loading times & in some cases I encountered the same kinds of bugs & audio issues that were on PS4).
Still love the game though & I hope the remaster will help pave the way for DG2.
That's not something you can do without remaking the whole game from scratch. It's a remaster, not a Remake. They aren't changing the core code and methods, only updating graphics and using more modern plug-ins for similar graphical enhancements.
To do what you're describing, they would have to do something like what Square did for FFVII Remake. And that was such a huge undertaking that they couldn't do it all at once.
Love it!