True Gaming Change history by making 1 game fail and 1 game succeed. |
- Change history by making 1 game fail and 1 game succeed.
- Newbie Dragging
- What is the best place to check gaming news?
- Are open world games "bloated"?
- What Are Some Ideas You'd Want to See in a Narrative Driven Game?
- I don't know if I want to keep my Nintendo Switch
- Savescumming in storybased videogames. pointless, and inconsequential.
- Let's discuss Sonic Forces
- [META] Why does every third or so post have lots of upvotes and the other two have 0 or 1?
| Change history by making 1 game fail and 1 game succeed. Posted: 11 Jan 2018 05:30 AM PST There have been some games in history that have been so successful that they've influenced their genre forever, setting the default interface, language, and game mechanics of all games to follow. Spawning dozens / hundreds of clones and imitators. And then we have some other games with wonderful ideas, but sadly didn't get the attention they deserved (or contained serious problems that detracted from the good ideas.) Sometimes they failed so hard that they discredited the things they were trying to do, causing future games to avoid those features entirely. If you could go back in time and change 1 game to become a total flop & failure, and make another game polished and overwhelmingly successful, which would they be? And more importantly, what kind of effect in the present would you be trying to achieve? eg. I would want Starcraft to fail and Total Annihilation to succeed. So that in our present time, the dominant model for RTS and competitive games in general is for huge, grand, ambitious games with advanced UI, rather than rigidly balanced, APM-heavy, modestly scoped games. (Putting aside the fact that rigid balance, APM-heavy, and modest scoping are natural advantages for a competitive game... a person can dream can't they??) [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 11 Jan 2018 06:56 AM PST I can't get into MMORPG. I feel part of that issue stems from the way my friends and family inevitably try to introduce me to these games. These people have usually already spent their time getting into the game and experiencing all the content new and fresh. Spent hours learning the lore and finding their way in the world. Memorizing raids and figuring out the next piece of end game gear they will grind for. They have all the answers and a desire to let me see the great stuff at the end of the road. So when I load up my fresh character I'm told to rush the starting zone. Meet them somewhere and then they proceed to tell me exactly which quests to pick up and then where to stand while they wipe every low level monster in sight to power level me. That leaves me feeling rather useless and basically side steps the whole point of having a huge world filled with things to explore and challenges to overcome. I'm denied the whole reason I would have enjoyed the game to begin with. So I try to go alone. I solo my way through a few quests on my own and my friends now are off doing end game content without me. Sort of denying them the whole point of trying to bring me into the game, which was to socialize and have fun with the group. So we're stuck in a position where it will take too long to have fun with my friends but wont let me take the time to grow with the game properly and learn to like it. Level skips don't seem to be a good fix to this problem. It seems to confirm that early content isn't worth experiencing anyway and now I'm high level with none of the experiences to go with it. Is there a good solution out there to bringing new players into a world and not having the power difference ruin the experience for both players? [link] [comments]  |
| What is the best place to check gaming news? Posted: 11 Jan 2018 03:28 PM PST What is the best site/channel/subreddit/forum to check everything related to gaming industry and it's news/announcements? [link] [comments]  |
| Are open world games "bloated"? Posted: 11 Jan 2018 03:06 PM PST It feels like to me, many open world games are just too damn "bloated"--there's too much repetition and a lack of meaningful nuance to the various areas of the map. Here's probably one of the worst offenders(Assassin's Creed: Unity). I got Assassin's Creed: Origins and while I found it to definitely be a step up from previous titles, it still suffered from a mild case of the Ubisoft plague. There are still a few repetitive side quests and an over-reliance on "clear out this bandit camp and kill the bandit leader or retrieve this object...after clearing out the bandit camp and killing the bandit leader" The Witcher III also honestly felt bloated to me at times. I haven't played any of the DLCs, so I'm basing this all off on the main game. I actually love that the world was so big because it added a real sense of scale, improved the overall gameplay flow, and allowed for reflection. While I do understand that side quests and "activities" are