Unlabelled True Gaming Are video games still stigmatized?

12/12/2017 07:38:00 am
A+ A- Print Email

True Gaming Are video games still stigmatized?

Are video games still stigmatized?

Posted: 11 Dec 2017 03:03 PM PST

I just published a post on my blog arguing that they are, but shouldn't be. I'd love for you to check it out, but I'd also be curious just to hear anyone's thoughts on the issue. It seems to me that most people still place video games, no matter how successful, on an artistic plane below the likes of literature and film. I'm not totally sure why this is--maybe because they're designed to be fun, maybe because they're associated with teenagers getting addicted to them.

submitted by /u/penpsych
[link] [comments]

I love video games and play them regularly. But I'm also not very good at them.

Posted: 10 Dec 2017 04:42 PM PST

I'm wondering whether or not I should be ashamed of this. I know that I shouldn't take gaming too seriously because it's supposed to be fun, but when it comes to certain games, I'm so bad at their hardest levels that I feel downhearted because I feel like others are so much better than me.

For example, platformers like Crash Bandicoot. I sucked at it as a kid. I really enjoy the trilogy on the PS4 but even as an adult I cannot get past several levels due to them being so damn difficult, and the level of frustration gets to me to the point of grumbling, whining and finally rage-quitting. I especially hate it when you get sent back way too far to a checkpoint and are forced to replay hard sections over and over.

It seems like, to a majority of the gaming community, ultra-hard difficulty is a sumptuous delight, as it makes games last longer and the satisfaction of finally getting past a level is an enormous, day-brightening treat. And I can understand and respect that because I too have overcome some very tough parts of games and the feeling is really good once it's done. But to me, difficulty so extreme that you're just constantly dying and barely making progress ruins the game for me. Eventually, the frustration exceeds the fun and I realise that I'd rather play something else. Then, the memory of struggling to get past a certain levels makes me less likely to replay the game in the future.

Because of this, I haven't completed most of the games in my large collection. I literally just play them all up to as far as I can go. For some, for example, the Ratchet and Clank series, I can easily complete (the series is very fair difficulty-wise. Those games get pretty hard but never so hard they're impossible) but for others, like The Legend of Zelda, a series well-known for quickly ramping up in difficulty towards the end, I just cannot get to the end of them. They just become too hard and frustrating for me.

So I just wonder whether or not I'm alone on this. It makes me feel bad knowing that I just cannot complete most video games because my skill level just isn't high enough.

submitted by /u/TT454
[link] [comments]

What are some of the deadly sins of game design?

Posted: 10 Dec 2017 10:05 PM PST

Over the years playing hundreds of games, I've played plenty that I don't like. Some of these are due to taste but others commit what I like to think of as 'game design sins'. Obviously they're subjective to each person's tolerance of certain mechanics as well as the time period the game is from. but some just feel too egregious to put up with.

Here are some examples: - Invisible walls, especially in open world games - Unskippable cinematics - Climactic/final levels with totally different mechanics to the rest of the game. E.g. a turret sequence as a final boss.

Note: Not all games that commit a game design 'sin' are bad games.

What are some things you consider sins of game design?

submitted by /u/alizteya
[link] [comments]

Paid human NPCs / GMs in an Online RPG?

Posted: 11 Dec 2017 06:47 AM PST

In the novel "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson, there was a scene where one of the characters works as a "Ractor", which is essentially a human controlled NPC in a video game, hired to give paying customers a fun experience.

http://www.ifwiki.org/index.php/Ractive

If we include Game Mastering as well, do you think this is a service you might pay for?

Imagine a future free to play Online RPG, with considerable freedom like a tabletop RPG. (Think NWN or Divinity OS 2 but better, etc.) Maybe VR? Maybe it's not a combat RPG but a more social experience? There's many different possibilities. Maybe the system is modular and can accommodate many different game types.

Let's say there's a customer rating system for NPCs and GMs. I guess also a rating and feedback system for players too.

Anyone can host a room:

  • GMs/NPCs looking to attract paying players, asking for an entry fee of their choice.

