True Gaming Are there any games that are essentially a shooter version of Dark Souls/Bloodborne? |
- Are there any games that are essentially a shooter version of Dark Souls/Bloodborne?
- Call of Duty: WWII is infuriatingly mediocre - Review
- What makes a well designed open world?
- How important is "commitment and weight" to your actions in a game, for you? At what point does it cross from being challenging/fun to possibly frustrating? And is it the fault of the player or the game at that point?
- Death in video games (research survey) (cross-post from r/roguelikes, r/gametales...)
- Fake difficulty of FPS simulators
- Big games that bribes reviewers?
- Very important discussion
| Are there any games that are essentially a shooter version of Dark Souls/Bloodborne? Posted: 05 Nov 2017 11:43 AM PST I've been thinking about how something like that would be just the perfect game for me. I like the idea of being very challenging and forcing you to think about your every movement and positioning in each fight, and I like how open-ended the options for what kind of character you want to play are like the Soulsborne games, but the fantasy hack and slash thing has just never really interested me much. Basically, if I could get a more challenging version of Vanquish's gameplay but in an open world and with hardcore RPG elements, I could die happy. [link] [comments]  |
| Call of Duty: WWII is infuriatingly mediocre - Review Posted: 04 Nov 2017 05:06 PM PDT Kind of a heads-up. I (used to) have a small YouTube channel devoted to gaming discussion but hard times made me give up my editing rig. However, I still wanted to stretch my writing muscles and the latest Call of Duty release has given me the perfect excuse. I've also been a bit of a lurker here for a while so maybe it's time I introduced myself. Besides the discussion sparked by this review, I hope you will take the time to offer some critiques on my writing. Thanks a lot In an industry of unparalleled growth, we've seen our favorite childhood games lose that heart and soul that carved their initial success. 2017, however, has been a bit of a phenomenon. It feels like the entire industry stopped, and said "Wow, we really let ourselves go," and all decided to do the same thing. "Return to our roots." Resident Evil, World of Warcraft, and (almost) all of Nintendo is taking a retrospective look at their games. Call of Duty is no different. Sledgehammer is clearly drawing a lot of inspiration from previous World War 2 epics. Especially when it comes to our cast of characters. We have the nerdy jokester, a stern commander that may or may not have gotten a bunch of his men killed, and finally, Zussman. Our ride-or-die best friend. Many of the actors do a fine job in delivering their exposition in a believable way, with the exception of Daniels (who you'll be controlling) and Josh Duhamel. Don't worry though, these are the two voices who you'll be hearing the most. So you'll just get used to it by the end. Much of the story revolves around the bond between your character and Zussman. With the rest of the cast playing more of a supporting role. This cast is where we get the game's first great idea. Each cast member has an ability that aids you in your fight against the Nazis. Zussman gives you health packs that restore your limited health, while the others provide things like ammo, equipment and even highlight enemies for you. This forces you to dive around in trenches to find the right teammate in a hail of gunfire. It only add to the chaotic nature of the setting, and helps the player form that bond with their allies. There are also segments of the game where you may be split from some, if not all, of your allies. Making you actually feel weaker without your health pack dispenser nearby. Now here comes a pretty big "but." Your allies are worthless at the other aspect of war. Shooting. Don't expect them to kill the bad guys. This is especially frustrating when your commander says that they'll cover you while you deal with the current objective. After enough false "I got your back"s you'll just learn to ignore your allies altogether. In the moment, this uselessness outweighs the benefit, and only makes you care less about your brothers. It also doesn't help that you're only given a handful of really short, "let's just explain the mission," cutscenes to get acquainted with these characters before each mission. Unfortunately, that's the bulk of the game's emotional resonance. The game tells you that you need to get attached to these characters, instead of presenting situations that make you attached. The game's bleak setting doesn't exactly bode any confidence in their survival either. The setting, however, is where the game shines. Where other Call of Duty titles will take you around the world, this one will keep you right in the heart of Nazi occupied Europe. Starting off strong with a horrific depiction of D-Day that pays homage to Saving Private Ryan and classic Medal of Honor titles. While nothing will probably ever top Spielberg's depiction, I did find myself shocked at the violence portrayed in the opening moments of the title. In these opening moments, you'll run into the game's second great idea. Random deaths. The battles are full of seemingly random mortar fire and god knows what else. This creates an urgency that makes you want to end the mission as early as possible. It's that kind of emotion emulation that I find myself writing about in some of my favorite games. It's just such a shame that the game doesn't take any time to make you feel the stakes of the mission. You'll die, then get sent back to the checkpoint a a little frustrated. Let's get back to the visuals of the game before finally talking about the glue of the experience, the gameplay. Call of Duty: WWII's settings manage to be, both wildly different, yet familiar. As you push past the beaches of Normandy, through France, and leading into Germany you'll find yourself in lush jungles, gorgeous cities, and all different kinds