optional, I soon got downright tired of them and ended up steaming through the main quest halfway through my playthrough and ignoring almost everything else (although I Googled around for the "best" side quests to do). I began dreading seeing ? on my map. Long story short, many of the side stuff just got too repetitive. I would have preferred more "quality"/uniqueness, and less quantity. While the game sure as hell isn't anywhere near as big as an offender as Ubisoft: The Game, I still would have preferred if CDPR condensed the amount of side quests and instead focused on longer, more distinct, and more involved missions. For every Bloody Barron, there are like three "MMO-style" quests: walk from A to B and kill/get X with (and not much of a veneer to disguise this). While the side quests are in TW3 are definitely better than almost all other open world games, it eventually gets to the point where CDPR's writing can't disguise the sameyness that creeps up (I also don't think that their writing is that good tbh because the bar in general for vide games is quite low) One can destroy oh so many monster nests or fight for protected treasures before the act either starts to be committed out of duty or sidelined altogether. I would have preferred if they sharply reduced the monster nests and instead made them more "unique" i.e. each nest has a "gimmick" like environmental hazards, less repetition in terms of monster nest types, marauding bandits interfering, a mini-boss who shows up out of nowhere, discovering that the nest was actually created by a human, etc. Another offender is The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. While the actual game doesn't feel "bloated" (besides the ridiculous Korok seeds), it suffers from a different problem. Essentially, the player doesn't really experience anything fundamentally new or different past the first 10 or so hours, after they defeat their first Divine Beast. There are a negligible amount of gameplay mechanics or new enemies that the player encounters, assuming that they took a bit of time to explore the world. Furthermore, the actual maps is sorely lacking in interesting and unique landmarks for a game of this size, such as fortresses, caves, smaller settlements, enterable ruins, etc. Long story short, the game doesn't feel like it changes much and loses any real sense of novelty very early. Out of recent releases, I would consider Horizon Zero Dawn to be a good example of how to deal with an open world. While many activities are repeated, such as clearing Cauldrons, climbing Tallnecks to reveal the map (similar to Assassin's Creed vantage points), etc, the actual amount of them is tastefully low (but not too low) so that you never get a sense of repetition. Even when they are repeated, they are unique enough so that every time you do the same activity, it feels quite different. For example, one Tallneck is in the middle of a bandit camp and another is in a canyon surrounded by flying enemies who you have to defeat or else they'll knock you down as you climb. Furthermore, as the game goes along, it consistently introduces new enemies so that even core gameplay always feels fresh as you adapt to the new creatures and switch up your tactics. Another would be Yakuza 0. [link] [comments]  |
| What Are Some Ideas You'd Want to See in a Narrative Driven Game? Posted: 11 Jan 2018 07:14 AM PST Note: I was recommended to come over here [and boy were they right!] to ask this question -- however, I do have another Reddit Post in Scifi that's asking the same question -- I just didn't want to be one of those people that goes around over-posting the same stuff everywhere! Please, forgive me! [link to original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/scifi/comments/7phrvo/what_are_some_ideas_youd_want_to_see_in_a/?st=jcalzntk&sh=ba29d986 ] For sake of not having you go to the over post, this was the original text: 'I hope I'm not stepping outside standards by posting this here, and if I am -- I'm very sorry to be a bad Redditor. I usually just lurk around and post here and there. TL:DR at bottom! Anywho! Here goes: Been developing a video game based on a graphic novel series I worked on -- it's pretty well into demo-ing stages [the art is currently placeholder and is going to be changed]. But, the real question I have for the Reddit community is: What do you like/hate about narrative drive gaming? The concept we're working with is, in spirit, a bit like Telltale Games' format (with some focus on elements as you'd find in Knight of the Old Republic/Mass Effect/Etc), but attempting to utilize inventory and interaction with characters so that decisions [not timed] are one-off -- meaning that if you decide to do or say X or Y while interacting with a character/item/etc that that decision stays with you. We want it to be challenging, accessible, and, well -- FUN. We're a small team of creatives -- just working on this on the side for