True Gaming Why are some games praised by critics but not by users? |
- Why are some games praised by critics but not by users?
- Rpgs need to go back to their roots
- Does anyone actually enjoy slippery ice levels?
- Have 'upgrade mechanics' and other artificial progression (unlocks, loot) harmed gaming?
- What is the best way to handle deaths?
- Why are microtransactions such a bad deal for the average gamer?
- I get bored too quickly by most new games. Why?
- I don't think <insert bandwagon here> here is going to be the next "big thing", chances are the new thing in gaming will be diversification of genres.
| Why are some games praised by critics but not by users? Posted: 09 Nov 2017 06:56 AM PST I wanted to speak briefly about critical reviews vs user reviews, with a focus on those games which have a very high critical reception but very poor end-user reviews. I apologize if this is old territory, but it does bring to light the "accuracy" of a game's quality—subjective as that might be. I wish to present no bias here—it's the controversy itself that interests me and as a gamer, it can be difficult to determine if a game is worth playing based on review scores. Typically, games rated highly on MetaCritic but low in the user review section or on GameFAQs fall into one of the following categories:
A game may suffer from all of these problems and still have a high critical rating and low user rating. I compiled a list of games which fall under these auspices.
Which games deserved their strong critical reviews? Which deserved their user hate? Is there a case for both? [link] [comments]  |
| Rpgs need to go back to their roots Posted: 09 Nov 2017 03:34 AM PST In my opinion rpg developers have lost their way, the rpg genre was based on the pnp rpgs like dnd and gurps where freedom and consequence of your actions were the focus and almost no modern rpg has these aspects. The last game that would come close to this would be either Fallout:New Vegas or Age of Decadence, most other modern rpgs focus totally on combat and totally forget about the roleplaying itself. I think modern rpgs should have it so that attributes and skills open up or limit the options players get when dealing with a problem, this will also increase the replayability of a game as you would have different ways to create your character. Aside from that the non-combat skills should be made useful again,so instead of persuading someone to give you 2 more gold as a reward the skill should be used to talk your way out of a problem. Finally I think quests should have different ways to end it which will lead it to a different conclusion, for example the reason the dark brotherhood questline in oblivion was loved by the fans so much was because it gave you alternate ways finish each quest. So what do you guys think of it? [link] [comments]  |
| Does anyone actually enjoy slippery ice levels? Posted: 08 Nov 2017 06:54 PM PST You know the ones I'm talking about. Those levels where most of the floor is covered in slippery ice that makes every step feel like Tokyo Drift. I recently started playing a fantastic indie game where the first major dungeon is the game's obligatory ice level. It has a ton of really cool puzzles and tricks and makes great use of the powerup you obtain within it, but for the last part of of dungeon and for the challenge side quest unlocked after it, I spent a lot more time struggling with controlling the character and not slipping off the edges than any of the other obstacles. It's a common trope you see in platforming games, almost to the point where you'd think there's some unspoken rule that your game has to have one for whatever reason. But are they added because the developers actually think that they make a fun challenge, or just because it feels wrong not to have one? Some games take the sliding to an extreme and make it so that once you step on the ice you're locked in that direction until you slide off of it again. I actually find these sorts of sliding to be fun since it makes moving around a puzzle of where to correctly approach the ice, and are usually accompanied by actual sliding block puzzles. It's the games that just make controlling yourself more difficult for no reason other than "it's the ice level" that really irk me. [link] [comments]  |
| Have 'upgrade mechanics' and other artificial progression (unlocks, loot) harmed gaming? Posted: 09 Nov 2017 12:42 PM PST Disclaimer: I might be a bit biased and disillusioned, coming from a gaming background mostly comprised of (A)RPGs, a few strategy games, and PC multiplayer titles and having recently experienced what's probably the most egregious example of this I've seen yet. It seems nowadays that most games need to have some kind of upgrade 'hook' to keep players drawn in. Even games that traditionally had no such theme are almost demanded to have something dangling infront of the player to incentivise playing. And it seems to be at the detriment of gameplay itself. Even those upgrade systems that promote different playstyles often just lock the player to one or allow game balance to be thrown completely out of the window with optimisation. For the sake of argument, lets compare an FPS which has a fantastic analogue to game design from then and now: Doom. The original just had a few extra guns that you'd quickly collect over the first few levels. The main draw is the level design itself, using the tools at your disposal from the level. Now, lets compare Doom (2017). It has the same armory of guns but now you've also got to hunt around for upgrade packs and rune trials to stay competitive with the game's challenge. If you use those upgrade points on say your shotgun, you'll now be at a disadvantage if you stop using it. The new Doom is highly praised, so it's obviously done something right. But is that in spite of it having a lot more 'upgrade' mechanics? Now we recently got Destiny 2 where the whole idea of the game, collect better and better guns, doesn't even work. Enemies scale perfectly to your gear to the point you're basically doing the same thing in the first hour as the 50th. Are they a crutch to allow developers to overlook other parts of game design? Or is it just me? [link] [comments]  |
