True Gaming Favourite 'pure experience' game? |
- Favourite 'pure experience' game?
- How would you "Fix" Mirror Edge's: Catalyst?
- Pokemon Switch's Battle System
- Game Difficulty: How to Encourage Expert Players to Choose "Hard"
- Why does FPS Aiming Feel SO much Better on a Smaller TV?
- Designing from a theme
- About (GR:Wildlands') Marketing and Game Mechanics of this era
- Despite the controversy and lack of popularity, I think that Assassin's Creed Unity had the best gameplay mechanics in all of the AC games
- Not great at gaming, but want to find more casual games to play, not sure where I would find suggestions
- Having to run around and arbitrarily interact with things/NPCs until you fulfill some unspecified condition is one of the worst mechanics
- Am I the only one who believes that "Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor" was overrated?
| Favourite 'pure experience' game? Posted: 21 Nov 2017 06:20 AM PST By 'pure experience', I mean games that are actually pretty bare in terms of mechanics and are instead hyper-focused on just one, or a few gameplay mechanics. I'm talking SuperHot, Devil Daggers, Getting Over It etc. I personally find a lot of these games to be incredible feats of game design because they can keep me fully engaged and coming back for more - sometimes more effectively than a game that is full of mechanics, gimmicks, management systems and varied things to do. What are your favourite 'pure experience' games and if you don't like these kinds of games, what puts you off? [link] [comments]  |
| How would you "Fix" Mirror Edge's: Catalyst? Posted: 21 Nov 2017 01:01 PM PST Mirror's Edge: catalyst was a highly anticipated and hyped game, coming as a sequel to the albit niche but well-loved innovative game. After sinking more than 20 hours in the sequel, I couldn't help but feel that the mediocre reception by the critics was definitely warranted, it's a fun game, most of the time, but the potential was squandered for something much greater. The critics and gamers alike justifiably criticized the limited open world and the tedious side missions, If you are to be the director of the game, hired at the last chance to turn things around before the game was published, what kind of mechanics changes would you change or add to have a much better game and allow the full potential of the game? would it be fun or the game is intrinsically flawed? [link] [comments]  |
| Pokemon Switch's Battle System Posted: 21 Nov 2017 08:34 AM PST Michael Damiani of Easy Allies mentioned that (his inside sources claimed) Game Freak is revamping the battle system for Pokemon Switch. With the success of Zelda:BotW and Mario Odyssey, there's pressure for Game Freak to rethink traditional mechanics. The one aspect of the Pokemon games I've had a love-hate relationship is the battle system. Either it has over-stayed its welcome or it needs major tweaking. At this point, I think it's hurting the series. Pokemon has been a hand-held game. The graphics and power of hand-held consoles meant Pokemon could only focus around a couple mechanics. Battling is the most prominent mechanic. You battle to progress the story, battle to catch Pokemon, battle to clear paths and battle to evolve Pokemon. This gets boring and tiring now. Although I will endure breeding to get great EVs / IVs for battles in post-game, my girlfriend will put the game away once the story is over. Battling isn't fun for her because she's there for the Pokemon, not for fighting. She will use cheats on retro Pokemon ROMs to skip battles. Since Pokemon has an enormous audience, I imagine many casual players would be happy to skip battles if they got the chance. I think it's important to emphasize that battles are boring now. Pokemon isn't appreciated because of the battles. It's appreciated because it's fun to get lost in the world. Exploring regions, meeting new Pokemon, catching them, evolving them, playing with them, growing with them and etc. Pokemon Switch could take place in a beautiful detailed world, only to be disappointingly shallow because battles limit what could have been. Battling will have to make some room for a rich world on the Switch. But that also means battling has to be exciting to not pale in comparison to everything else. So how do you think Game Freak could accomplish this? [link] [comments]  |