giggles and such -- as such we do have limitations -- but that also means that we're not committed to a tight deadline or influence from anyone besides ourselves. All of us have experience professionally in the video game industry -- love to read -- love sci-fi/fantasy/weirdness -- and are motivated by the act of creation over financial success (but, hey! That would be cool, too! Heh). We're going to have a demo build for it ready in a few months' time, however, there is still an opportunity to modify the foundational mechanics and I'd love to be able to hear your thoughts! If you have questions -- don't hesitate in asking -- I love chatting with people and hope for positive and critical feedback. TL:DR -- Would love to hear from the Reddit Community about game mechanics/processes/etc that they'd love to see in a narrative-driven game [less-to-no direct action -- focus on exploration/interactions/that sort -- kinda in line with Telltale Games format -- but attempting to be original in the same vein] Thank you in advance.' Additional thanks to the Redditor: TekTrixter, who told me about this magical Sub! [link] [comments]  |
| I don't know if I want to keep my Nintendo Switch Posted: 10 Jan 2018 09:21 PM PST This might lead to reactionary downvotes, so I just wanted to point out that I'm in no way bashing Nintendo or anybody who enjoys their products. I got this thing as a Christmas present, so I feel guilty having this contemplation, but there are a few things stopping me from enjoying this console. For starters it's expensive, for the price of this console I could have upgraded my PS4 to a PS4 pro, and sold my original PS4 for even more money. Or I could have bought PlayStation VR. Hell, I'm sure there are some budget gaming computers you could build at that price. The quality doesn't match it's price, in my opinion. Each game is like £50, including, IIRC, Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle. I don't know if I'm willing to save up that much money just to buy Nintendo games, which - no offence - mostly feel like indie titles. I started having second thoughts once I realised I just simply didn't like Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle as much as I thought I would. Initially I wanted Mario Odyssey but it ended up being sold out rather quickly during December. The game was okay, I wasn't motivated to try and 100% it though at all. If you're going to troll your players at every chapter with trial and error mechanics, it needs to have an engaging enough reason to push through. I had this problem with Crash Bandicoot 'N Sane Trilogy. Sure they're a challenge, but they're just a challenge for the sake of being a challenge, games like this are probably better with friends. Like I can imagine daring a friend while to try and complete the High Road just for a laugh. But I digress. There are games I did focus on getting for the Nintendo Switch, including Super Mario Odyssey, Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Puyo Puyo Tetris and Super Bomberman R. But at second glance, I've played more Tetris games than I care to remember, and I've only played one Bomberman that actually had an engaging story and level design. I think it was Super Bomberman 2 on the Super Nintendo? Zelda: Breath of the Wild has supposedly been emulated and is now playable on the PC - due to it also being ported to the Wii U - and I don't want a whole console if it's just going to be a Super Mario Odyssey box. Moving past al that, the first thing I didn't like was the eShop, it's way too simplified and is already becoming as convoluted as Steam, with games that are so bad they're being sold for only a few pounds. Maybe this game just disappointed me, but I just feel like I'm better off focusing on one system, which is my PS4. Is there anything else I'm forgetting about? Apart from two games I feel there's nothing special about the Nintendo Switch, and I care very little for the portability of it. Edit: Thanks for the input guys, I'll definitely be pondering these points. A lot of you are very well spoken and it inspires me to try and improve my writing ability. Initially I was just disappeared because I thought I typed all that trying to word it perfectly just for it to be downvoted and basically censored - making it a waste of time to bother. I'm just weary, but I'm open to all takes on this if anybody else sees this thread. [link] [comments]  |
