So, reviews on "Redfall" aren't promising.

The latest game from Arkane Studios (producers of "Prey" and
"Dishonored") drops you in a vampire-infested world, to fight alone or
with friends against the monsters. The studio is famous for its solid
single-player experiences, but this game is more along the lines of a
looter-shooter like Borderlands. Still, the concept behind the game
sounded interesting, and if anyone could make it work, it would be
Arkane Studios, right?

Apparently not. The gameplay is extremely shallow, and worse,
repetitive. The AI is idiotic. The world feels hollow and unfinished.
There's none of the usual depth, say the reviews, that we've come to
expect from an Arkane game. And the performance stinks.

Oh, and while there is nominally a single-player mode, don't think you
can play it offline. You require a Bethesda.net account (because of
course you do), and if you go offline, you're dropped back to the main
menu.

I'm not the biggest fan of Arkane Studios games; there has always been
something about their gameplay that left me a bit cold. Still, even if
I wasn't personally entertained, I could always admire the skill and
technique used in their products. It's a shame that the company has
sunken to such lows. Whether it's because the game was rushed to
market, or because it was designed to push Game Pass, or a result of
their buy-out by Bethesda, "Redfall" is a worrying fall from grace for
the publisher.

Of course, things might improve. Sadly, gamers no longer are upset if
they're served incomplete beta products that may take a year or two
longer (and five or six DLC packs) to complete, even if it's a game
they've just paid $70 for. Still, it is quite possible that - given
enough time - eventually this game will match players' expectations.

Until then, though, it looks as if this is a game to avoid, and
another sign of what's wrong with the triple-A side of video-game
publishing.

On Tue, 02 May 2023 15:21:02 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>So, reviews on "Redfall" aren't promising.

>Until then, though, it looks as if this is a game to avoid, and
>another sign of what's wrong with the triple-A side of video-game
>publishing.

I'm playing it on Game Pass so I can't really complain as it's 'free'.

Yes the AI is dumb! It's also laughably easy to kill every enemy,
with the exception of the 'mini-boss' vampires which are quite tough,
but not overly so.

The game itself is a bit like Left 4 Dead, but with a much lower enemy
density. You eradicate a handful of cultist hanging around a marked
building and a few standard vampires by shooting them until their
heart glows, then drive a stake through them, much like a DOOM
glory-kill. That's then your nearest safe-house sorted out once you
turn the power back on in a nearby outbuilding.

Other buildings and areas have a smattering of cultists around them,
but they are so easily gotten rid of, even with just a basic handgun.

The world is really rather barren and exploration is pretty pointless.
There are some supplies dotted around, but you don't need to go off
the beaten track to find anything. There are more than enough
consumables and crafting materials spread around the main combat areas
so scavenging is not needed.

It may get better as I progress further into the game, but I somehow
doubt it at the moment.

I would not pay for this game in its current state unless it was on a
deep sale. I haven't encountered any bugs yet, but the game world is
so very dull and empty. It looks ok but the scenery is devoid of
purpose. Much like most of the buildings and structures in Destiny 2.

Hopefully future updates will make the game a bit more enjoyable and a
lot more enticing to play.

--
Rob

On 02/05/2023 20:21, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> So, reviews on "Redfall" aren't promising.

It seems to be going head-to-head with Jedi:Survivor for how can you
release a game in such a bad state for £60.

I understand that companies will release games with some know issues but
from what I've read about these it's far more than that and the games
are almost unplayable for a lot of people. I also enjoyed the splendid
AI in Redfall. I would say that they must think gamers are mugs if it
wasn't for that a) well yes they do think that and b) they are quite
often right.

On Fri, 5 May 2023 19:25:09 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 02/05/2023 20:21, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> So, reviews on "Redfall" aren't promising.
>
>It seems to be going head-to-head with Jedi:Survivor for how can you
>release a game in such a bad state for £60.
>
>I understand that companies will release games with some know issues but
>from what I've read about these it's far more than that and the games
>are almost unplayable for a lot of people. I also enjoyed the splendid
>AI in Redfall. I would say that they must think gamers are mugs if it
>wasn't for that a) well yes they do think that and b) they are quite
>often right.