  • Groups of players who have pooled a certain amount of cash, seeking to attract a GM / NPCs to staff the game.

The participants can look at the ratings of potential members and give their opinions in pre-game chat, and the host of the room can accept/reject people wanting to join the game.

Once the game starts (or exceeds a minimum duration), money changes hands automatically, and the game company takes a cut.

Does this sort of thing sound appealing to you? I have the feeling that probably some homebrew version of this already happened in Second Life or something.

Heck, it might have potential beyond RPGs. What if a group of friends wanted a more coop style experience in an FPS? They could hire a group of well-regarded professional enemy NPCs to give a challenging and fun experience tailored to their skill level, for example. Whose job is not to "win" necessarily, but to "provide a challenge and lose in a fun way."

submitted by /u/zeddyzed
[link] [comments]

When does replaying content become an issue?

Posted: 11 Dec 2017 02:09 PM PST

Usually, for the sake of "tension", games will have you redo things you've already succeeded just to get back to the point you died at.

Now, this normally shouldn't be too much of a problem. After all, if the player did have a good time getting up to that point anyway on the first run, then doing it another time or so probably shouldn't bother the player that much.

However, there are players that have died at a point in certain games, and then just decided to turn off the game and give up solely because they have a ton of things they have to redo, meaning that either the player didn't enjoy getting to that point, or that they lost so much progress that it comes off as a chore.

When does replaying content become an issue upon failure, and can certain games overdo it (if so, which ones)?

submitted by /u/456sanic1
[link] [comments]

The importance of inventory and loot systems in today's RPG's.

Posted: 11 Dec 2017 03:03 PM PST

What makes a good inventory system in a AAA RPG today? I want to just compare a few things that I liked and disliked from 3 similar games that I've played in recent years (Dark Souls 3, Skyrim, The Witcher 3), and I'd like to hear what other gamers prefer when it comes to loot and inventory.

Item abundance/ diversity: Games like Skyrim and TW3 have a shit ton of items which is somewhat essential for crafting and diverse gameplay, but all of these items can be a pain when it comes to managing inventory. I personally couldn't stand TW3's inventory system (enjoyed the game as a whole though), it had many duplicates of items but didn't "stack" them into 1 slot like other games like Skyrim do, which I think it the way to do it. The more items in a game, the higher demand for a clean inventory system with plenty of sorting and storage options. I think Skyrim did a pretty good job in that department, and Bethesda even improved it in Fallout 4 giving us more storage and sorting options, it was also nice being able to name your items and place storage chests where you choose in your safe houses. TW3 didn't really have any diversity in the way the weapons look so that made item management even more of a pain. Skyrim's items had good diversity in terms of looks, and the unique items included. TW3's "relic" swords had little to no visual difference from the rest of the weapons. Dark Souls 3 on the other hand had a pretty good inventory system due to the simple fact that there are less items picked up and there is more diversity in the appearance of the items.

Item upgrading/ levelling: DS3 had simple yet solid weapon upgrading. I played through the entire campaign with the first sword I received (which I loved because after a while, you sort of get attached to certain weapons.. especially if you've invested some time and crafting into upgrading it). Crafting/ upgrading is easy in DS3 because the inventory is smaller but still gives you everything you need, and the layout of the crafting/ merchant area is nice and compact so you don't have to do much running around to buy/sell/craft/upgrade items. You can do it all in one place. I also love the way the weapon scaling is done in DS3.. the weapons have set damage that never changes throughout the game, but the weapons can still be upgraded. Skyrim has basically the same system in that respect, but upgrading/buying/selling/crafting items is a bit less convenient due to the fact that the merchants and safe houses are more spread out (as is also the case for TW3). This is obviously partly due to the fact that those 2 games are big open world games so things are more spread out to feel real.. Bethesda made steps in the right direction by giving us crafting options like home customization, building crafting tables to make things a bit more convenient.