| What is the best way to handle deaths? Posted: 09 Nov 2017 08:31 AM PST Death is an important part of a game, as it adds suspense to the game and gives consequences to the player's actions. Yet a few issues arise out of this concept. For example, once the player dies, they lose immersion in the game. You have to go back to some screen or checkpoint that you've already gone through. Additionally, once you've died, you've experienced it and so the tension and concern about dying again are greatly lessened. I was just playing through Outlast and experienced this which is what started me thinking about it. However, if you take death out of the game, then the player has no negative consequences and the tension is diminished. Also, you need to add in things that prevent the player from being able to die such as invisible walls preventing them from walking off cliffs that would remove from the immersion as well. What do you think is the best way to handle this? What games have done this the best, maintaining the tension without breaking immersion? [link] [comments]  |
| Why are microtransactions such a bad deal for the average gamer? Posted: 09 Nov 2017 09:26 AM PST So, in the last couple of months, the microtransaction topic is being discussed on and off. A lot of people are saying how bad this is for the gaming industry and for the players, but there's something that I don't see a lot of discussion about. Gaming development is becoming more expensive as the time passes. Funnily enough, the price for the buyer is the same. So, back in 1991, when people bought The Legend Of Zelda: A Link To The Past, they paid 60 dollars. In 2017, when people bought The Legend of Zelda: Breath Of The Wild, they paid 60 dollars. When any developer comes with the "brilliant idea" of increasing the base price for a game, people go nuts. So, how are they supposed to keep things going? Microtransactions. Now, I want to make myself clear that I'm not talking about "hidden content behind microtransactions", like in Asura's Wrath where, to see the real ending, you had to buy the DLC. But, at least for my knowledge, the games that hide content behind their microtransactions are so few, that is almost like seeing a pink elephant. So, why is this practice being so criticized lately? Take Assassin's Creed: Origins, for instance: You can play the whole game without spending a single cent. Also, IF YOU WANT DIFFERENT WEAPONS AND SUCH, you go and buy them with real money. Street Fighter V is similar: You have fight money, which you can use to buy different characters and customes OR you can use real money to get them from the start. Counter Strike has the whole lootbox mechanic where you can get different skins and stickers for the weapons. Valve makes a shitton of money out of it and I honestly fail to see any problem there, since the skins and stickers give no mechanical/attribute advantage to the players, so there's no harm done. The way I see it, these microtransactions are absolutely innofensive for the players and, if anything, they bring more money to the companies for the ones who want to buy them, which, at least the way I see it, are not a problem at all. So, can anyone shed a light here? Is there anything more "devilish" that I'm failing to see (again, aside from the rare ocurrence of content hidden behind microtransactions) in this subject? [link] [comments]  |
| I get bored too quickly by most new games. Why? Posted: 09 Nov 2017 07:32 AM PST I try to jump from game to game but that's too much effort to have fun and it's ridiculous. How to avoid getting bored? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 08 Nov 2017 04:57 PM PST You know how every couple of years you hear people going <insert here> "is the future of gaming"? I massively disagree; I'm not going to reveal how old I am (let's just say I'm starting to get gray hair), but a trend I've noticed is that a lot of past things to have changed gaming were because of technological limitations of the time. An example of what I mean by this is back when I was young computer gaming wasn't as easy as it sounds. A lot of the graphics cards didn't have a standardized slot and some of them had cords specifically for a certain computer. The NES changed gaming cause it was drastically more affordable and it was plug-n-play. A couple years ago people were saying that pc gaming was going to be the new big thing cause "consoles are technologically obsolete". (Be aware I'm primarily a pc gamer) The Nintendo Switch and how consoles are now coming out with hardware updated versions changed that. The reason why pc gaming has gotten so big is that five to seven years in between consoles is a long time; the ps4 pro and the xboxone s serve as inbetweens until the next actual console. The Switch was smart with how they're using sd cards instead of discs cause you fit far more stuff onto them than even a bluray. "Well vr is the future" While I agree with the idea that eventually it'll be worth billions of dollars vr works best with first person games cause it helps with the escapism aspect. A lot of games that try vr the reaction by audiences is often "This is cool and all but why?" "Digital distribution is the future" It already is the present. If a technology is wildly used currently I don't think you can call it the future. The biggest change we'll probably see with digital distribution is more competitors; right now there's a couple competitors to Steam worth a couple hundred million already. Digital distribution is like social media was in 2005, very few wildly popular sites but as time went on many more competitors popped up. ... And now to the actual thesis. What is probably going to happen in the next ten years is that since 40% of the world has internet access and as computers become more accessible to people that drives up the number of people who would be willing to play more niche genres. For instance rhythm games used to be hugely popular; in ten years I can it making a comeback because if most of the world has internet access and has a device that can play modern games then chances are enough people globally would be interested in playing rhythm games to justify making more. Tldr; as the number of people who can play video games goes up in the world so too does the number of people who like <insert genre of video game here> [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