Remedy games have been "underperforming" despite rave reviews for a while. Yet they've been chugging along doing what they think is neat, instead of caving into the current money-making models.

And in this case, the Epic partnership definitely hurt the game. And they know it did. Before AW2, it was microsoft putting the breaks of Quantum Break despite it being great.

Control was the first time since Max Payne I felt they truly achieved the success that their level of quality deserves (and even then it was a timed epic exclusive).

Now Remedy has set themselves up to finally self-publish the follow-up to Control. I can't wait.

Remedy has fans, but something always seems to get in the way.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Didn't they just announce a live service shooter? Isn't that caving into current money-making models?

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

We know one of their WIP titles is a PvE multiplayer game set in their connected universe. Aside from that, nothing more is known, except for your generic corporate "we're excited about our future projects with Remedy" statements from 505.

I'd be very suprised if Remedy turns around and makes it overtly exploitative.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Whether it's any more exploitative than any other game, it's still got all of the same baggage. It's always online and will one day be unplayable, and it's relying on continual revenue to support it rather than just selling it for an up front price and letting it rock, which both encourage exploitative monetization anyway.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Ok. Unfortunately it sounds like you're asking me to stop liking a studio that I like, based on speculation about how a future title of theirs might work. That's not an actionable argument.

Nothing about a multiplayer title requires it be made in a way that will break whenever the official servers go down. You are assuming this one will work that way, and I'll grant you it likely will.

But the change we both want isn't going to come from voting with our wallets, but even harder.

It'll come from something like this.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not asking you to stop liking a studio you like, but I am asking you to take them off of the pedestal you put them on. If you care about the SKG campaign, that new shooter of theirs is at odds with it.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

...

That pedestal being, that they keep making games that are just plain good, despite at the same time being involved with shit industry practices by working with Microsoft and Epic?

I think that particular pedestal is pretty fucking deserved. And one that looks their faults in the eyes.

They keep making good stuff, while marred by the bullshit that allows them to fund the studio.

Why do you think I'm specifically excited for them to finally do something fully self-published, so they can make something I can enjoy with no fucking strings attached?

[–] limitedduck@awful.systems 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hopefully it'll come out on steam next year or something as a single complete edition, just like Control.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 weeks ago

It's published by Epic (Control was published by 505). Unless Epic significantly compromises on their insistence of pushing the Epic store, it wont happen.

Ever.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I thought it won game of the year as well as a bunch of other awards?

[–] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

BG3 got GotY, though there are debates to be had I suppose over the legitimacy of an "official" game of the year.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not with how unanimous BG3's award was at basically every outlet.

[–] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I was referring to The Game Awards and their claim on crowning the "Game of the Year".

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I know, but this past year in particular, there wasn't much contention over what the game of the year was.

[–] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think going by overall mainstream appeal and zeitgeist it's correct. Everybody was talking about BG3 that year, even people who are usually not fans of the genre. So in that sense I agree that 2023 was the year of BG3.

On the games' merit alone as standalone pieces of art abstracted from context I think Alan Wake 2 puts up a good fight.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, last year was not a weak year. There was a new highly-regarded Zelda game as well, which is easy to forget when Baldur's Gate 3 won every award so unanimously.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Went would it have done better if it were only on steam?

[–] uninvitedguest@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Bit of awkward phrasing, but the commentator was not talking about Steam exclusivity - rather having it available on Steam (in addition to wherever else it was available).

Clearer wording may be "if only it had been on Steam".

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

Ooh, I misunderstood, cheers.

[–] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 1 points 2 weeks ago

Good shout, I did fumble my word order.