Weez

There are legitimate concerns with how things are - access journalism, embargos, the four-point scale and how a number of reviewers are incapable of compartmentalising personal sentiments unrelated to gameplay when scoring a game.

This addresses none of them, and is a terrible idea. I'm not sure what the answer is; While following reviewers who's tastes you agree with works on an individual level, it doesn't help the industry when outlet scores guide executive decisions.

@nessisonett Kratos is an original character, designed by Charlie Wen. Voice and performance actors where chosen for characteristics they wanted in the character. TC Carson, Brandon Molale and Joseph Gatt suited the original games. Christopher Judge and Shad Gaspard where chosen for the more grounded Kratos in the Norse era. No actor owns the character, or has any bearing on his explicitly Spartan ancestry.

@TheGreyandTheRed Agreed, he was really good in SoA. Kid actors are always a wildcard, and this isn't an easy casting.

@Frmknst I'm legitimately interested in why you think 2 is amongst the best of games?

Personally, I'm of the mind that games that attempt to replicate film are at a disadvantage. A real-time camera system can't hope to match the expressive potential of a well designed shot-list. Environments have to be practical and intuitive, placing significant constraints on design and lighting relative to film sets. Sound design has to be systemic - even at its most curated, responding to triggers in a linear game, it's still limited compared to film, where sound design and scoring is done over finalised scenes.

Games have their own strengths - interactivity, agency and increased embodiment as a result. To me, it was an interesting exercise, and a remarkable achievement in terms of presentation, but largely failed to exploit the format beyond the length/depth games allow for. That is, I'm glad it exists, and that people are experimenting with the medium, but don't see it as an exceptional use of it, if that makes sense.

@BionicDodo That's the critic score, audience scores where lower at 7.4. It saw some attention, owing to it launching on GamePass, but quickly dropped off, with only about a third of players completing it. Steam performance was dismal. I'm with Sammy on this one.

It's a lovingly made niche game - some enjoyed the interactive experience, many wanted more gameplay in their game. Personally, I'd be interested to see if they can keep the strong visual direction while working in their action pedigree.

@PuppetMaster Psychological horror is a genre that many games fit into. The Evil Within 2 includes psychological horror, clumsy combat, symbolism, an otherworld and grotesque monsters - but it's not Silent Hill. It lacks the tone, dream-like quality, sparse exposition, subtlety and specific lore that made Silent Hill unique - similar to Silent Hill: F.

Silent Hill had a distinct identity. Before Short Message, everything tied back to the location (2, Downpour, Shattered Memories), the cult (1, 3, Homecoming), or its rituals (SH4). There was a central mythos. It also had an established tone, and the further games strayed from this (i.e. early western-developed entries), the worse they were received. Post-Short Message, it's the "Silent Hill Phenomenon" - any place with collective trauma gets fog and monsters. SH:F muddies this further - from mental illness and hallucinogenic capsules to Shinto gods in a conflict that may predate the phenomenon, to the original "powerful land" trope, and lazy allusions to vessels and White Claudia. Allegories are now spelled out in objective messages. Visual metaphors are explained through verbose monologues as they play out. My issue isn't F's premise - it's with shoehorning its disparate tone and unrelated ideas into an established franchise, undermining both. Just make a new IP. Konami won't though - corporate concern for the franchise is exemplified by Silent Hill pachinko machines.

"Actual gameplay" refers to the game loop. Stamina is a vague notion - battle royale and horror games both use it. How it interacts with mechanics, in part, determines the character's capability and the combat framing. Stamina is present in earlier entries, though more subtly and always to punish. In F, alongside perfect dodges and other ARPG staples, stamina establishes a combat flow more consistent with that of an action game, allowing aggressive play and extended attack chains with a little skill. Enemy frequency further reinforces this. Konami makes no pretences here - they explicitly stated that they sought to introduce "thrilling" action combat to appeal to younger audiences, selecting Neobards partly due to their history of producing action games.

As I said, it's a good enough game, but good enough to stand on its own - not to further dilute an already mishandled property solely for the sake of marketing convenience.

@PuppetMaster I don't think they should remove the fog; It just draws superficial comparisons, and if removed, I feel there is very little in tone or execution to tie it to the main series. That's my point.

1-4 are rooted in individual psychology - just not always the protagonists. SH1 is a manifestation of Alessa's personal hell. 4 is a projection of the antagonists psyche. Tangible though, possible due to the town and cult. F does bear superficial similarities to the series, but departs significantly, lacks all subtlety and has no direct connection to the property. Silent Hill is now just fog and monsters.

