True Gaming Has anyone else ever experienced losing his/her skill in a skill based game from one day to another? |
- Has anyone else ever experienced losing his/her skill in a skill based game from one day to another?
- Which games "carry over" to either real life, or to other games? How can you approach gaming so it becomes (more of) an investment?
- Gaming laptop need help on buying options
- Are multiplayer games art?
- Do video games have an equivalent to "Bad Movies"?
- what is your opinion on the cliches in rpgs where they tell you to "come back in a while" whle really they want you to do something before coming here.
- What are some of the best "shut up and play it" games
- Why didn't real money auction houses get adopted even though it did everything microtransactions can do and better?
- Permadeath with non-random levels [X-post from GameIdeas]
- Survey for our cyberpunk top-down game!
| Has anyone else ever experienced losing his/her skill in a skill based game from one day to another? Posted: 27 Feb 2018 06:51 AM PST I have recently experinced something very strange to me. Two weeks ago I lost pretty much all skill I had in a multiplayer pvp game(Rainbow Six Siege) from one day were it was all fine to next where I would just flat play loke garbage. Since then I am not able to play as before. My Problem is that it is not only in terms of "mechanical" skills like aiming I also lost all sense for good decision making. Eventhough I was never an outstanding Player but there were some rounds that I played really well and carried. As of now there are no such rounds. Since yesterday I'm trying to consciously think about every single move that I make and if it makes Sense to do so. I realized a very slow and slight improvement. While doing so I also realized that I experienced this phenomenon once before with an offline strategy game(Xcom) and I did almost the exact same thing to relearn the game you could say. Now I not only realised that a similar thing happend to me a year or so ago but also that the circumstances were similar. Back then I was very self-concious because I felt I was not living up to what I should do or what others expected me to do in school and life in generell. Right now I think that I am in a very similar situation because I'm struggeling with many task that I want and have to fulfill at the same time like passing driving test to get my license(yep, I am rather young), learning for my exams(last year of school) and keeping my circle of friends intact eventhough I barely have any time to meet them because they are relativly far away. So my theory is that my emotional state affects my gameplay evebthough gaming was always my safe place to clear my head. Has anyone else ever experienced anything similar to this? And do you have advice for overcoming this state in which even my normally relaxing activity stresses me? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 26 Feb 2018 05:05 PM PST Which games are good investments, AKA "carry over" to either real life, or to other games? How can you approach gaming so it becomes (more of) an investment? And...what can you can do to make a game/gaming a better investment? (for example, joining a IRL community/meetup group so you gain real life friends, or analyzing the game design) If this sounds like an attempt at making gaming productive and you think that's a flawed way of thinking/misses the point, this is not the thread for you. I completely understand the appeal and the joy in being able to play a game like The Last of Us, finish the game neatly, tie up the story, and then move onto something else without needing anything else from the game. Or even being able to play a few games of Hearthstone during lunch break, just for plain ol' fun. Those things are totally fine, but I want to discuss something else. From time to time, something bothers me about gaming. And many gamers quit/reduce playtime because of it. They don't like the feeling that playing a game produces only "pixels" and positive emotions within the time spent playing that game. Whether it's an MMO like WoW where all the gear/accomplishments you make at Endgame, or the skills that you develop in a Street Fighter game, these things become useless when your friends move over to a different game. People feel drawn, sometimes because of guilt (of unproductivity), to replacing gaming with activities like reading books or developing IRL skills that can act as investments in their future. For example, if you learn to cook, you can make food for your friends which can not only feel good because of the social rewards (approval, admiration, connecting with other human beings IRL), but also because it helps your REAL LIFE by allowing you to fuel your body with high-quality inputs. And I acknowledge that for some people, they should simply game less/stop playing to spend their time building/improving their real life. But again, I'm not here to discuss that - let's talk about how we can move on the sliding scale towards building gaming experiences that can COMPLEMENT and ENRICH both our real lives and future gaming experiences. I've already read Jane McGonigal's "Reality is Broken" book, where she makes a few suggestions on how