Item visuals & usage: As I previously mentioned, I didn't care much for TW3's weapons in large part because they all look the same. They all swing the same, feel the same, and basically do the same thing apart from different damages and elemental effects. Skyrim was similar in that all of the different swords swing the same way, but I liked that they all had different looks. It makes things more unique and makes it easier to grow attached to certain weapons. DS3's weapons were very well done, they all look different in shape & size.. and many of them swing in different ways, or have different unique attacks which is something that more AAA developers should aim to do in melee based combat games. One more thing I want to mention that relates to item visuals is Skyrim's loot.. part of the immersion in that game for me was being able to drop, pick up, hold, inspect every item that you have. It adds a whole different level to the feel of the game and I really respect developers that make a point to put things like that in the game.

None of the 3 games I mentioned ever really felt like they were lacking in items which I think it a good thing in general. I think that in RPG's it's a good thing to feel a bit overwhelmed at first with all of the different items and inventory. Being overwhelmed in the beginning almost always means that the game has depth and you will appreciate the options later in the game once you become more familiar with the items. I realize in this rant that I sound like I hate TW3, but I really liked that game. I just think that it's biggest weaknesses are the inventory system and combat. I liked DS3 and Skyrim's systems for different reasons. After playing Skyrim for a lot of hours and constantly sorting items, DS3 was a breath of fresh air knowing that item management is much more simple yet still has depth.

For anyone that's read this, I'm curious about what you liked & disliked about these games' or other RPG's inventory/loot systems. I think it's a really important part of creating depth in today's RPG's (or other genres).

submitted by /u/Dingid_Forester
[link] [comments]

Honest Opinions of Star Wars Battlefront 2 As A Gift

Posted: 11 Dec 2017 12:23 PM PST

Hey Guys,

I haven't been 100% up to date with the situation going on with the game since I never planned on buying it for myself, all I know is that there is loot box/micro-transaction issues, AFK farming, and some rubber banding.

However, when I initially heard of the game it thought it would be a perfect present for my father who loves Star Wars and likes to occasionally play games on his PC.

So I ask, would you guys still recommend getting this game as Xmas gift for my father? He's in his 50's, casual player, currently plays some War Thunder and Battlefield 4.

submitted by /u/ellankyy
[link] [comments]

Where can I find a full list of games that came out in 2017?

Posted: 10 Dec 2017 06:06 PM PST

I've been looking for a full list (within reason) of games from 2017 (or any year if possible) that does not include ports or expansion packs. I haven't been able to find anything like this. Any guidance would be appreciated.

submitted by /u/seekerlite
[link] [comments]

Can we talk about getting EA's football license revoked too?

Posted: 11 Dec 2017 09:12 AM PST

tl'dr: Every year Madden is getting worse and worse, plus we have not seen a PC release for years. Does anyone else feel like EA should have it's football license revoked?

submitted by /u/INeedToPoop22
[link] [comments]

I miss team-based, objective focused, character class shooters.

Posted: 10 Dec 2017 08:44 PM PST

And I absolutely know there's a market for one that's designed around competitive play.

The FPS scene is extremely stale, and it has been for years now in my opinion. My biggest hope for this genre was Dirty Bomb, but Splash Damage has proven (once again, cough cough ET:QW, BRINK - good god) that they're completely incapable of executing a brilliant concept, butchering a game that has huge potential before it could ever leave the womb of beta through horrible advertising and lack of focus on community growth. Brink had just as much promise but was a total failure due to horrible netcode and poor hit reg. The movement and gunplay was awesome, but it felt like shit when your shots wouldn't connect 30% of the time you were playing.

What we need is a return to the golden age of team shooters: RTCW, Enemy Territory, UT, Tribes - all the greats. I see so many complaints these days about the way modern shooters are built, from the ground up, that I'm almost completely certain that a phenomenal new esport could explode onto the scene with a focused list of development credentials (AND PROPER MARKETING; I'M LOOKING AT YOU SPLASH DAMAGE >:[ ).

