True Gaming Why do some games punish the player by not letting him move? |
- Why do some games punish the player by not letting him move?
- How to implement failure in a narrative-based game?
- Leaderboards in games, are they a waste of development time?
- Just Cause 3 is probably the most infuriating game of all time.
- Net Neutrality and game developers
- Different ways of handling lore, back story, and world building. What makes it effective/not effective?
- Are our gaming standards and expectations rising or falling?
- Books/published essays on Video Games as an art form
| Why do some games punish the player by not letting him move? Posted: 10 Dec 2017 07:45 AM PST Hello, something I've noticed in PvP games is that the most common way to punish a mistake is by not letting the player defend himself. If you lose a teamfight in Dota or League of Legends, you have to watch how your base is being destroyed. In fighting games, like Skullgirls, you have to wait to the oponent to finish his combo, like if the main focus is the game is how many buttons you can press in a single combo instead of fighting an oponent. Brawlhalla punishes you with evasion cooldowns and losing "jump charges" if you're hit (you can jump three times in a row) . My view of these games might be biased but I feel that these types of punishments are too artificial and doesn't go with the fluidity of the gameplay. Are there other ways to punish players? or Is there a best way to punish players? [link] [comments]  |
| How to implement failure in a narrative-based game? Posted: 09 Dec 2017 10:22 PM PST Hello TrueGamers™, So... I was playing Tales from Borderlands and this question came to my mind. I cannot say narrative-based games are my favorite but I enjoy them once in a while. Here's the thing though, you can't fail. This completely removes the feeling of challenge, a core part of gaming to me. Sure you can pick the wrong answer but you'll go back 5-6 minutes at most. What are your opinions on this? Is there any way to implement failure to such games? [link] [comments]  |
| Leaderboards in games, are they a waste of development time? Posted: 10 Dec 2017 04:51 AM PST I wanted to discuss this because I think it's an interesting question. To implement a leaderboard in a game is not an enormous task, but it definitely takes some development time. The issue I've seen, as someone who often plays games, is that the leaderboards are essentially ignored. They are almost always hacked within the first few weeks of the game's release and are completely pointless at that point because you have no idea where you really stand. Which leads to a different question: What do leaderboards even add to a game? A sense of accomplishment? A way of earning bragging rights with your friends? A way of tracking player progress and checking balance in the game? If the leaderboard gets hacked, it is no longer useless in any way. So is it worth the time to try to protect? Could a filter be implemented to stop impossible scores? (In a racing game where a ~3 minute track has a time of one second.) What are your thoughts on the matter Reddit? [link] [comments]  |
| Just Cause 3 is probably the most infuriating game of all time. Posted: 10 Dec 2017 11:55 AM PST I recently picked up JC3 because the full game was on sale for $12. I certainly got my monies worth. The movement options are by far some of the best in gaming, and the experience really delivers on making you "The Guy" and selling you the fact that Rico is an action movie hero. I bought it purely because of the reddit gifs of people doing stupid stuff and wanting a 3rd person shooter. But for all the good it does, JC3 is fucking infuriating to play. I'm just gonna break it down into a list. 1.) Probably the most offensive part of the game is the health system. It just doesn't fit with what this game is setting out to do. Never mind the innate stupidity of the "Bleeding screen take cover" system in of itself, when applied to JC3 it's insanity. This combined with a mandatory loading screen after every death just pours on the salt. Everything that makes JC3 unfun is a symptom of the health system. 2.) Immobilization Mechanics. Normally when you get immobilized in games, you get some Iframes to go with them. Not in JC3! If you become immobilized you are fully exposed to enemy gunfire. This is for essentially any reason. Thing is, anything that would immobilize you also does a ton of damage leaving you exposed.It's especially infuriating when you get immobilized on a hill where instead of being able to course correct with a grapple shot you get stuck rolling down the hill with no iframes exposed to enemy template attacks. Being immobilized has never bothered me in a game as much as it has in JC3. I personally get flat out enraged at this point, and I am the most mellow game player I know. 3.) Terrain Damage. In a game chalked full of explosions of numerous varieties, they really could have done without Terrain damage. Yeah, it's a little unrealistic, but so is propelling yourself through the air by rapidly opening up a parachute and then a wing suit. Terrain damage is a flat rate and extremely high, and they even have upgrades to reduce it, but with a game so centered on movement It's really dumb to punish players for incorrect movement when often there's a ton going on. If you grapple to the ground poorly and hit your head you take a ton of damage and are often left immobilized because of the games mechanics and then an inopportune shot from an enemy leaves you dead. 4.)Enemy Accuracy & Templates. I'm fine with Sam Sites restricting