True Gaming Purpose of "remaining lives" in games? Catherine made me think it's a flawed concept |
- Purpose of "remaining lives" in games? Catherine made me think it's a flawed concept
- Did you ever feel like a game was being unfair to you?
- How do you guys cope with a fading interest and enjoyment in playing video games?
- What's the difference between Action-adventure and platform game?
- Overwatch should have been F2P.
| Purpose of "remaining lives" in games? Catherine made me think it's a flawed concept Posted: 10 Nov 2017 03:13 AM PST I'm so mad at this game right now. So I had a pretty large number of retries but kept losing at a certain level, eventually I ran out of them and lost about an hour or more of gametime because I forgot to save at the bar right before the nightmare. Why am I mad then? I forgot to save because I was really immersed in the story and the conversations, and the game is punishing me for that. It's almost as if the game didn't want me to play it. What's there to be gained with this system? For all I know the only thing that changed is that now I have to replay a lot of story content I already went through, taking the magic away and making it tedious, I almost feel as if the game is ruined by this, what's the point? I totally see the purpose in arcade games, but not being able to save right before the hard part? Why not make the game autosave between sections? I really don't get why this decision was made. Can someone give me their thoughts? I feel like this game messed me up more than it should have, I guess I was really invested in the story, but man, making someone replay dialogue sections really feels dumb. Edit 1: So I have to clarify some things after what I've read in the comments. I didn't get angry at the game because it set me back quite a lot. It's a conversation to be had which live systems work better than others (good thing these healthy discussions are happening in the comments) but I personally don't have much of a problem with repeating levels if I suck in the current ones, I had no problem repeating the second night puzzles. Some people think it'd be in fact better just starting from the third night over and over again. However, what got me is the fact that I have to repeat the bar section which, personally, breaks a lot of the magic for me, it's like watching an intense scene from a good movie and suddenly rewinding 30 minutes. I hate having to repeat story-centric beats, it's like all the emotion is suddenly taken from the dialogue. I know this is a very personal issue and that my attitude was very childish, so with all the frustration from this failure and not being able to beat the level I came here to rant and tackle the mechanic of lives as a whole, when in fact I just had an issue with Catherine specifically. I apologise for that behaviour. No wonder some of you took me for a childish gamer that gets angry at the slightest failure and blames the game. Despite this, truegaming never disappoints and really interesting conversations about the mechanic started springing in the comments, so I'd like to thank everyone for keeping it civil and having patience with my dumb arguments. Now, in the specifics of my issue, I think setting back the players is not totally necessary, at least with story driven games like this. Some people pointed out Catherine was a game heavily based on arcade experiences, and I agree, but if you come from the autosave generation like me, this can clash with the story in this way. I'm a big fan of the first Ninja Gaiden, a game I believe is considered very challenging. I remember spending weeks in one of the last bosses, and even after failing countless times, I never returned to a previous chapter for not being up to the level or something. The mere fact that I got there maybe just means that I just need to try more, not necessarily that I didn't get the mechanics. Eventually of course I defeated the boss. Some people also brought Cuphead and I think it works really well. If Cuphead worked as Catherine, after losing to the Genie many times, you'd have the entire second section of the game blocked and thrown back with the frogs. I guess the adequacy of the lives mechanic changes from game to game, but it's a good example of how games can do without it. That's where I come from, so I feel that endlessly repeating the level wouldn't be that bad of a design choice, but anyway, let's keep having the discussion in the comments. [link] [comments]  |