The things that would make for this holy grail of team shooters:

  1. HIT BOXES and HIT REGISTRATION are 100% the number one priority from day 1. This game should be built on whatever the most rock solid netcode is that's available to date. Q3 engine is still the standard to live up to in my opinion. :p

    Gunplay is the focus and the main draw of the game. Headshots are rewarded but not with instant kills. Think 2-3 headshots to kill depending on the weapon, but 8-10 body shots. This makes for a very intense TTK where skilled players can quickly down multiple opponents if they have a good position and skirmishing skills, but are not being killed almost instantly if flanked or shot from behind. Mobility is > realism in this genre. There should absolutely be some kind of movement acceleration to make fights more skirmishy, rewarding players who have consistent tracking, and making it less about who gets the jump. You want a game that makes it feel GOOD to hold down an objective as the last person alive on your team with a 20s respawn timer, killing the remaining 3 attackers because you out-shot them. These are the moments that drive streams wild and will attract lots of players.

  2. Class diversity, without dozens of different bullshit loadouts for every class. Ideally each class would have 2-5 weapon/loadout options depending on utility. TF2 did this fantastically before Valve started adding tons of ridiculous weapons. RTCW/ET are my models for the class system without a doubt. I still think those games executed it better than anything else that's come out in the ~10-15 years since their communities died.

  • Medic (self-explanatory, but to clarify Medics were actually the main combat class in those games - teams would have their best shots play medic because it was a class that could self heal, and sitting on stacked health packs was a very valid competitive tactic for holding a corner).
  • Soldier (highest weapon diversity, had 5 options but didn't get any other real abilities)
  • Engineer (repairs escort vehicles for objectives, plants/defuses explosives at objectives)
  • Field Ops (ammo / ordinance - artillery + air strikes)
  • Covert Ops (Sniper class, but could disguise as enemies - which was almost never valuable in competitive play due to comms. also had a very accurate silenced SMG that could be taken instead of the sniper rifles that was amazing for headshots. had satchel charges that could explode some lesser objectives much faster than dynamite from engineers).

  1. Tiered, but simplified level design with multiple objectives/stages. Competitive format ideally Stopwatch. I still get nostalgia boners thinking about blowing the wall on Siwa Oasis and rushing through an artillery barrage to try to get a plant down asap and beat the time for a round cap. Or even better, trick jumping over the wall unnoticed and getting that first Anti-Tank gun for free because you killed the one Axis Engineer who retreated to defuse it.

  2. Objective-focused, multi-stage gameplay. The point of maps should be to advance some sort of objective, whether escorting a vehicle initially (like Payload in Overwatch or TF2), followed by needing to plant explosives at an objective to reach the final tier of the map, usually either another explosive plant on a final objective as the win condition, or a CTF-type escort of a valuable document / other objective. The objective should not inhibit movement or your ability to fire your weapons as normal (like taking hostages in CS does for example). You want big flashy plays where players steal the objective, wipe 2-3 players on the way to the delivery point and barely make the cap to win the stopwatch round with half a second to spare. This is almost impossible when the objective prohibits movement or shooting in some way.

I have more things that I could add, I would love to sit here and think about why I loved those games SO SO much and how much of that gameplay is missing from today's FPS scene, but I think this is enough to digest where I'm going with the idea for now.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the state of games like this today. It seems like the landscape is almost nonexistent, but I constantly hear people talking about how they would kill for a game like this, on reddit and elsewhere. I am definitely one of those people!

submitted by /u/atm0
[link] [comments]

GTA 5 online

Posted: 11 Dec 2017 06:31 AM PST

Hey everyone! :) This is my very first Reddit post, so bare with me please. I was wondering, out of sheer curiosity, if there's any of you females playing GTA 5 online? I'm a girl myself, and I've played GTA 5 online for a year, but never met any girls on there.. why do you think that is? Also, I'm bored and playing GTA online right now, so if any of you, female or not, is up to play, let me know :D - Julie

submitted by /u/jullskiiid
[link] [comments]

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Games26 © 2015. All Rights Reserved.
Powered By Blogger
Powered by Blogger.