of rains. The game will have moments of reprieve to let you appreciate the visuals, but not in an invasive "HEY LOOK AT THIS PLEASE," Uncharted-esque sequence. It's only rewarded after violent battles, to remind what you're fighting for. I'd love to delve more into this, but these sights are probably better off experienced first-hand. Speaking of fighting, let's talk about the glue. We're not in the future anymore. The exo-suits are gone. So no wall-running, no double-jumping, and no fancy gadgets to make you feel like a superhero. Just point and shoot. In this title, it almost feels like Call of Duty has perfected the feeling of the ADS aiming system. Each shot is loud and satisfying to fire. Even though one hundred Nazis fill the screen, you'll breathe just a little bit easier after you kill just one of them. When you find that great spot, and start picking enemies off, it'll feel like scratching an itch that actually feels better once you scratch it. Then, you'll turn to the left and find another patch of dudes in the treeline, and be excited to start scratching again. It isn't all just hunker down and shoot, however. The game spices it up with a few sequences that are welcome ways to break the pace, but none of them are really that great and worth writing home about. The most frequent of which are stealth sequences that challenge you to complete a mission without getting spotted. The gameplay is super solid. It's just too repetitive. Take a look at other shooters, they'll provide different enemy types to force you to change your approach. Call of Duty: WWII only has two. Dudes and dogs, with a third flamethrower-wielding Nazi that appears something like 5 times. After a while, you won't be satisfied from scratching that itch. Just like any addiction, you'll require something a bit stronger. That's where the online multiplayer comes in. I might write up something about the multiplayer if the servers will let me. Who knows? Let me just leave you with this: Call of Duty: WWII is a violent experience filled to the brim with great ideas. Ideas that are never fully realized thanks mostly to lazy writing and flat characters that are already tough to get attached to. Never mind asking that in a setting where these characters could die in any minute. [link] [comments]  |
| What makes a well designed open world? Posted: 05 Nov 2017 08:59 AM PST I was trying to figure out what makes the popular open world genre (as much as it is a separate genre) immersive or tedious. So first I ranked the games into either category on gut feeling. Just to name a few: Immersive: botw, mgs5, gta5, witcher3, Skyrim. Tedious: Horizon, fallout 4, farcry4, ac bf, watchdogs2. This is really just my opinion and the feeling I got playing these games. So the reason for choosing an open world (besides that it is almost standard nowadays) should be the sense of exploration an freedom. You can argue it is also a good place for immersive sim game elements, but you don't necessarily need an open world for that. There should also be a good reason for exploring, such as compelling plot threats and increasing character competency, either in combat or world traversal. But also the chance of stumbling upon something hidden is a great drive to explore. So an in game character asks me to talk to another character which is marked by an objective marker, which starts a predictable escort mission with some combat. In this case there just isn't that much exploration or unexpectedness going on. There is also very little player agency. Of course I have the choice of ignoring the objective marker and embark on a different quest altogether, but still you want to progress in the game. Where the immersive games from my list shine are unexpectedness and player autonomy. What starts of as a small favor in the Witcher, turns into an unexpected and compelling story. They also shine in player agency. There is no waypoint marker telling you where to go in botw, when you spot something interesting or suspicious, there is probably an big or small unexpected secret that YOU found. And once you discovered it, the next secret is already visible on the next hill. Another form of player agency is noticeable in mgs5, where you have multiple ways to invade an enemy base. These are also the cool moments in farcry. What are your views on open world, exploration, unexpectedness and player agency? Do you agree? Do you have any other elements that make open worlds immersive or tedious? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 04 Nov 2017 09:17 PM PDT I was struck by this comment about Monster Hunter games in r/games:
(https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/7aqh2b/if_monster_hunter_world_doesnt_get_you_into/dpd18a8/) I realized that's how I feel about MH too and was one of the things I disliked about the series (alongside the running-away/hiding bosses). I hated that if I worried and mashed the attack button against a sudden dinosaur, my character would still be swinging even if the creature fell with a single blow. It just felt so unrealistic and made the controls feel unwieldy. At the same time though, I think I can understand the design perspective. You want the players to feel the consequences of their actions rather than be able to change willy-nilly. I'm just curious what others think of this "commitment to your action" in a game. Do you like it? Dislike it? Do you find it fun? Do you find it challenging? Do you find it frustrating? Is there a potential solution for people like me who want a little bit of both (wanting weight and significance to my character actions but also wanting free movement/ability to change fluidly and quickly/etc)? Or is that not possible? Thanks - would appreciate any thoughts on this! [link] [comments]  |