to get the most IRL benefits out of gaming (along with lots of other stuff about how games make us better - I highly recommend it), which can be summarized as: Lean towards playing with friends - ideally IRL, and no more than 21 hours a week. That's a good start, but let's take it further. Which games, if you develop skill in them… A) lend themselves to improving your real life (and/or) B) carry over to the future of your gaming experiences? On both points A and B, one game that comes to mind for me is Super Smash Brothers Melee. That game has had incredible lasting power (released in 2001), and has a lot of IRL communities built around it for tournaments and even just general fun because it's so popular. As such, putting in serious time into that game does not feel to me like a waste of time because it has allowed me to compete and connect with plenty of people throughout my life. Also, I feel that because I put in the time to learn that game, I will be more familiar with future Smash games (which are likely to be around for a while, and many of us have your fingers crossed for some form of Smash on the Switch). These 2 things add up to make me feel that getting good at Smash was an investment, or at the very least, a BETTER one than many other games. I don't play them, but I imagine getting good at an FPS like CS:GO or a MOBA like LoL would carry over to future iterations of those genres through developing your aim/ reflexes/mental representations of how to play, not to mention that those games have large followings that lend themselves to IRL tournaments and clubs. More examples: Guitar Hero to learn some basic music skills (I don't play, so I don't know to what extent this is true) or DDR leading to better footwork for IRL dancing. Any thoughts/recommendations on other games like this? Or how you can approach gaming so it becomes (more of) an investment into your real life/gaming life? And...what can you can do to make a game/gaming a better investment? For example, joining a IRL community/meetup group so you gain real life friends. (For those of you interested in the backstory behind me pondering this, the reason this question came up for me was because I just read Peak - a book where psychologist Anders Ericsson proposes that anyone can become really good at anything, if you put in enough deliberate practice to develop that skill. I also happened to be thinking a lot about games, so I connected the 2 and wondered "maybe I could get really good at gaming." But then the question comes up: which game? All of them require different skills. I could get good at X game, but then it becomes useless the second people move on to a different game.) TLDR: Which games, if you develop skill in them, lend themselves to improving your real life (and/or) carry over to the future of your gaming experiences? What can you do to make gaming (more of) an investment into your real life/gaming life? [link] [comments]  |
| Gaming laptop need help on buying options Posted: 27 Feb 2018 03:06 PM PST So my laptop is now approaching the 5 year mark for age and it's time to recycle the girl. Does anyone have any info they could give me or recommend me for cheap maybe 600-1000 USD laptop max. That might run games I'm not looking for maxed specs or anything just something that would run games like. Dota2 on maybe low video options I'm not looking for the best badass option just something that will run the games. I'm hoping to buy this puppy soon since my laptop as is feels like it's giving out. The processor: Intel(r) core (tm) I7-4710HQ cpu 2.50 ghz the memory (RAM) is 8 GB system type: 64 bit operating system, x64 based processor Nividia 840M whatever that means This is all on a windows 8.1 laptop MSI if I left any details out let me know I know I'm not exactly intelligent when it comes to buying new hardware I just like my games so any and all help will be greatly appreciated. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 27 Feb 2018 02:42 PM PST So obviously single player games are art; any single player game can tell a story and convey emotion just as well as a film or a book. That debate is played out as far as I'm concerned. What interests me is that, in contrast to most other media, games seem to have two distinct aspects: the story, themes and basically anything that conveys meaning, and the gameplay itself, which can be completely separate from any artistic concerns. By gameplay I mean the visceral experience of interacting with the game. For example, in single player first person shooter, the actual experience of shooting your weapons could feel fun and rewarding, or awkward and unresponsive. While that may have an effect on the overall quality of the game, it will in most situations have no effect on the way the game creates meaning (besides perhaps getting in the way of it). Mechanics are certainly used to affect meaning, especially in more experimental titles, but my point is that they aren't fundamentally connected. The traditional corridor shooter, for example, is pure, shooting gallery gameplay interspersed with a story told through cut-scenes. So how does this relate to multiplayer games? Well, in most cases multiplayer games are pure gameplay with very