| Game Difficulty: How to Encourage Expert Players to Choose "Hard" Posted: 20 Nov 2017 05:30 PM PST With game difficulty, we've learned that one size definitely does not fit all. Gamers in play-testing have vastly different skill levels and because I work in AAA, we have to aim for broad audiences that include gamers like us who've put in thousands of hours and also kids who are completely new to gaming and/or players who may have not tried games within our genre before. For this reason, the tried and true solution seems to be to have different difficulty settings that aim at different groups of people; for example, easy/story-mode is aimed at people who are new to all gaming or who may not be new to gaming but who are looking for an interactive story rather than a gameplay challenge, normal is aimed at gamers who are new to the genre or who are not good at it but who want a reasonable challenge, and hard/expert is aimed at players who have played the genre before and are good at it. This works well as long as players choose the difficulty appropriate to their skill level. However, in focus-testing, we often see gamers who are familiar with the genre and who say (at least in pre-screened surveys) that they want games to be challenging pick "Normal" or even "Easy" over and over. Then after our games (or other developer's) games come out, one of the most common complaints I read on gamer forums is about how they are not challenging enough and they want every game to be as tough as Dark Souls, etc. Well, I love Dark Souls as do many people on our team and that is exactly the bar of difficulty we have aimed at with our hard setting. . . but gamers aren't choosing to play on it when they have easier options. We've discussed rating players during the tutorial based on various metrics and having a pop-up menu that suggests a difficulty setting to them, but I dislike that because I like tutorials to be seamless. You have to tell the player some things, but I don't like when games pause and say, "Hey, I'm a game!" - even during the tutorial. Additionally, if a game is suitably complex, even a veteran gamer within a genre might perform poorly during a tutorial due to a lack of familiarity with the game; even worse, a player who isn't that skilled but who has started a new game and who is familiar with the tutorial could easily have "Expert" rating suggested when that is inappropriate. Plus, we don't want players who want a story-mode experience to feel pressured into playing the game in a way they don't enjoy.So that's an imperfect solution. So how do we motivate players who are capable of playing on challenging difficulties and who actually want that experience to choose it? This feels like something that should have an elegant "people-hack" fix to it. [link] [comments]  |
| Why does FPS Aiming Feel SO much Better on a Smaller TV? Posted: 21 Nov 2017 03:15 PM PST I'm in the process of buying a new TV (thinking 4K). I remember when I bought Halo 3 and a new large, 55 inch tv at the same time. I thought my skill depleted tremendously. Like I couldn't aim worth shit. Over time, I discovered how much input lag mattered, and then, apparently size. For whatever reason, the larger tv makes my aim feel so squirrely. Like horrendously inconsistent, and chunky. Anyone else experience this? It seems like my aim is very consistent and stellar with a nice 22inch display. What gives? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 21 Nov 2017 09:34 AM PST Hey guys, I've been looking into the way game mechanics can create meaning and narrative tone recently and stumbled onto the website of Brenda Romero. I really like her work and it got me wondering how does one go about designing a game starting from a theme idea rather than gameplay one? Ideas? [link] [comments]  |
| About (GR:Wildlands') Marketing and Game Mechanics of this era Posted: 21 Nov 2017 07:36 AM PST I apologize if the topic has been touched upon before, but it seems to me that Wildlands might have been received much better (or have been more interesting), bugs aside, if a few of its mechanics had not been mentioned in the marketing campaign. For example, I remember that, in an early reveal trailer, you could simply drive off with the truck full of coke to let the dealer, or whichever guy that was, be dealt with by the cartel. The marketing clearly encourages experimentation with the mechanics, as does the non-linear design of the game itself, yet it appears that there isn't much room left for similar opportunities. Ubisoft have revealed so many of these "tactics" through promotional demos, and other stuff, that it almost makes me sad to not have been given the chance to figure these out for myself. However, if I am wrong about this, I apologize again, as I haven't gotten around to playing it. This brings me to the point that, in recent years, we don't have surprises in game plots or mechanics along the lines of Halo, where the Covenant was the focus during promotion leading to one of the greatest plot twists of all time (IMO), or MGS2, which had a major twist in terms of protagonist/playable characters, which is also generally regarded as one of the greatest twists ever. First question: Why so? Why don't we have marketing that affects the game without shooting itself in the foot? Why do marketing