| Death in video games (research survey) (cross-post from r/roguelikes, r/gametales...) Posted: 04 Nov 2017 06:19 PM PDT I'm interested in people's experiences with various character deaths in games, including permadeath. For example, what emotions do you experience and for how long? How connected are you to the characters who die? What motivates you to play games in spite of (or because of) high death penalties? Findings so far have been pretty interesting and I hope to capture some great responses from different kinds of players to get a more precise picture of the nature of these different experiences. This is part of my PhD research and at this stage I'm inviting players in this group to participate. If you are interested in sharing your experiences of in-game death you can find the survey at: www.surveymonkey.com/r/gamedeath Even if you don't necessarily consider yourself an avid gamer, you're eligible to participate if you are: 18+ and have directly experienced the loss of playable characters in video games. The survey may take awhile to complete, but if you allow cookies, you can come back to it and complete it at a later sitting. I really appreciate every single completion of the survey, thank you! There's more info via link above but I'm happy to answer questions here, and post about the findings if there's interest. Cheers to the mods for permitting this post! (This post has been cross-posted to several subreddit games interest groups relevant to the research. ) [link] [comments]  |
| Fake difficulty of FPS simulators Posted: 05 Nov 2017 10:20 AM PST Just a quick note before reading: even though truth might not be pleasant or compatible with one's views, bear in mind that if a claim you believe in is proved to be false and you accept it, both you and your opponent in a discussion are winners, as you got to know the truth and didn't reject it - you put back vanity and sense of superiority. Please, at least don't downvote this post because your feelings are telling your something different than my rationality; I dedicated a lot of time to writing this post for a reason. Note that I'm not stating tactical, realistic shooters are somehow overall inferior to actual competitive fps games; to each their own. I'm only going to prove or disprove certain claims. Also, sorry for possible mistakes, I'm not a native speaker. There's a dangerous trend of bashing fast-paced shooters in general (meaning that it also includes competitive, skill-based ones) while praising 'hardcore', slow-paced shooters that are, in fact, casual. In this post I will: -explain 'cod fallacy', -prove that those simulators are factually casual games, -dismantle counterarguments, -explain why the aformentioned trend is dangerous. I will be basing my experience on Rainbow Six Siege (even though this game is not a simulator, it's still a tactical shooter), Verdun, Insurgency. Although gaining experience on the topic of skill in games is one of my interests, I had neither patience nor money to deal with more games of this type. Let's start with the cod fallacy. Real examples from youtube's comment section: "that how ppl should play bf1 play it smart and not go around like a dumb ass" (Verdun) "This is what Counter Strike Global Offensive should have been, its even using the source engine. CS:GO is Globally offensive to the FPS genre." (Insurgency) "No shit, Insurgency is a thousand times better than Battlefield 4 and currently the best tactical hardcore shooter on the market" "This is like the better version of Battlefield." (Insurgency) "But dumbass BF1 and COD players run around in the open >>rushing<<. The only time you should move is if it's clear and you can advance forward to push the enemy back. We all know ur one of those players that run around in the open. Stop trying to defend rushing" (Verdun) "so what I am hearing then is you suck at the game and run out and die so the game sucks. definitely buy this game if you want more of a challenge than what BF can offer" (Verdun) R6 Siege quotes aren't included as they are similar. It's a claim that fast-paced games are inferior to simulators by requiring less skill and the former type of a game is called 'cod', which is a straw man fallacy. Note that this reasoning is not always used, but the conclusion stays the same. A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. While cod is a fast-paced game, it's also a casual game, so it doesn't speak for competitive titles. Now let me disprove the conclusion of this statement by getting to the second point (proving that simulators are actually casual). 1.Low TTK (Time To Kill)/BTK (Bullets To Kill). It's one of the primary 'hardcore' mechanics making a game allegedly harder. What is true, though, is that it allows worse players to perform more efficiently, as it negates significance of aim (there's no need for skill-based tracking because of how quickly players die, only point and shoot). Also, headshots are less important. 2.Slow movement. Its implications: -players are easier to hit, -tracking, almost non-existent because of low ttk, is even easier, -enemies are harder to peek (the slower you move, the slower reaction time your opponent [a camper] is allowed to have without being killed by you), -passive gameplay (camping), which is not based on skill, is rewarded -as a result, skill-based aggressive play (mechanical skill, quick decision making [gamesense]) is punished (I will discuss it later in the 'counterarguments' section). What's important, it also punishes normal style of play that doesn't involve playing aggro - just regular peeking when needed. 3.Weapon sway (during movement). If shooting is only accurate when staying still, it makes aiming easier for both parties. Just like low movement speed, it promotes camping and punishes the peeker. 