True Gaming In search of a certain type of speed game |
- In search of a certain type of speed game
- How many games do you need to own for a console to justify its purchase?
- Is Rise of the Tomb Raider worse than the previous Tomb Raider?
- Do you think that it is possible to make a compelling single-player card-game with interesting and original mechanics/narrative? Some games have tried (Hand of Fate, Yu-Gi-Oh! Forbidden Memories, etc) but I think we can do more than just "having a digital card game to play in your computer/console."
- Are all VR titles truly games, or are some of them just "experiences?"
- The new approach for the Nintendo Direct
- Is there a way to play games with a lot of depth other than "think ahead" or just playing enough to know every move?
- Trailer/let's play/review/user review: what sells a game more?
- Do you care for bathrooms/washrooms in video games? If they are present in the level, functional or not, etc.? Do you try to flash the toilet in every new game?
- I've been trying to figure out which evil company is a bigger threat to the Gaming Industry. EA or Microsoft? Is there anyone else who's even worse?
- Who is your video game crush, and why? I don't mean just sexy game character, but character's personality, voice, role, etc.
| In search of a certain type of speed game Posted: 13 Jan 2018 01:35 PM PST I am looking for a certain type of two-button speed game. I remember playing a game called Ultimate Race on my friend's iPad a way back. Basically the game consisted of a queue of red and blue squares and you had to press the buttons corresponding to the squares as fast as possible. Here's the trailer for the game I am looking for a game with similar mechanics of two-button speed testing. Preferably as barebones and minimal as possible. I have played games like Timberman but it just isn't cutting it for me. The game can be for any platform, preferably PC or mobile. Thanks in advance! [link] [comments]  |
| How many games do you need to own for a console to justify its purchase? Posted: 13 Jan 2018 10:21 AM PST I feel like this is still a relevant question for retro consoles as much as modern consoles because of the sometimes exorbitant prices. I've been playing quite a few PS2 and Gamecube games through "shadier" means, trying to figure out which of these I want to buy in the future. I've noticed a lot of them I discard after an hour at most, similar to how I'd use Blockbuster or Movie Gallery back in the day. So it's the same song and dance of my youth, amusingly enough. But it leads me to wonder, how many games do you need to own to make it worth it to buy a console? To use a recent example, are you fine with buying a console for ONE game like the Switch for Super Mario Odyssey? Do you need 10 games? 20? 50? I think emulation has kind of warped my concept of how large a collection "should" be over the years, because part of me feels like a collection of 10 games is far too small, especially when a lot of these older games can be expensive. [link] [comments]  |
| Is Rise of the Tomb Raider worse than the previous Tomb Raider? Posted: 13 Jan 2018 01:36 PM PST So I just finished Rise of the Tomb Raider and honestly I'm quite disappointed. I played TR13 on my old Xbox 360 about two years ago and it absolutely blew me away. Seriously, that game was intense as fuck. I remember so many moments when I was just staring at the screen with my jaw dropped to the floor, muttering "holy shit, holy shit, holy shit..." under my breath. Everything has already been said about the brutal opening sequence. And that part when you're sliding down the mountain before the crashing plane? Or when you're escaping the burning palace and shit's blowing up all around you? Combined with the creepy cult and supernatural elements, there were moments where I thought the game had an almost-Lovecraftian atmosphere of descent into madness (remember the literal fucking river of blood and body parts?!), and at the same time it was one of the most fun third-person shooters I've played. Easy 9/10 for me. ROTR, on the other hand, may have some improvements - the areas are bigger, the tombs have better designs, stealth is more viable, etc. - but overall it's kind of a letdown for me. It feels, I don't know, diluted for the lack of a better term. There are only glimpses of the previous game's intensity and the more I played it, the more flaws I started to notice. In terms of story, it starts off on a strong note but doesn't really stay at that level after you leave the Soviet Installation. I'm not saying that TR13 had a flawless plot or deep character development or whatever, but the story did the job of keeping me on the edge of my seat and had some emotional impact, while ROTR's story is just kind of mediocre and falls completely flat once we get to the supernatural stuff. I also thought that Konstantin was a pretty boring villain and anticlimactic as a final boss, and Trinity soldiers seem kind of underwhelming compared to the crazy cultists from the previous game. Also, even though I agree that TR13 was (delicately speaking) inconsistent in Lara's approach to killing, the combat was simply fun as hell. It looks like the devs had reduced the bodycount in ROTR in response to the "not realistic enough" crowd but that didn't improve anything to me. I mean, Lara still shoots a lot of people without a moment's hesitation and all the devs accomplished was taking a lot of action out of the game. Instead they put in way too many meaningless collectibles, dubbing it "exploration" (not talking about the tombs, I think they were done really well). Some of the documents were actually pretty cool (I really wanted to find out more about the lore/backstory in the beginning), but there's just so many of them and collecting them got old quickly. I feel like the game was just exploiting my completionist tendencies later on... I probably shouldn't complain about the reduced amount of combat though, as the shootouts in ROTR feel... weird. Seriously, is it just me or are the