little concern for story or meaning. In counter strike, for example, all decisions pertaining to the game are subordinate to creating fun, fair gameplay. This extends to the visual design and believability of maps, the weapon design and the character design. It is essentially only gameplay and makes no effort to express anything. Most multiplayer games are basically sports before anything else, which makes it difficult to classify them as art. Sure, you could call sports an art form just as you might refer to 'the art of cooking' but in my opinion these are unhelpful over generalizations and, as far as I am aware, not generally recognized by the academic community. So maybe multiplayer games are not art. Perhaps that seems obvious, but it has some slightly troubling implications. For one, films and books are arguably inherently artistic, which means games are in some way quite different from other art forms. It also implies that gameplay, one of the most fundamental differences between games and other media, is not inherently 'artistic' when taken out of the context of story or atmosphere. This is especially troublesome when you consider that the difference between pure single player and pure multiplayer isn't necessarily binary. What about MMOs, where there is a story, but it seems like mechanics and human interactions are often prioritized? What about coop shooters like left for dead, where there is a linear story, but characterization is deliberately simplified so that new players can easily be transplanted onto their randomly assigned avatars? Overall, it seems problematic that, in contrast to other media, pure gameplay does not seem to have inherent artistic value and so it is arguably not a given that games are art. In other words games can be both art and sport while that is not the case for films or books. There are some obvious counter examples to this, like non-fiction books, but it seems like the mutiplayer games and single player games are generally lumped together, while the categorisation 'novel' excludes works without artistic qualities. Perhaps it is time for the broader designations of fiction and non-fiction games? Anyway, what do you guys have to say about this? TL;DR: Games can be art, but multiplayer games can easily lack any clear artistic properties, and this sort of muddies the water. [link] [comments]  |
| Do video games have an equivalent to "Bad Movies"? Posted: 27 Feb 2018 01:02 PM PST I love bad movies. Are there games that are such disasters that there is somehow entertainment value from playing them? With movies there are different types of "Bad". You have something like The Room which is so poorly made, it is an entertaining experience. You have movies like Sharknado that try and be ridiculous on purpose. Then you have movies that are just awful period. Obviously plenty of games fall into the last category but what about the other two? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 27 Feb 2018 10:06 AM PST i remember a moment like this in a few rpgs that i've played and pretty much all of the time they don't really want you to wait a few minutes or whatever but really you need to do something. something very specific. that they will not give you a hint about or hint about how to go about figuring out what you're supposed to do. i can only think of one example but i know i have encountered a moment like this at least a couple of times. the example is the begining of chrono trigger where to get to the teleporter in the begining you need to talk to a generic person sitting at the water fountain. but the guards at the teleporter don't tell you that, they just tell you to come back in a while. and you can say that they just expect you to play around a bit before progressing but i ran like 3 times trough the jungle and completed all the mini games but had no idea what to do so i had to look up that i was supposed to just talk to a generic guy at a water fountain. /rant i know this is rarely seen these days but i want to know if it is as bad as i make it out to be or if there is some point that i don't see. maybe you'd think saying " you need to talk to gandalf" breaks the immersion more then "you can't come here right now, there's a fight" but i'm not sure it does since you always realize they were just lying and you just needed to talk to him, not wait. and you can go do 3 side quests and wait 3 thousand in game hours but there will still be "a fight". what do you think [link] [comments]  |