campaigns invade upon the game to the point of revealing certain mechanics/plot points? Everyone wants to follow the marketing behind their favorite games, so why spoil them? I wish to bring up a different point about game mechanics as well, with Hitman's Opportunity System in mind. I plan to turn it off during my playthrough, but if there hadn't been a way to turn this off, I would have been utterly disappointed, as it decreases the amount of experimentation I can do with the sandbox. In short, hand-holding. Second Question: Why is there so much of this in recent games? Why pass up on the chance to better immerse your audience in to game? Again, I may not be accurate as I have limited time to do my reading, so do point out inaccuracies in my thoughts. Thanks for taking the time to read this. First post ever in one of my favorite subreddits. :) Edit: Grammar and words [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 21 Nov 2017 02:19 AM PST Despite the obvious controversy of AC: Unity with all of its glitches and its story written in a meh way (and ironically the book version of the game is written way better), I felt that its gameplay mechanics were the best of the AC series. The reasoning is this - you are an assassin. A person who hides in the shadows, not supposed to be seen and not supposed to even exist so you have to take the more subtle and stealthy approach. While I did enjoy my fair share of AC 2 and AC 4, their over-reliance on button mashing did not fit with the Assassins' ideology. It did not make sense that the Assassins were supposed to be a secret society but Ezio would kill tens or maybe hundreds of soldiers in broad daylight, covered in blood (which btw, white is the most recognisable colour so it is a very poor choice for stealth) and the weird thing is that if this actually happened in history, nobody ever mentioned it (the story that a madman wearing a hood was suddenly killing soldiers in the streets of Florence in the 15th century and suddenly dissapeared) But when I played AC Unity, I felt that the gameplay mechanics made a lot more sense with the Assassins' philosophy. First of all, let's start how you start every mission. You often analsyse the situation and have multiple entries but every entry to a certain building or location has its difficulties. So you try to scan what to do. The Eagle Sense made a lot more sense becuase relying on it so much made this sixth sense turn into a simple God mode. So it made sense that you had a certain range, similar to that of a radar and scan your environment carefully. And the thing that I noticed is this - I used the cover mechanic and tried to avoid content even more and the direct approach was suicide. Not only the combat mechanic fit more the fencing martial art so it made sense that Arno was not as fast as Ezio and the fact that it made the mechanic more realistic and fluid instead of constant button mashing, the thing is this. If you were discovered, EVERYONE is after you. And I mean everyone. And you were not invincible. Being one-on-one was fine, fighting in a two-vs-one was doable but three or more-vs-one then your best option was to run. You would get a lot of damage per hit especially from snipers so you had to run. But wait, this adds the emphasis that you must not get caught at all times. Remember when I said that everyone is after you? I mean imagine the entire French army would have been after you so finding the right hiding spot would have been difficult and the soldiers would be looking EVERYWHERE for you. Like one giant sweep for just one guy wearing a hood. So your only option was try to remain stealthy as possible which was very hard (even harder if you were playing alone). So you had to rely on your wits, your tactics and your equipment to get where you wanted to go. The equipment actually made more sense this time. They felt that they actually had an impact in my gameplay and were not just toys that I carried like in AC 2. I relied so much on my cherry bombs to avoid confrontation and go to the next area and make sure that nobody spots me or sometimes used the berserk dart so that I created a distraction. However, the amount that you could carry was limited and the amount of money that you needed to buy all of them was very high and ironically you would not get that much money after completing a mission. So you had to rely on two things: make sure that you find ways that you don't have to use the equipment, or use your pickpocketing mechanic which was a mechanic that was long forgotten becuase you barely needed to use it. This also created a lot of tension becuase you would risk getting spotted if you pickpocketed a dead body and everyone was as sharp as an eagle. This not only proved to be challenging but rewarding but I also felt that it fit the Assassins' philosophy.