shooting mechanics in this game really wonky and chaotic? For some reason aiming feels really difficult (on all sensitivities), and enemies are way too hard to hit when they're moving. On a sidenote, I'm pretty sure Trinity used 90% of the whole world's hand grenade supply to force me out of cover. The Deathless in particular are a chore to fight. They definitely should be tougher than human enemies but they seem to charge at you from every possible direction, which (combined with the weird aiming, constant fire arrow spam and having to dodge melee attacks) makes fights with them a complete mess. There also seems to be some kind of issue with the level design in some combat areas, but I don't think I can explain it properly. Did anyone else notice that? Don't get me wrong, Rise of the Tomb Raider is not a bad game and there were definitely parts which looked and played great, and I really enjoyed them. It just didn't really engage me. I expected a "Damn, what a wild ride that was!" kind of reaction when I finished but was only able to think "So that's it? Back to work I guess..." TL;DR I didn't enjoy Rise of the Tomb Raider as much as the previous game: started off good but the storyline kind of sucked, there weren't as many intense/memorable moments, and I had a hard time with shooting stuff. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 13 Jan 2018 05:18 AM PST Greetings, friends of truegaming. We have some examples of SPCG (Single Player Card Games) - As I've said in the title, Hand of Fate is one of the greatest. On the original PSX, we had Yu-Gi-Oh! Forbidden Memories, that can also be called an "original card game" because it follows none of the rules from the tabletop version - And to this day, it's one of the most addicting card games that I've ever played, only limited by the limitations of the PSX, and not having that many cards. With the recent popularity of certain games like Hearthstone and others, I really wish we had more people in the industry focused in original card games with good narratives and or/interesting gaming mechanics aggregated to the card mechanics - just like Hand of Fate tried to do. With enough time, I'm sure that one day a good original card-game will come to make the wish of card-gaming addicts come true, but until then, I give you a question: For you, what would make a single-player card game unique and interesting? [link] [comments]  |
| Are all VR titles truly games, or are some of them just "experiences?" Posted: 13 Jan 2018 12:32 PM PST Personally, I love the idea of VR but am not ready to jump in just yet. That said though I am less interested in games than I am in the virtual tourism possibilities. But are those even games we could discuss here? I'm not sure. Of course, something like the Vive is without a doubt a gaming platform. Furthermore, we joke about "walking simulators" that are barely games during the majority of your playthrough. But there are still game mechanics within those worlds. Thus, those are still videogames no matter how simple the mechanics are. Perhaps that should be the definition? The absence of game mechanics means you can't call it a game. This raises more questions than it answers though. Does simply being present within that VR world count as a game mechanic? If not, what about "walking" or whatever movement options you have? Once again, I'm not sure. Maybe a definition of VR gaming should be less concrete, and more about how the experience makes you feel? If you're enjoying that same gaming buzz you get from inhabiting a virtual world via your monitor, how is walking through a cave system in VR any different from Firewatch? You couldn't win or lose that game, you're just along for the ride. I also have to mention the ridiculous idea that had me thinking about this in case someone can point me towards something like it: I want to "play" (yet again, is it even a game?) a title that would probably be called "cafe simulator." For maximum immersion you'd have your own little round cafe table and a chair IRL, plus a hot cup of coffee. Pair that with a long 360 degree camera loop at real cafes on the streets of Rome, Paris, New York, etc. I bet you'd really get sucked in. Morning coffee would become epic! You could even share a table with friends either IRL or over the internet: people watching, looking at the architecture and other sights. edit: typo [link] [comments]  |
| The new approach for the Nintendo Direct Posted: 13 Jan 2018 05:23 AM PST So I caught the Nintendo Direct "Mini" from 1.11.2018 on YouTube, and did a reaction watch on my Twitch channel, and I noticed a few things. First I was very happy Nintendo had a steady line of releases coming out this year and they are also adding a lot of 3rd party coming down the pipe, which shows great improvement. I just hope they keep this momentum going. I did notice this was a far simpler, straight to the point, just games, no talking heads, giving you gameplay, and while there was the teaser at the end, they still mostly had gameplay and a narrator giving you information about what the new games modes in Super Mario: Odyssey are, or the new Definite Edition of Hyrule Warriors. Personally, I really liked it? Do you guys like this new approach? Or do you want the staff to be there to give you more information? Do you think this is a new direction they are sticking with and leave the normal ones to E3 or bigger events? And how existed or not are you, about The World Ends With You making a comeback? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 13 Jan 2018 12:32 AM PST Hi, I was wondering about this because I was thinking why I can't get into chess and what depth in games are. So depth is the number of meaningful choices . And I was wondering is there a way to choose what to do in a game with depth other than just "look ahead 5 steps" [link] [comments]  |