| Did you ever feel like a game was being unfair to you? Posted: 10 Nov 2017 11:08 AM PST And by 'unfair' I don't mean 'ugh Ornstein and Smough are so hard'. I mean when a game changes the rules established until that moment in a way you didn't expect and does so just for the sake of giving you a harder time. I'm not sure I explained properly what I mean, so maybe an example will help: I remember playing Mercenaries on my ps2 years ago. If you've never heard about it, think GTA, but set in war-torn North Korea and with all sorts of heavy ordnance available for you to call in. As you might expect, most missions in this game involve blowing up stuff in the most spectacular way possible, but there's a mission the Russian Mafia gives you that requires a bit more subtlety. This mission involves killing three high ranking officers from the other non-hostile factions - the UN, South Korea and China, which you don't want to piss off if you can avoid it, so sniping seems like the best option; the Russians even give you a Dragunov sniper rifle for free, if I recall correctly. Except during this mission, a fog so thick you can't see ten meters ahead of you makes sniping from a vantage point pretty much impossible. I've always hated that, even if the mission in itself wasn't especially hard. So. Ever had moments where a game made you think "oh, fuck you"? [link] [comments]  |
| How do you guys cope with a fading interest and enjoyment in playing video games? Posted: 10 Nov 2017 01:07 PM PST I love playing games like Civilization, Europa, Overwatch, PUBG, Rocket League, basically Strategy and Multiplayer games. Since I have gotten older and accumulated responsibilities it feels like games that I used to love aren't enjoyable anymore. They honestly feel like a chore. Even games like Horizon, Wolfenstein, and Witcher 3 feel like work rather than an immersive and enjoyable experience. So while multiplayer and strategy games are enjoyable and I can play them for a while, I lose interest in most other games. Have any of you dealt with that issue? [link] [comments]  |
| What's the difference between Action-adventure and platform game? Posted: 10 Nov 2017 01:18 PM PST The differences seem trivial and highly dependent on how deep the combat system is. If TV trope's description is anything to go by, all core Action-adventure games are essentially platformers with equal parts combat and adventure game tropes. Platformer is a subgenre of the action game. And all of the games listed there either have platforming elements in their transveral sgements, or some kind of verticality involved. Metroidvanias(the genre codifiers in particular) incorporate all of those features into their gameplay and as a result, play like 2D exploratory collectathon games. So why aren't games like Super Mario 64/Oddessy, Banjo-Tooie, Jak and Spyro considered action-adventure? Aren't they technically just 3D Metroidvanias since they feature loads of backtracking, exploration, collecting, puzzle solving, platforming and combat? They honestly seem less like pure platformers and more like a mishmash of combat, platform, adventure genres that make up the same genre that encompasses Assassin's Creed(emphasis on on stealth) and Darksiders. Wikipedia calls Rayman 2 an action-adventure game. Is it because of the attack-strafe mode thing that he does? At what point does a platformer become an action-adventure game? [link] [comments]  |
| Overwatch should have been F2P. Posted: 10 Nov 2017 01:50 PM PST Hey guys. League of Legend World Championship's conclusion has made me think a lot about why it's such a popular game, and subsequently why is it such a successful e-sport. League of Legends being a F2P game, is in my opinion, the biggest factor as to why it's so big. Blizzard shouldn't have tried to compete with that with HoTS. LoL is most likely the best MOBA to ever come out, and it will be the best for a very very long time (please no DOTA 2>LoL comments, it's not the same genre, and not nearly as entertaining as LoL, according to stats DOTA struggles to hit six figures in monthly players). I think they should have gone for a different genre, one that's entertaining to watch, One that's fairly fast paced and continuously evolving (meta). This April, OW hit 30 million monthly players. Imagine how many millions of monthly players Overwatch would have hit if it was F2P. Its pro scene is still very young but not relevant enough to the point where I can see it in the same boat as League 10 years from now. Blizzard is all about making that cash money rain, they have made that very clear with how Hearthstone became a FIFA pack opening, and how WoW became ... Today's WoW. But if that was the reason behind making OW cost money, then It shows nearsightedness. Overwatch has as much potential as League to become a very big esport, because what makes something popular is the population. What do you guys think? Would love to hear your opinions. Sources : https://www.statista.com/statistics/618035/number-gamers-overwatch-worldwide/ [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