| What are some of the best "shut up and play it" games Posted: 27 Feb 2018 03:31 PM PST Obviously don't post anything other than vague thoughts / game names By "shut up and play it" I'm talking about games that are IMPOSSIBLE not to spoil if you say anything about the game specific besides the name Three examples I can think of are pony island and frog fractions One that I would consider a "soft" shut up and play would be Stanley parable and the beginners guide These games seem so RARE, was wondering what else was out there [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 27 Feb 2018 08:52 AM PST TLDR: I'd rather my games don't involve real money, but if business are gonna head that way and people are gonna Pay2Win legally or not, I'd rather have auction houses than microtransactions. What I don't understand is why business prefer MTX over auction houses. I know this is going to be a bit controversial. Officially sanctioned RMT was a topic of debate back then, and still is now. But think about it. If companies are gonna get greedy and go for that whale money anyway, why not do it in a way that is no more harmful to what it already was, in a way that more parties can be happy? Real money auction houses sound pretty bad, but RMT is going to happen anyway, whether officially or unofficially, whether legally or illegally. Just like how we treat drugs, why not legalise and tax them? It's not the fairest but it might be the necessary evil. On top of that, doesn't an auction house offer everything microtransactions can do while also providing incentives for non-paying players to stay with the game and help with retaining your cash cows? It doesn't wreck the balance/economy like microtransactions will because everything must be earned legitimately by a player in the first place. It still allows players to pay to "win", but you can't win without making your seller win at the same time, so by the end of the day, more people will be happy. Non-RMT players now have a potential way to profit off "rich idiots", and are also guaranteed at least in theory that anything money can buy can also be earned in game. You may end up with more people participating in such a system than loot crates, so even if only taking a cut, the company might still generate more revenue in the end. If it works, it's better off for everyone than microtransactions, why wouldn't you prefer it? Was the early failure of Diablo III to blame? Was it introduced at a wrong time when people were still sensitive to the slightest of Pay2Win? Did the unsuccessful use (was it really?) in D3 pushed Blizzard and others to seek more direct ways to increase revenue? Why would Blizzard choose MTX over taxed trade in Hearthstone where real money trading for ab testing card game would almost certainly attract zero controversy? Is transaction tax income really minuscule compared to loot crates? [link] [comments]  |
| Permadeath with non-random levels [X-post from GameIdeas] Posted: 26 Feb 2018 03:53 PM PST What makes permadeath games fun is the fact that each playthrough is different, and even if you die, there is some sort of progression. This progression is mostly in the form of upgrades and unlockables:
What makes these games engaging even if you play them over and over again is their stochasticity. Each time you restart, the levels are generated randomly. This is why you never play the same game twice. However, random level generation often leads to bland level designs. Some game designers mix and match hand crafted levels and random levels and are successful to some extent, but randomly generated content is hardly memorable. I want to have permadeath and unlockables in a game I might develop someday, and I was wondering if I could get away with using fixed hand crafted levels. Here is an idea: You start in a village, and the only path you can take is to the forest. You go to the forest, kill a boss, get a key. You use the key to unlock a dungeon in the village, and you end up dying in the dungeon. There is permadeath, so you restart in the village with a brand new character. Since you unlocked the dungeon gate already, it remains unlocked, so you can skip the forest altogether. You might want to grab some essential loot from the forest if you wish, but you can skip it too. You rescue an unlockable character in the dungeon, you flip a switch - a secret passage permanently opens in the forest. Next time you die, you can start with the alternate character you have rescued, whose starting equipment is better suited for the forest route, so you blaze through it. You kill the optional boss in the forest you were afraid to fight before. You go back to the village, invest in the merchant so he can sell you better items in your next playthrough. Eventually you unlock many routes, and the game becomes very non-linear. Eventually you kill the final boss and win the game. Of course, if you are extremely skilled, you can kill the final boss in your very first playthrough, but the average player has to die many times on different playthroughs. Can this idea work with non-random levels? Thoughts? [link] [comments]  |
| Survey for our cyberpunk top-down game! Posted: 26 Feb 2018 04:29 PM PST Hi there! I am a games design student in college and for our final project, we have to make a fully playable top-down action game in our groups. We have to collect feedback responses from others as it is vital for the pre-production section of our game. It would be amazing if you completed the short surveys! And it would be more amazing if you provided your own feedback on what could be improved/changed and added. The main story synopsis is given at the beginning of the surveys. There are two surveys: 1. Choose the game title (https://goo.gl/forms/U9EQtWNY1Zg1lnAI2) 2. An initial survey for the game (https://goo.gl/forms/nZQBtPBFZldQOvq42) Thank you in advance! (I have received prior moderator approval for the post) [link] [comments]  |
Post a Comment