| Trailer/let's play/review/user review: what sells a game more? Posted: 12 Jan 2018 06:04 PM PST Basically as the title says: what is the one thing you wouldn't skip before buying a game? The reason I'm asking this is due to the other thread about game trailers. In the comments, most people talked about watching let's play videos to see gameplay... Which really got me curious I personally like to do a YouTube search for "(game name) review" instead of "(game name) gameplay". Don't get me wrong, I enjoy let's play's, but they are flawed in some ways With let's play's, you're either going to see gameplay from the start of the game, which is a poor representation of the rest of the game, in many cases, you're going to see gameplay from the middle/end of the game, which may contain spoilers, or you're going to see 'highlights', where the YouTuber cuts together some of the best moments from the game into a single compilation. These generally paint the game in either an overly good way, or highlights most of the game's flaws... Generally whatever's more funny Let's play'ers care more about getting themselves views than painting a fair picture of the game. Which is fair enough. If you enjoy watching their videos, you might watch more of them, which is ultimately your goal, thus they may leave out a lot of unentertaining parts of the gameplay, unless their commentary can somehow make it entertaining Onto reviews: watching a review (hopefully) gets you someone's honest opinion about the game. Reviews will generally cover several topics, from gameplay to story to graphics, plus anything else that makes the game noteworthy. It should also do it in a way as to not spoil the story, which is something that can not be said about many let's play's With reviews, you do run the risk of the reviewer being payed to be very generous in his review, but the same can be said about let's play's. Also, this only seems to be a problem with big reviewers (IGN). Luckily there are many smaller review channels. This is another reason I started this thread... Many times, of you search for a review, some of the most watched videos might only have a few thousand views. That's not even saying they're bad: in my experiences, these videos still have decent editing etc. Do people just not like reviews anymore? Generally speaking, a videos top "let's play" will have much more views than it's top review, where reviews try to be more fair and sometimes have better editing Then, of course, there's Steam's user reviews. These can be pretty reliable, but you'll see many people upvote it for "joke" reviews, and many people downvote it due to small issues. Still, pretty reliable, if you don't mind reading through a bunch of them Finally, trailers... Almost completely useless, apart from maybe getting you a feel for the game's world and story [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 12 Jan 2018 11:13 PM PST Bathroom/washroom is essential part of living environment, and when designing a level for a video game, it only makes sense to include one. Right? It would be weird, if you have exploitable apartment, building, hotel, but not a single bathroom in there. Almost every game have a bathroom, but SOME game designers actually add options like turn the water on, flush the toilet, reflections in the mirrors, etc. Do you care for that, or it is a waist of time that no one will even notice? Top list of bathrooms so far! https://youtu.be/b5uTe3y44Gk [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 13 Jan 2018 08:14 AM PST In short: Microsoft - took away childhood from children only to make them learn how to take games seriously, play competitively and scream in halo or cod. Kids who should've been playing Crash, Spyro, Rachet, Jak, Sly, Kingdom Hearts, LittleBigPlanet, Ni No Kuni and other highly rated franchises that you can take a break from any time and relax in. Ripped off less intelligent gamers with Red rings of death, paid online while ps3's OPTIONAL ps plus gave you games like God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, Demon's Souls, Okami etc. Only started giving them games for it when Sony did. Even though they already lost hundreds on that Xbox live, Microsoft saved money on hardware by making Xbox One 900p (even though they were already about 10x richer than Sony...) and making them play in that resolution for 4 years, until finally 1 year after PS4 Pro, (waited even more for hardware to get even cheaper), they dropped the Xbox One X. For 500 POUNDS!!! As if waiting a year after the PS4 pro & 900p wasn't enough! It triggers me that they exploited these poor people like that. There's also other things like Windows 10, Cancelling Scalebound when Sony still released Last Guardian for fans after 10 years of development hell, trying to restrict selling used game copies etc. EA - Even worse than Ubisoft & Activision combined. Continues to exploit gamers too stupid to realise that even Battlefront 2, with or without microtransactions is a recycled unambitious lazy cash grab. Continues to destroy formerly great gaming studios and forcing them to waste budget and time on multiplayers. Deluxe/ultimate editions, costume dlc, pre-order bonuses etc. Inspires other developers like WB to go down the same path for greed. Ruins great franchises & wants the future of gaming to be kids gambling in their games for better guns or abilities. Wants to kill singleplayer, innovative and memorable games. There's probably a lot more that I don't know about. Microsoft is obviously worse but if you simply stay clear of anything they do, you should be fine. There are exceptions obviously. Trying to get rid of selling used game copies for example. That shit was fucking absurd, good thing their fans aren't that hopeless and didn't let them go through with it. Whereas EA really wants to destroy the gaming industry entirely for profits. They have no honor or ambition. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 12 Jan 2018 10:59 PM PST Who is your crush? Mine, Vetra Nyx, from Mass Effect Andromeda. Because nerdy, adorkable, and probably most developed romance companion. Relevant video https://youtu.be/j9owzoy7iKM [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