Stamina had little impact on actual gameplay in the originals, and perfect dodges (or stamina meters) didn't push it into action game territory. SH3 also had magical girl transformations and "sexy beams" as unlockable mechanics - maybe not the best indicator of intended tone. Combat simply wasn't foremost, and on higher difficulties never felt empowering. Being good at souls-likes, I was unstoppable from the outset in F. In subsequent playthroughs, I did no-damage boss runs on hard. The frequency of combat coupled with the action-oriented gameplay undermines the atmosphere the setting succeeds in establishing. I mean, play/watch a Kyubi boss fight and tell me your first thought is "Silent Hill".

The series has tried different things, but while maintaining a common style. Ambiguity, the eerie uncanniness, sparse dialogue and weird delivery, atmospheric story telling, trusting the audience to understand it. F changes nearly everything, all at once. Why force it into the franchise, other than marketing?

@PuppetMaster Silent Hill F is an interesting one. It's a good enough game; I just think if you removed the fog, and released it under another name, no one would have thought to call it a Silent Hill clone. And while I disliked the wolf-arm, that has very little to do with it.

Gone is the trauma rooted in an individual in favour of collective trauma. Gone is the desperate or clumsy combat in favour of perfect dodges and stamina meters. Gone are the motifs of decay, replaced with growth. Gone is the Lynchian storytelling and execution, replaced with wordy, explicit J-Horror.

The last point is likely why it'll never feel like a "proper" Silent Hill game. That IS Silent Hill, at least to me.

> like generative AI was used rather than an artist

This is the part I just don't see. What makes it look like AI? I don't think she looks more uncanny than any other recent female character. Just more attractive.

> primary driving factor behind the prompts was that they wanted something certain vocal male groups on the internet would find hot

So what? A design is inherently negative because a subset of people regard it positively?

> “fix” by giving her plumper lips and mascara

Lara has had plump lips and mascara from the outset. Making a billionaire heiress, described in her initial design brief as a "babe with brains", who became iconic largely as a result of her appearance, conventionally attractive doesn't strike me as a design failure.

@Ogbert What does that even mean?

@Nei Terrible analogy; Feeding an early draft to a LLM and asking for N possible variations on a set piece or bit of dialogue, from which a writer may or may not take inspiration when iterating, is closer. The process is about generating ideas to refine.

In its current form, GenAI is effectively throwing sh*t at the wall. Diffusion models don't have intent which makes them vastly inferior to a human creative for intentional design; For the same reason, they often produce combinations a human likely wouldn't think of. Not all GenAI is prompt based, either. You can quickly "polish" hand-drawn thumbnails to rapidly explore 10's to 100's of ideas, before committing to more mature, hand drawn designs that incorporate elements you liked from earlier exploration. This is the usual process, you're just automating additional detail into thumbnail sketches - detail which may or may not prompt new ideas.

TLDR; You're assuming AI output need be authoritative; It's just another idea to be "processed in meaningful, surprising and unpredictable ways by human thought and creativity". I swear people see promotional art and think that's what concept artists do most of the time. It's not. Countless variations are produced and discussed (with peers, leads, art/project directors) as to arrive at a design which moves down the pipeline. I'm not discussing or advocating for shipping AI assets, largely because Larian explicitly said it's not doing this.

@Nei Concept Art is largely about ideation and in-team communication. It's permutative and iterative. You create new ideas by combing and transforming existing ideas, repeatedly refining them to fit the vision. It isn't done in a vacuum; Those ideas come from the real world and fiction - films, books, and yes, other artists work. Throwing GenAI into the mix doesnt change this - it's just another source of potential ideas to start with, and a means of rapidly testing certain ideas early on in the process.

@Dogbreath I hear you - arguing suspension of disbelief in a game where you go guns akimbo against Incan velociraptors is probably cherry picking...

My point was that not much was required to begin with, and the two games have very different tones which require different design choices.

@Ogbert I mean, it could be as simple as "because the originals did".

Overthinking it, character design has considerations beyond well documented, generalised audience responses (the implicit appeal of aesthetics, the halo effect, etc.). A mundane/grounded character demonstrating improbable capability while facing impossible odds in an quasi-mythical setting creates juxtaposition, which would have to be addressed narratively. This is a remake; Derailing the original to do so would be a misstep IMO. I thought the "less glamourous" Lara in 2013 was a good choice for the same reason - being more of an origin/underdog story focused on survival.