| Savescumming in storybased videogames. pointless, and inconsequential. Posted: 11 Jan 2018 01:00 AM PST Now first off, i am not against save scumming in certain games(aka in games such as as civilization, xcom, and other pure mechanical games, such as rpgs) i oppose it as a narrative breaker, IMO so here's my argument... When i (usually) mind you, play telltale style games (until dawn,the wolf among us, the walking dead oxen free) i usually put myself in the shoes of the character, and ask, What would i do? Tbh i usually don't save scum in these kinds of games, because narratively, it makes choice illusional and pretty pointless, When you can just go "No, i like this character, i do not want her to die, i'll go back and time and resurrect her/him" it makes the player caused death pointless and unnecessary. TO me when it comes to choice, it only matters when it it "Permanent" as in non reversible, otherwise getting to chose the other option later makes the first option pointless therefore making the choice meaningless in the first place. Because in real life, you can't have your cake and eat it too, same goes for narrative driven games, it gives the player certain omnipotence they do not have in games…… But you say, What about games where save scumming is allowed Ie zero escape? Well that's a tricky subject….. In the third game of the series Zero time dilemma , the choices and paths you take are all chopped up and played out of order in certain short scenarios you randomly pick due to the games floating fragment system …. This means that the plot is non existence or rather, left up to a random number generator, for instance the "Timeline" or path your currently playing in can change randomly introducing elements that WILL come out of nowhere(IE the ) for example. If i choose one thing, and that results in a death of a character, the fragment ends…. 1 i could replay the fragment and choose differently, resulting in everybody loves, but it doesn't matter because in the context of the game, the characters are mindwiped every time a fragment ends, making me do 2 choose another fragment, where set entirely on another timeline where another character died so on and so forth, no matter what decision you make, it's going to be entirely avoided and stuff like that. That's why i think save scumming in narrative based games breaks the story. It ruins choice and consequence introduced in it making it inconequestial to the story ahead…. Thoughts? (https://youtu.be/-YrDdsak_ Adam Carter-Groves did a talk about this in more indeph at the videobrains even in 2015) [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 10 Jan 2018 03:58 PM PST I'm just finishing up watching Game Grumps play through the game and as a spectator, I was really surprised by how good the game looked. The presentation is great, but the actual game looks cohesive and seems like it would be a ton of fun to play. The gameplay doesn't look incredibly deep or difficult, but the more I watch them play the game, the more I want to play it. I don't think it could really compete with the other platformers that came out this year, but it definitely looks like a step up from your typical 3D Sonic fare. Just watching the characters zip around the screen and seeing these huge set pieces was breathtaking, even if it was mostly spectacle. Each level hits you with something new and beautiful to look at. And the soundtrack is so delightfully cheerful, I feel like I might find myself listening to it on my own time. Call me crazy, but I feel like "butt rock" has its place in Sonic games and just adds to the childish atmosphere at this point. I really love the idea of the OC character. I was never really into Sonic, but I could see how someone who's a fan of the story, especially kids or older fans who grew up with the 3D Sonic games, would really love their own character in a Sonic game. And in a really wholesome (albeit kind of corny) way, a lot of the dialogue is focused on making the OC character feel welcome in the world, with sugary sweet moments where Sonic spouts off about the power of friendship and how the two of you are absolutely unstoppable together. Again, I didn't play any of this game. I just watched it, but from what I've seen, it looks like one of the "better" Sonic games. I get the feeling that people will warm up to it in the following years, when it's more likely to go on sale and people lower their expectations. I feel like I can already see posts online a year from now saying: "Just finished Sonic Forces. What's with all the hate this game got?" But I want to know what other people think of this game. Reviews suggest the game is mediocre, but I feel like if you're a fan of 3D Sonic, they're probably irrelevant to you anyway. How did you feel about the level design and moment-to-moment gameplay? Did you feel like the OC and character customization enhanced the experience for you? Is the game exactly what 3D Sonic should be or way off? Thanks for reading. :) [link] [comments]  |
| [META] Why does every third or so post have lots of upvotes and the other two have 0 or 1? Posted: 10 Jan 2018 07:37 PM PST This seems like a weird problem. I mean, if there was a lot of content of course you'd expect a lot of 0-1 threads. But when there aren't a lot of posts every day, and non 0-1 threads have dozens if not hundreds of upvotes with no threads that have 20-30 or even 5-10, it's just completely baffling. [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