True Gaming Can lives-based arcade games still technically work? |
- Can lives-based arcade games still technically work?
- Take a short survey!
- Am I the only one who is sick of "open world" games?
- Is Skyrim or GTA V the Resident Evil 4 of this decade?
- The World Health Organization's inclusion of a new disorder called 'gaming disorder' is unnecessary and potentially damaging.
| Can lives-based arcade games still technically work? Posted: 08 Jan 2018 03:06 PM PST I've kinda had this idea for an indie game where it's similar to something like Contra or something, and that it would have lives and continues to collect along the way to keep the true "arcade" style there. Running out of lives take you back to the beginning of the stage, and running out of continues takes you back to the beginning of the game. Each stage would have a boss at the end. Except... I feel that there's a flaw with this idea here somewhere. For example, let's consider the games like these that already do that. Let's say you reach the final boss. Now, your ability to defeat the final boss all depends on how many lives and continues you've farmed up until then. If you only have two lives and two continues remaining, then that means you'd only have about... five deaths or so before you have to redo the whole game. However, if you farmed lives, you'd have a LOT more chances to fail. In a way, it seems like all you'd have to do is improve at the beginning, and that would kinda skew the "difficulty" a bit downward (this is assuming that limited lives qualify as difficulty in itself), and that it would ultimately just boil down to throwing yourself at the game until you eventually memorize everything. In a way, it forces players to grind their way to perfection before the final boss, and I feel that this isn't something that could be fun or enjoyable. But that's just me. Do games like this actually work, or is the arcade system like this... well, archaic? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 08 Jan 2018 02:02 PM PST You are invited to participate in a research study on perception of protagonists in action role-playing video games. You will be asked to complete a short demographic survey and then watch a short video (approximately 3.5 minutes) and answer a survey based on your opinions of the presented video. Your participation will take approximately 15 minutes. Please forward and share as you feel comfortable, it would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!! [link] [comments]  |
| Am I the only one who is sick of "open world" games? Posted: 08 Jan 2018 11:19 AM PST I have a ton of games that I've not finished and some of them are actually pretty good (or very good depending on who you are) but they all follow the same pattern. The start of the game is narrow and well defined with some sort of introductory quest that sets up the game and familiarizes the player with the world, story, etc. The start is almost always interesting and engaging, but after a little while you finish the startup quest and get dumped out into the rest of the game world. You're then left to follow the main story and/or do side quests and otherwise wander endlessly/aimlessly around the world. For me this where the game quickly falls apart and soon I just don't care anymore. With all the side quests, distances spent running, litany of characters, etc I just loose track what I'm doing, why I'm doing it or what the story is now. After a bit it just devolves down into: go to the map point, kill everything, collect reward, move to next place. I'd much rather have smaller games, with focused, well written stories, that come out in episodes. 10-20 great hours of play is way better than 200 hours of....why am I killing these things again? At least in my opinion. Yes I recognize there are games out there like I'm describing and I have gotten those but it seems like the majority of big name publishers are not putting out quality games like this at all. Anyone else feel the same way? [link] [comments]  |
| Is Skyrim or GTA V the Resident Evil 4 of this decade? Posted: 08 Jan 2018 07:01 AM PST In the 90s we had Street Fighter II as a game that made a lot of success and was released to almost all the platform of that time (and still happening today). In the 00s was the time of RE4 (it's funny remember that was originally a Game Cube Exclusive haha). And in the current decade we have two games like this, GTA V and Skyrim. Which of them can be chosen to represent this decade? Or can them both? EDIT: Represent this decade in the category "game that will be released for all possible and impossible platforms", not "most impactful", "best", etc. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 03 Jan 2018 10:53 AM PST You've probably seen, but the World Health Organization (WHO) has included a preliminary disorder known as 'gaming disorder' for their upcoming diagnostic manual. As expected, it's been met with a lot of criticism and ridicule. As gamers, our instinctive reaction is often to laugh off things that may potentially threaten our hobby, but I wanted to view the announcement through a less biased viewpoint (I also have a Psychology background, which helped). I decided to go through the classification of the disorder step-by-step while critiquing it. My thoughts are as follows:
I've expanded on these thoughts and examined the criteria in this video, if anyone's interested in having a look! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNB1TFizQ1o But I'm mostly interested in discussing it with everyone on here because I haven't really seen any constructive conversations about it.
EDIT - Loving everyone's replies. Some really interesting points I haven't thought of, it's so thought-provoking reading through your replies [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