4.Tactical elements. It's the hardest aspect of these games to discuss because they can have different mechanics (specific to them), so I will only cover the universal ones. Knowing when to do certain things (pushing, peeking), covering teammates. Only a person without any knowledge on the depth of competitive games can state that simulators are the ones to require those things. Not only is the very core of the statement wrong, but also the deeper meaning of it - that it's hard to learn those skills in a simulator. It isn't, because an implication of previously mentioned mechanics is a smaller number of things needed to be taken into consideration in decision making, not to mention fewer skill-based mechanics generally. Now let's take a look at the word 'hard'. What does it mean? Players sharing views that I'm now disproving don't know game vocabulary because they're casual, inexperienced players. Hence, they don't say 'gamesense', they say 'tactical gameplay'. A similar situation occurs when they want to talk about difficulty - they just say their game is 'hard'. But what does it mean? Skill floor? Skillgap? Skillcap? Skillgap is lowered by mechanics making skill less important; players with competitive dispositions aren't as effective as they should be, the difference between their efficiency and noobs' is significantly smaller than in competitive games. Skillcap - the game elements are easy to master because of their simplification and are fewer in numbers. Skillfloor - here, the situation gets confusing. I will discuss it in the next point. Counterarguments: 1.The game is more unforgiving (you die easier), therefore, harder. And that's when the topic of skillfloor comes in. Being a beginner in a realistic game might seem to be hard. Why is that? Because the map knowledge is important in those game. With the terrible campfest, peeking a wrong corner will get you killed, but what it means is that all you need to play the game is knowing the maps, which takes a short amount of time to learn. That's what the 'skillfloor' of these games is. It's also important to note that knowing the map can't even be called a skill as everyone learns it very quickly. 2.Mindless rushing, aggressive (and mindless) style of playing is punished. It's also punished in true competitive fast-paced shooters - not using gamesense will quickly get you killed. If you think a player is able to win with you just because of having superior aim, you're too bad at the game to realize that: a) your own gamesense is bad and that's why your opponent can obliterate you without even thinking - they don't have to use gamesense in order to counter lack of gamesense b) your enemy is actually using gamesense, but you can only see his actions - not the reasons behind them (because you're inexperienced) c) the only mechanical skill is aim? How about predicting projectiles' trajectory, recoil control, movement (for example, dodging and strafe jumping), timing (e.g. one tapping, burst fire, stutterstepping [which is also a part of movement]), crosshair positioning? Now, let me explain why discussed views are dangerous. Conformism is a human trait. The more people say the same thing, the more probable it is for someone to adopt that view. Inexperienced people are very likely to fall for it - their lack of experience in a certain matter makes it impossible for them to judge what is true and what is not. Believing in such lies can lead to players picking wrong games and not something they would enjoy. Also, developers listen to players. They can ruin a game just by listening to the vocal, yet stupid playerbase. That's why thinking for oneself should be encouraged. If one's knowledge is not wide enough to find the truth, that's alright - there's no need to be an expert of everything. Just hold back with making judgements until your experience allows you to do so. [link] [comments]  |
| Big games that bribes reviewers? Posted: 05 Nov 2017 09:43 AM PST I feel like all games like call of duty,assasins creed,uplift their scores by giving out money to the reviewers like the wb latest game middle earth shadow of war I think the scores are heavily innacurate because of this [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 04 Nov 2017 11:28 PM PDT Okay, i've been meaning to garner attention a little bit to a subject that affects every hardcore gamer out there, by hardcore i dont mean people who only play halo 5 multiplayer religiously or people who think that playing all ps4 exclusives and think they make the cut...i am talking about gamers who love all platforms equally (its okay to prefer one over the others as mine is the PlayStation) and play all genres and all games from Cuphead to Call Of Duty to Divinity: Original Sin II to Super Mario Odyssey to Heavy Rain to Journey to Mass Effect to Resogun..loving games and genres, having a wide portfolio and a wider taste than the average gamer. Lately Housemarque said they are shifting away from making their signature arcade games for almost 2 decades now to "more modern games" while using the powerful "arcade is dead" sentence as the title of this official statement through their website, also Torchlight 1 and 2 and Hob developers Runic Games were shut down by their parent company Perfect World as they also made some huge layoffs to the developers of the PC/Xbox One exclusive Gigantic, Motiga Games. This coincided with EA shutting down Visceral Games and the Star Wars Uncharted like single player action adventure game that Amy Hennig was directing, Square Enix changing their business practices towards an episodic formula, Ubisoft pushing shared open world online only experiences or online only experiences in general, Rockstar art director going on record saying that the reason for the GTA V single player DLC never being made is the success of GTA Online...i can go for a while talking about how messed up things are now in our medium but i will summarize everything in one sentence: games as a service! Do you think that this is destroying our industry? Are you afraid pure AAA single player experiences like Bioshock will disappear in the future? Are you for all this games as a service industry shift? Whats your stance on microtransactions? Lets discuss everything about this! [link] [comments]  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from For those who like talking about games as much as playing them.. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
Post a Comment