On a tangent, I do a lot of climbing and the overwhelming majority of women I've climbed with wore makeup. Often quite a bit. SPF rated and/or water-resistant makeup is a thing.

@Ogbert What makes it "generic" though - I thought it was fairly faithful to the original designs, which are iconic?

Their art director deserves 3 seperate raises.

I'd love a good Tomb Raider game. I'm just not sure what the odds of a good Tomb Raider game are, given the leaks.

@get2sammyb There certainly is a lot of negativity out there, but I think hand-waving genuine complaints as simple negativity isn't fair either. Just look at the indie space - plenty of positivity. Same with retro-gaming, which has seen massive growth. To me, that indicates that the industry is failing to meet the needs of (a subset) of its audience.

@BAMozzy The polish of first party titles always impresses, but I think a number of sequels have taken a step back in other regards. Take Spiderman. The sequel cost more than 3 times as much to develop. The visuals saw improvement, and gameplay got some nice enhancements. But much of that budget went to the 300 minutes of cut scenes. The writing took a step back - pacing was poor, with Miles, Peter and many plot-lines being underdeveloped, while the villains where paper thin and the dialogue was... serviceable. Not what I'd call return on investment.

To me, personally, it feels like Sony has the wrong priorities. First party titles simply cost too much, and take too long to develop as to allow the experimentation or risks taken in previous generations. Cinematic, character driven story telling is great, but not every game has to try and replicate the success of Last of Us; You need a premise and cast suited to it, and writers with the chops for it.

Unless Sony invests heavily in memorable new IP, I won't be picking up a PS6. I have cause to keep a powerful PC, so the only meaningful reason to own a PS, beyond nostalgia (been along for the ride since the PSX), is the exclusives.

Previous generations had a number of legitimately memorable games. Games I still think about and return to. I can't imagine myself doing the same for the PS5 line-up 10 years down the line.

@EfYI While I mostly agree with the sentiment, it's for different reasons. Those time-honoured studios are nothing but a name. The quality of the products associated with them comes from the people behind the name. Some of those people left content with a long career. Many where systematically removed from the industry. Sometimes that was the result of external stakeholder pressure or the excessive commoditisation of the process leaving creatives frustrated. Often times it was from within the studios they helped establish - petty politics, infighting and new "talent" feeling entitled to a legacy they could never sustain.

The technical excellence one sees is the product of evolving pipelines, disproportionately more processing power and team sizes ballooning by a factor of 10-100. One can easily mass-hire for graphical fidelity. Legitimately imaginative worlds, iconic characters, memorable stories and innovative game systems... Not so much. At this point, seeing these studios shuttered leaves me conflicted. It's the end of an era, but also, in many cases, a mercy killing. No amount of funding can change the fact that, internally, they bear no resemblance to what they once where.

@judgmentarrows I'd rather they not - what you described is already a sizable number of AAA titles. For games leaning heavily into grit/realism (Last of Us), mundane designs are justifiable. For those not, how are "boring looking" character design not regarded as a negative - they always where, and would be for any other facet of art direction in that context?

I can understand not liking stripperiffic designs - that's certainly a matter of taste. I can't say I understand the aversion to female characters appearing feminine though.

As much as I'd like to see new IPs, or even main-series entries from TN, I'm looking forward to this. Been ages since I played Fatal Frame.

Yotei certainly is popular. As someone who loved the art direction of Tsushima, liked Jin's characterisation and the mythic tales, but found the combat lacklustre and open world to drag (a lot in late-game), is it worth trying?

@nessisonett Most titles, including massive first party titles, leave lines on the cutting room floor. It's not solely a matter of budget, it's a matter of perceived value of content and the logistics of the design, casting, approval, iteration and integration cycle not being feasible (most VOs are recorded late in production). I'm simply stating that there's a subset of lines, idealistic hypotheticals aside, that would have never made their way to an actor.

I'm generally not an advocate for "AI". I'm opposed to its use outside of simplifying and accelerating tedious tasks that undermine creative workflows (skinning, UVs, foley pre-processing); But even automating those could reduce job human work hours or job security. As do a litany of non-AI choices made over the past decades - licensing engines, use of asset libraries, short-term outsourcing. Hell, even procedural generation. Where does one draw the line? If the bar is set at "reducing job security", practically every AAA studio is guilty as sin and has been for a while.