Except "Jedi: Survivor's" problems seem to be mostly technical, and
not gameplay related. That's still an issue - especially if you're
somebody who buys games*- but more easily solved than bad mechanics
or missing content.

But recently, it seems like EVERY triple-A game is released with
terrible performance. "God of War", "Last of Us", "Horizon Zero Dawn",
"Sons of the Forest"... all of them suffer from monumentally bad
launches. This, of course, was ever par for the course for PC games -
remember how nobody could play "Crysis" at workable framerate on
launch? - but it seems to be getting worse these days. I bitch about
Indie games and, in fairness, they aren't immune to the problem
either, but they have an excuse for performance issues like that;
they're tiny studios and they charge less for their games. But with
triple-A studios, we're paying a premium... and for what? For the same
lackluster design and poor optimization?

Is it any wonder people are increasingly waiting for sales before
buying? Or skipping triple-A games entirely? The industry is shooting
itself in the foot, and then expecting us to pay to clean the carpets.

* as opposed to GamePass/etc. subscribers, or people who wait for it
to inevitably become free. Pirates too, but I wonder how serious an
issue that /really/ is these days with such a plethora of freebies
available

On Tue, 02 May 2023 15:21:02 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>So, reviews on "Redfall" aren't promising.

Indeed, and it was about the only pre-hyped title that I was even
looking forward to. It's just more confirmation that the gaming
industry has gone to hell and is probably never coming back.

It used to be that at least in the case of certain vendors, you could
at least rely on some level of consistency, assuming you enjoyed their
past titles.

For example DICE and the Battlefield series... while the next BF game
was never guaranteed to be exactly what everyone wanted, at least we
could all be assured that there was a specific baseline of enjoyment
upon release day that acted as a dependable threshold for which the
quality of the game would not drop below. There might have been the
occasional stinker released but there was consistency to what the core
product line delivered. But then BF V went woke, and BF 2042 was just
unfixable garbage. What's worse it was obvious that it was always
going to suck in the first 30 minutes of gameplay. The brand is now
irrepairably damaged and what they would need to do to win back the
formally loyal customer base is probably now unreachable.

When tidbits about Redfall started coming out, I thought how bad can
it be with Arkane's track record? Apparently they delivered the most
unfortunate possible answer to that question. Normally with a release
like this, I would at least try it long enough to confirm it sucks and
then refund it after half an hour or so. I saw enough from YT reviews
that I will absolutely not give this fucking game 30 mins of my time.

On 05/05/2023 19:37, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 5 May 2023 19:25:09 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/05/2023 20:21, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> So, reviews on "Redfall" aren't promising.
>>
>> It seems to be going head-to-head with Jedi:Survivor for how can you
>> release a game in such a bad state for £60.
>>
>> I understand that companies will release games with some know issues but
>>from what I've read about these it's far more than that and the games
>> are almost unplayable for a lot of people. I also enjoyed the splendid
>> AI in Redfall. I would say that they must think gamers are mugs if it
>> wasn't for that a) well yes they do think that and b) they are quite
>> often right.
>
> Except "Jedi: Survivor's" problems seem to be mostly technical, and
> not gameplay related. That's still an issue - especially if you're
> somebody who buys games*- but more easily solved than bad mechanics
> or missing content.
>
> But recently, it seems like EVERY triple-A game is released with
> terrible performance. "God of War", "Last of Us", "Horizon Zero Dawn",
> "Sons of the Forest"... all of them suffer from monumentally bad
> launches. This, of course, was ever par for the course for PC games -
> remember how nobody could play "Crysis" at workable framerate on
> launch? - but it seems to be getting worse these days. I bitch about
> Indie games and, in fairness, they aren't immune to the problem
> either, but they have an excuse for performance issues like that;
> they're tiny studios and they charge less for their games. But with
> triple-A studios, we're paying a premium... and for what? For the same
> lackluster design and poor optimization?
>
> Is it any wonder people are increasingly waiting for sales before
> buying? Or skipping triple-A games entirely? The industry is shooting
> itself in the foot, and then expecting us to pay to clean the carpets.
>

I very much agree especially when these games are £60+. It honestly
feels like what you're really paying for is a large world filled with
pretty looking stuff.