That is how I felt that the Assassins should be like which ironically, the stealth mechanic in the AC series was always a bit comical at times ** And btw, the enemies you kill make more sense. Considering that the Assassins' ideology is to fight the Templars, you ironically kill a lot of people who are affiliated with the Templars and are mostly doing their job like the many soldiers that you killed. In AC unity, you mostly had two main enemies - the French soldiers and the French extremists. Since this was the French Revolution, one of the most times ever in history, violence and lots of dirty conflict was common so Arno's actions of violence fits the theme. The French soldiers were pushing the agenda of French monarch. The French extremists were pushing the ideology of the French Revolution by force. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 20 Nov 2017 04:21 PM PST I love video games, but I am not a great gamer. I have poor depth perception and I have a hard time playing regularly with bigger games, as well- I just straight up suck at most shooters and action games. Though I'll try most any game, I've come to accept I'm mostly a casual gamer in general. That being said, I'm finding it hard to find new games to get into as of late and I'm looking for suggestions. I love games like Animal Crossing and the Sims, and simulation games like Surgeon Simulator, OctoDad, and all of the Goat Simulators. I also loved all the Tony Hawk and most skating and other Xgames/sports games. I'm into the Forza Horizon series, and I did get sucked in by the Bioshock series as well. Most recently though, I've come to find that I really like turn based RPGs as long as it's not too much text to read. Like Stick of Truth and Fractured But Whole- I discovered I'm actually pretty good at those! Anyway, I've tried to just google and find similar games, but I always end up with a bunch of advertisements for games that don't seem appealing and I don't feel like they're probably just spam anyway- so any recommendations from humans would be great! Thanks in advance! Edit: fixed all of the " I️ " issues. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 20 Nov 2017 06:58 PM PST JRPGs are pretty bad for this, but I'm sure it occurs in other types of games. You've probably experienced it. You get a straight forward objective (talk to x), so you go to do so. Only x isn't anywhere to be found. It turns out that the NPC you are looking for only spawns after you've talked to everyone, or have done some seemingly unrelated action which the game never bothers to tell you about. I decided to try play Star Ocean 3 again. The game tells me I am supposed to go find out where the ship is. I walk around a bit, see an event, talk to the characters involved with the event—nothing. It turns I had talk to everyone in one room then talk to all the other characters in the hallway. Go back into into the lounge room to see another event, and then go back to were the soldiers were to complete my objective. Maybe I have been "spoiled" by modern games, but this kind of mechanic is bullshit. If you tell me to find where I am by asking a crew member, don't make it so I have to talk to everyone else (who have no relation to the objective whatsoever), and trigger some events before letting me progress. It's just obfuscation pure and simple. It doesn't add any sort of challenge to the game, and it serves no purpose. If the intent is to have me to explore my surroundings, then give me an objective that makes me do that. If the intent is to give me some exposition, then just put it in a cutscene. This faffing about to fulfill some unstated, arbitrary conditions is bullshit. [link] [comments]  |
| Am I the only one who believes that "Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor" was overrated? Posted: 20 Nov 2017 11:12 PM PST I recently picked up Middle earth: shadow of Mordor after much deliberation. I completed the campaign in 25 hours. And also played plenty of side quests in between. I was hyped to play the much-discussed Nemesis system. And it's fun (at least in the beginning). I will not deny that. But my problem lies with the other activities in the world that are uninspiring quests in search of "Mithril" and XP. After about 15 hours, I had purchased all the abilities I wanted and had no motivation to hunt down captains and obtain runes most of which are rather useless. After completing the campaign, I can see that I've not played half of the side quests on my map. Hunting down a captain and gaining intel is intriguing at first but soon becomes very monotonous. The next captain feels pretty much like the last one. Their strengths and weeknesses don't really matter when Talion has acquired all the coolest abilities and can beat the shit out of hordes of enemies without breaking a sweat. The biggest disappointment was the story of the game. It is very simplistic. The only memorable character is Torvin the dwarf. Having also recently played The Witcher III, I think I was expecting too much from mordor. I'd give it a 7/10. The combat is the best part of the game and should be relished to the fullest while it's thrilling. After that it's just mashing of buttons and seeing cool animations of Uruks being impaled on a sword. When the credits rolled, I felt hmm, okay. I don't know. But when I think of a "Game of the Year" I think The last of Us or The Witcher III. And mordor was nowhere near as enjoyable as them. Why did people like it so much? Is it because the Nemesis system took them by surprise? [link] [comments]  |
Post a Comment