@nessisonett Yeah and no. If they are lines which budgetary or logistical constraints would have precluded, which are pretty common, they would have never found their way to an actor to begin with.

Nah, plenty of backlog to work through and frankly, after the first, I have little interest in the second.

The writing used to be a big part of the charm of Obsidian games; After Outer Worlds and Avowed, it's now a reason to avoid them.

@tselliot Fast-paced, challenging and complex/varied gameplay. Many are equally confused by the appeal of cinematic heavy games in a medium defined by its interactivity. To each to their own.

@Questionable_Duck Steam doesn't have graduated scores - you either recommend or do not recommend a game. That score means 94% of players didn't think it bad, not that the average player thought it a 9.4

I really liked the dark 80's OVA-inspired aesthetic of NG1 & 2, and that seems largely absent in this one. Not sure I'm a fan of Ryu playing second fiddle either, or the girls not making it in as playable characters. Who am I kidding? It's a NG game. I'll put at least a hundred hours into it; Nothing quite compares, action wise, if you take the time to get good.

@Brundleflies21 You missed the extended cutscenes, drip fed amidst the genocide yet chock full of self-righteous indignation, that alone nearly bankrupt studios. Jokes aside, some are really good, but I am growing tired of every game feeling the need to embrace "gritty realism" and hours worth of cutscenes in what is meant to be an interactive entertainment medium.

@nessisonett It's a tricky one - one I'm not sure anyone "comes back stronger" from. 4 studios very publicly cut ties based on spurious claims, removed his contributions and in the case of EA, vowed to never work with him again. There've been no public retractions or apologies by said studios. It's a stigma he will likely have to carry, largely due to the response of the studios (and press) - presuming guilt.

You're right, stepping back is the professional response. Messy public witch-hunts based on unverified claims, not so much.

@nessisonett I remember reading that he and Mitsoda had concerns about the design of the game from the outset, so maybe there was no saving it? Everything hinges on executives actually listening to veteran developers concerns.

As for his firing, it should have never happened. There's a reason why presumption of innocence is the basis of any competent legal system.

@Romans12 Pretty much my feelings. Playing through the remake now and it really is excellent. Spooky souls on the other hand was a disappointment. It should have never released with Silent Hill in the title, for its own sake.

Disappointing, but unsurprising. They should have kept the original team, and Chris Avellone.

@Oram77 Unless that monopoly, in a misguided attempt to see return on investment, tries to "westernize" anime and lands up butchering it much like Netflix.

If nothing else, monopolies represent a single point of failure.

It sunk a studio; I doubt there's any conspiracy. Part of the problem was marketing - I know people who refused to redeem the free copy offered by EGS because of how the marketing rubbed them the wrong way. A simpler explanation would be that people who enjoy that flavour of writing find themselves in the company of similar tastes. Just many amongst the existing player base have different tastes. Subjective.

With that said, I'll admit that around the 5 hour mark, the "saints" became less overtly aggravating and more just boring and forced. I'm not sure if the writing improved or I simply became desensitized to it. By that point though, the uninspired gameplay was already taking its toll. Not what I personally would call a good experience.

@Rich33 While I appreciate that's subjective, and am glad you enjoyed it, the issue for me, and pretty much everyone I've spoken to it about, wasn't so much the new cast. It's that the new cast was thoroughly unbearable and the humour didn't land.

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I'm not liking the art style. Some of the character designs are just weird, and a step back compared to the original.

@Questionable_Duck Fair point. "Currently, there's not really too much of a possibility of having 'Nioh' on Xbox platforms. " Given that Sony published them outside of Japan, I'm not sure we'll see that change.

As for the story connection, hard to say. People see 3 and assume continuity if not familiar with the franchise. I can see that impacting sales.

@Questionable_Duck It's not a timed exclusive and Team Ninja previously said Nioh games where never coming to Xbox. I'd say it's highly unlikely.

Maybe they figure the rest of the series being absent will see less adoption, unlike the Fatal Frame franchise which has launched most titles on Xbox?

@LogicStrikesAgain It has a simultaneous PC/PS launch. No mention of Xbox.

@GirlVersusGame I'd wager that attractive, even sexualised characters, aren't intended as a substitute for "real contact". Nor are they at odds with maturity. Aesthetics has implicit appeal and that's not going to change. A vocal minority just attempted to associate shame with that simple reality.

