The Witcher 3 did quite well when it abandoned the linearity of the first two games and made an open world experience for the third installment.
Does the company creating the open world game have the experience, talent, and budget to create a compelling world that's going to meet the standards of open world games like GTA, Witcher, or Elder Scrolls?
It's possible to have an idea for a game that's too ambitious for the available talent, limited development time, and limited available funds.
I haven't yet played an Elder Scrolls game and said, "That would have been better as a linear title," so my question is whether or not they can pull it off.
As an aside, I have no problem with violence in video games, but I do have a problem with the sensual content.
We've reached the point in the mediums of TV, movies, and games where the sexual content is so extreme it borders on softcore pornography. Otherwise great pieces of entertainment for their medium (Witcher 3 for games, Game of Thrones for HBO) have entered this arena where some of the content makes people uncomfortable to watch.
I can be happy with the fantasy genre without including this stuff in there.
Let's get over the idea that incorporating softcore nudity in visual mediums makes the medium appeal more to adults.
Lord of the Rings is a million dollar fantasy franchise and it attracts plenty of adults without incorporating these elements.
Yes, but how does the hardware compare to Switch's competitors in the console market?
Are we still going to have the problem involving game companies refusing to make their action shooter for Nintendo's console while making it for Microsoft's and Sony's?
When is Nintendo going to start making consoles with competitive hardware?
Maybe a better question--when is Nintendo going to do as Sega and leave the console business all together and just make software?
A bit of dishonest journalism on CNN's part but apparently using game screenshots for real life reports is becoming quite the standard in modern journalism today.
As far as the profession of journalism goes, this move might be accepted as ethical by professional journalists, but I have a problem with it.
Many people who see images take it as is photorealistic proof of an event because they imagine the eye serves as irrefutable factual evidence to the veracity of a story. "I'll believe it when I see it," for instance.
Unfortunately, images can be entirely fabricated, taken out of one context and put into another, or even Photoshopped and very convincingly manipulated in a way that many observers will not recognize as being manipulated.
This unfortunately means that we aren't always very good at spotting truth from error when it comes to images in the news or especially the Internet, but it does mean that we ought to be careful not to just accept everything we see because it's in the news media.
Unfortunately people have a level of trust in the news media that can easily be taken advantage of if they don't understand that images can be changed or taken out of context. Shame on CNN.
You're right about solitude being better than being with someone I don't care about. I can attest to that.
As far as being a sheep, I don't mind being a follower if I enjoy and appreciate the product or people who happen to be doing shepherding/ herding/leading.
I don't like being a sheep or follower to people who might secretly or discreetly hold me in contempt, mockery, or scorn. As if their job was taunt me.
But, alas, I won't say anymore.
As a sheep before his shearers is dumb, he opened not his mouth.
I'm really surprised they let Jess go live with the comment she made about finding multiplayer in many games tedious and strongly preferring the single player campaign. I didn't think a video game journalism company would even allow one of their employees to express that opinion.
There are several video games--particularly first person shooters, that are in the habit of selling a game with less than 6 hours of a single player campaign, but loading the game with some multiplayer maps.
Halo, CoD, etc.
And these games are massively popular.
Anyway, I pretty much have the same opinion. I don't care to be sold multiplayer maps.
And I also don't buy that it's unreasonable to make a single player FPS campaign that lasts 20 hours either... just look at Deus Ex FPS games that've been released recently.
It's gotten to the point that I refuse to buy Halo, CoD, and Battlefield because I don't care for games that are just mainly selling multiplayer maps with a very short campaign.
That having been said, these games are grossing millions of dollars... so I don't expect them to make other FPS games that have a 20+ hour campaign any time soon.
But I do have to say that playing multiplayer FPS deathmatch games gets boring in about a day. Things get stale after a while, even with 20+ different multiplayer maps.
I'd definitely prefer more high quality FPS games with a longer single player campaign but sales show that I'm in the minority of gamers.
I don't mind multiplayer in MMOs and other genres, though.
Jeremy012's comments