movement a lot of the time. It means that you can't strafe every base in the game with an aircraft and walk through without harm. It means that you at least have to go in on foot to disable defenses before going in with a missile heli. Cool whatever. It's when you're on the ground, and enemies that are barely rendered are hitting you with perfect accuracy that I start to lose my shit. I don't even have a problem with enemy Snipers or Missile Snipers. Those are at least fair. I'm talking about regular mook troops hitting you with an assault rifle from an absurdly long range. This seems flat out unfair at times. The other big thing that's not exactly a symptom of the health system, but is still annoying is enemy template attacks. Sam Sites are one thing, but having to constantly move around dodging the red target without any indication of where the Tank or Battleship is is very frustrating. It's often more practical to just ignore templates and get frustrated than it is to engage with them since chances are you are going to get slagged by another tank or battleship fighting one tank or battleship. Just Cause 3 does a lot to innovate the modern third person shooter. It takes a lot of good from the "Ubisoft Map Game" and does a lot of cool and fun shit within the same vein as MGSV. But good god it's flaws are pronounced and probably the most frustrating experience I've ever had playing a game. Can anyone thing of anything that trumps what I listed in an otherwise good title? Or maybe I'm just 40 hours in and playing the game wrong (if that is the case, that's bad development for not teaching me how to play.) [link] [comments]  |
| Net Neutrality and game developers Posted: 09 Dec 2017 04:21 PM PST Hello truegaming! with the repeal of NN coming soon how do you think development of games will proceed? Will Developers turn their focus on single player games only. And with that also a return to physical copy games from brick and mortar stores being the norm again? I think multiplayer and games that need to be downloaded with an internet connection will be harder to get to consumers in a less open,expensive and restricted environment [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 06 Dec 2017 12:49 PM PST I was playing the game Event[0], which is a first person adventure game where you explore a derelict spacecraft and interact with the AI computer on board. I haven't gotten too far into the game, but up to the point I'm at, discovering the lore and the backstory is part of the actual gameplay - the mystery of what happened here is the story. Then I thought about a game like Skyrim, a first person RPG, that also utilises environmental clues, but also leans heavily on books being left behind, NPCs explaining lore, and flavour text on items to tell you about where they came from. When you plumb a dungeon, you can learn about its place in the world through text. On the other hand, there are games like Inside, a 2.5D sidescroller, that has no text or dialogue at all. There's a rich world, but it only provides you the visuals and relies on the player to fill in the blanks about what's actually happening. Personally, I've found myself drawn more to the kind of worldbuilding and lore in games like Inside, where things are presented but not necessarily explained, so I get to participate in the storytelling. While it can also be cool to find a book that gives context to the environmental storytelling, there is also a bit of a downside - once you know the 'truth,' that's it. You can form your own theories outside of that, but it's already been 'answered.' But there are challenges, of course, with the kind of open ended lore that Inside and to a lesser extend a game like Breath of the Wild presents. It can be too obscure to the point where it's hard to draw any kind of theories because what you're looking at is so abstract or seemingly indecipherable. Questions:
[link] [comments]  |
| Are our gaming standards and expectations rising or falling? Posted: 05 Dec 2017 11:44 PM PST We have all heard about how EA is killing video games, and we have all heard, or participated, in the hate directed toward EA and other companies such as Ubisoft, Activision etc. for rushing games, paid content, loot boxes and milking franchises by releases and re-releases on an annual basis like clockwork. On the other hand, we see publishers like CD Projekt, From Software, and Guerilla Games who steer away from making decisions that hurt their audience, focusing on making each new game and DLC unique and worth the price. Nintendo also subscribes to this camp for the most part. And finally, we have all the casual games that dominate the smartphone scene, which claim to be free to play but inevitably demands your money if you want to advance in the game. The examples are endless, from puzzle games to strategic guild-based online games, you need to pay to stand half a chance of being useful. Lords Mobile and Vikings, I'm looking at you. So, are microtransactions, paid DLCs and loot boxes the future, or is gaming going back to the model of making you have to play, not pay, in order to progress with the story? [link] [comments]  |
| Books/published essays on Video Games as an art form Posted: 06 Dec 2017 03:21 AM PST The title is kinda self-explanatory. I'm trying to find books on this topic. I know requests are not exactly the point of this sub, but given the specifics of the topic, I guess it's the best place to find what I need. Thanks [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, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
Post a Comment