On a tangent, it's worth noting that the original cultivation theory paper that popularised the "games reinforcing misogyny" argument and prompted the moral panic bordered on academic malfeasance, has yet to be reproduced successfully and has been contradicted numerous times, with more robust studies finding the opposite. This parallels decades worth of research indicating violent videogames have no meaningful impact on aggression, but do decrease cortisol levels which are implicated in reactionary violence. Poor research was accepted without merit and became a political football. Jack Thompson all over again.

@Paleblood On the upside, looking at this comment section, performative pearl clutching as a pastime is on the decline.

@nessisonett How does nanite influence "design styles" beyond tempting developers to put more geometry on screen? Lumen is entirely optional, and the engine allows the use of no, baked or custom GI solutions. The NvRTX branch, which includes RESTIR (used in Cyberpunk's path tracing mode), is also freely available. Spoilers, it doesn't have much impact on "design styles". Only the fidelity and cost of modelling light transport.

At a stretch, one could argue that PBR and the stock ACES colour grading have influenced the look of many titles, but you'd still be making excuses for developers prioritizing "realism", and aping cinematic lighting/post techniques, over developing interesting, unique art direction. That, and the overuse of photogrammetry libraries.

Not enough explosions

Hot take if ever there was one - like faulting Doom 2016 because the gameplay involves shooting things and "Hurt me plenty" wasn't enough of a challenge.

I suggest trying mentor or master ninja, as they outright require precise positioning, move selection and UT execution.

@LogicStrikesAgain

> that it is diverse as the cause of why a product is bad, instead of the real reasons like awful writing, acting and acting etc.

There's a difference between the general notion of diversity, and the practicalities of the financially incentivised corporate pursuit of it. Diversity requirements in a company, in my experience, usually start at the behest of executives/stakeholders. Seminars and consultancy follows, always nebulous with little to no thought of context or execution. Less "lets make a different character or cast", more intersectionality. Any opposition, regardless of motivation, is dealt with harshly. This In practice lends itself to a lot of uncertainty, often resulting in the "safest" choice as to not risk offending or creating something "problematic".

The simplest example I can provide is seeing a bunch of compelling vignettes, complete with exposition and legitimately endearing character beats, scrapped because they made a female character seem "vulnerable"; Despite her being immensely capable during gameplay, it was an explicitly discouraged characterisation. The outcome? A colleague disappointed and demotivated, criticisms of an unrelatable, cold protagonist and plot points lacking motivation at launch.

> they fail to make a compelling product around their pursuit of inclusiveness

And that's my point. The corporate climate which prioritises DEI, practically, more often than not imposes substantial constraints on the design space. The social climate that enforces it impacts morale and investment within the team. Both can significantly undermine the quality of output.

> It sucks that you have to work in an environment that only focuses on representation.

It's a fairly small industry with a lot of talent shuffling about. From what I hear, it's not uncommon.

@DonJorginho Hear, hear!

@nessisonett

Diversity in itself is neither here nor there, until it becomes a development priority (where gameplay/experience/entertainment value should always come first).

> It goes without saying that no dev would want to add elements to a game unless they were a certain quality

There are explicit diversity requirements to be eligible for a number of game awards. For publicly traded companies, there are also strong financial incentives to meet DEI milestones, resulting in frequent, superficial inclusion/check listing. These range from well thought out, to obnoxiously performative (the progressive term rainbow capitalism springs to mind as an example), to at odds with the themes, tone or general tenets of good story telling/character development. In practice, these forced considerations, coupled with cultivated press outrage (this article being one of a litany of examples), means design meetings are dominated by concerns of representation and potential offense. Suddenly, entertainment isn't the primary consideration of an entertainment industry. Creatives walk on eggshells while expected to be creative. As someone working in it, that is my personal gripe; The current climate has stifled the creative process.

> Instantly jump towards questioning the motivations of the writers or use of DEI practices if there are minorities present

Calling it bigotry is reductive; People have enjoyed minority and/or female protagonists for decades. I think it's more cynicism. Poor games and films often spotlight diversity to draw attention away from an otherwise underwhelming product. It's the fault of the the executive/marketing departments, but none the less it establishes a negative correlation. So does using those characters for ham-fisted contemporary social commentary or lacklustre characterisation to speed run your quarterly social requirements checklist.

The amount of coverage and insiders trying to generate hype comes across as a little desperate tbh. I'd rather spend my time playing something enjoyable and follow up on any announcements.

Yes, and it's magnificent.

@Rich33 While I'm fond of the original voice acting, I'd be more concerned about Amy Hennig not returning.