True Gaming Intro to gaming, what to get my girlfriend to play to introduce her to gaming, and concepts of the wider context of gaming. |
- Intro to gaming, what to get my girlfriend to play to introduce her to gaming, and concepts of the wider context of gaming.
- Do you think certain game franchises get unfairly praised due to brand recognition, nostalgia, and other biases?
- Predatory monetization practices vs pay to win in Black Desert Online.
- Can't get myself immersed in the Witcher 3 world.
- Interested in Joining an online gaming clan/community? Come check out the HAV0C DISCIPLES!
- [Serious] Is it a stretch based off Blizzard Entertainments past that they could be trying to create a Battle Royale game?
- Making a game based entirely around verbal debate, would it be possible?
- What are your favorite review aggregate websites?
- Is MMR really good? (philosophy with me)
- Super Mario Odyssey deserves far more criticism
| Posted: 25 Feb 2018 05:35 AM PST Hi, first time poster. I play a lot of video games, it's a long time hobby of mine as I'm sure is the same for most on this sub. My girlfriend recently showed interest in gaming and says she wants me to help her start. Now I play a lot of online shooters "deeper" games like counter-strike, DOTA, tf2, Civ series etc. These are games that I believe would be nigh impossible for a new comer to the hobby to attempt. I tested her with Portal, a game that i believe was so well put together that even someone who had no concept of video games, no context as to gaming "standards" would have had an easy time getting into due to it's excellent learning curve and invisible tutorial, but it seemed to me she couldn't grasp simple pattern recognition that would allow her to learn how to play, she got about an hour in and was managing to get through puzzle by essentially fluking, even though in my mind it should've been simple to think "I went through the portal fast and came out fast before, I should apply that principle now." Now she is by no means dumb, in fact she's incredibly smart, but for some reason all those brains fly out the window when playing a game, simple pattern recognition and application vanishes. So thought about it, and chalked it up to her lacking the context that I, and other gamer's have. Over years doing the same hobby people develop an understanding of the "standards" to expect with various games, games might vary wildly but thing like: elements of the UI, victory conditions, mechanics, controls, etc. remain the same. Due to my background gaming I cannot imagine not being able to intuitively make connections immediately within a game. Now I was introduced to gaming with the original 2d mario games, then 3d platformers, basic shooters, rpg's. So my context and built in knowledge of decades of gaming allows me to intuitively grasps concepts without need for much thought. Without having to take my girlfriend through a history of gaming over years and years, what are some games that can introduce her to the hobby and also instill in her an understanding, basic or comprehensive, of general concepts within video games. thanks for the help Edit: lotta the comments pointed out that it sounds like I'm insulting my girlfriend, i realize that some parts of the post do, thanks for pointing that out. I love my girlfriend very much and am not attempting to insult her, she is very much a strong and capable woman. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 25 Feb 2018 12:28 PM PST So in the recent Mario Odyssey thread the OP, and a couple of replies within, attribute the game's critical success to a certain phenomena that I've seen being discussed a lot more recently. This phenomena has been given as reasoning behind the critical success of multiple titles recently including, but not limited to, the Souls franchise, Breath of the Wild and, most recently, the aforementioned Super Mario Odyssey. The basic idea is that, because of some inherent bias, these games have had their flaws overlooked and that, if looked at in a vacuum, they would have received less favourable reviews. Whilst it's clear from looking at my profile that I disagree, I thought I'd make a post asking the sub in general what they think. So, do you agree/disagree with this notion, and why do you feel that way? [link] [comments]  |
| Predatory monetization practices vs pay to win in Black Desert Online. Posted: 25 Feb 2018 09:16 AM PST Some people argue that in Black Desert Online, if they sold straight up overpowered equipment, it would still be a less predatory cash shop than what we currently have. Black Desert uses a sandbox system in which every player has their own version of the persistent global world, using a type of currency called contribution points, you are able to invest this CP into various property around the world. CP gets refunded to you if you decide to sell your property, hence it's treated as a rental. CP is soft capped: while technically there is no limit to the amount of CP, acquiring more after 255 CP becomes hard, after 350 it becomes a monumental task, and after 400 CP it becomes a korean task. The cash shop in BDO is the target of constant arguments and discussions about pay to win. The cash shop includes the usual cosmetics and bells and whistles, it also includes the typical MMO "convenience" items such as inventory space expansion, autolooting pets, etc... The problem is that the shop in BDO has taken the concept of "pay for convenience" to a whole new heinous level, to the point that the practices are so predatory and money grubbing that the players are starting to debate whether having straight up pay to win items would be better than the stuff they have right now. It is a prime example of a game that artificially creates inconveniences only to sell you the solution for a price. And a one time payment is not enough, they want you to be constantly shelling out large sums of money to be able to keep the inconveniences at bay. A few examples:
The whole game seems to be designed around avoiding the technical definition of pay to win, and thus a debate has sparked in the community on this topic. While some people abide by the purest definition of pay to win, that is, selling unobtainable gear that have stats strictly superior to the best items obtainable via regular gameplay; some others abide by the concept that if you were to compare a paying and a non paying player with similar playtime, if their gear or overall progression show a considerable difference, then the game is pay to win. However, a new argument has surfaced claiming that the game does not need to be strictly pay to win to have an unacceptable monetization model, arguing that if BDO were to sell gear unobtainable with superior stats for a flat fee, permanent, it would be a better model than the current pay to solve inconveniences forever shop. I have the following questions:
[link] [comments]  |
| Can't get myself immersed in the Witcher 3 world. Posted: 25 Feb 2018 04:48 AM PST It's like the 5th time when I'm trying this game and I don't enjoy it as much as the majority of gamers do. Every 2-3 months I tried playing it and the furthest I could get is at the part when you get to play as Ciri, then I stopped playing. Now I'm trying it again for the last time and I still don't get the experience that people talk about. I thought that maybe I need a special mood for this game too. There's nothing wrong with the game, I don't find any flaws in it and I have played far less good games with mechanics and interesting story line. I also can't relate to the protagonist and his voice sounds like Batman. Last year I played Skyrim and I liked the game. My first game in the series was Elder Scrolls Online a long time ago. Usually I need a special mood to play games with swords and magic but it's not even the case with this game and I really want to enjoy it. Otherwise I wouldn't be trying it so many times. I drop a game once I don't enjoy it and seeing how praised this game is, I thought that perhaps it would "click" with me too as a player in the meantime. On the other hand, I enjoy Assassin's Creed Origins. [link] [comments]  |
| Interested in Joining an online gaming clan/community? Come check out the HAV0C DISCIPLES! Posted: 25 Feb 2018 03:27 PM PST Hey guys welcome to the HAV0C DISCIPLES. We are primarily an online gaming community(with room to grow). We all can get together play games, do MLG Gamebattles, and just talk and form friendships with one another. The HAV0C DISCIPLES operates much like other online gaming communities such as FaZe, OpTic, Splyce and so on. But what separates us from them is that the HAV0C DISCIPLES is open enrollment. There are no try outs or any test if you want in the HAV0C DISCIPLES there is always a place for you just join the discord server. You are free to operate independently and with your friends in groups and what not as long as you always claim the HAV0C DISCIPLES and not be afraid to do so. Just make sure you spreading the word and recruiting as many people as possible. You are free to represent us in MLG GameBattles and things of that nature, basically anything to get the HAV0C DISCIPLES more exposure is great. Within the HAV0C DISCIPLES you will be granted the opportunity to climb the social ladder so to speak within our organization. This is something that is not discussed until you are called upon details of this will never be spoken about or written about ever. Let's just say climbing this ladder gives you a list of very desirable perks. In summary the HAV0C DISCIPLES is an open enrollment online independent gaming community who can operate in smaller or larger factions while representing the HAV0C DISCIPLES. If you want in we want you in! So to make yourself an official HAV0C DISCIPLE just type the words "I'm in" on this channel and you will be welcomed with open arms. One final note is that the HAV0C DISCIPLES is not completely independent it is governed by a group made up a no more than 6 members known as the Immediate Faction. The Immediate Faction makes all the decisions and all rulings within the HAV0C DISCIPLES and if any of these rules are broken you may face serious consequences, but with that being said just type the words "I'm in" on this channel and your a HAV0C DISCIPLE! Here is the link to join our Discord Server and become an official member: https://discord.gg/wJWN3eJ [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 25 Feb 2018 02:21 PM PST When I think of Blizzard Entertainment, I don't actually think of innovative. In their history they take what is niche/upcoming/currently popular and then they try to cash in on it. Whether it's RTS' before Starcraft/Warcraft 1, Everquest before WoW, League of Legends before Heroes of the Storm, Team Fortress 2/other FPS before Overwatch, Dungeon crawler games before Diablo.. Blizzard has to be seeing how Battle Royale's are taking off, and Blizzard has strong IP's they can use if they actually wanted to make a Blizzard universe Battle Royale or just a completely new IP for a Battle Royale. While maybe the latter make more sense, The Darwin Project is in Open Beta and it's not as loot heavy as PUBG/Fortnite and you have abilities, something Blizzard could easily tie into a Battle Royale. Do you think Blizzard Entertainment is at the least talking about creating a team to create this game while the stove is still volcano hot for Battle Royale's? Or will they let other companies ride this train? It isn't very like Blizzard to just pass on an opportunity of a mega rising genre. Even if you consider Heroes of the Storm their worst attempt to cash in on the market, they seem to still attempt to create "The Blizzard version" of what's hot. [link] [comments]  |
| Making a game based entirely around verbal debate, would it be possible? Posted: 25 Feb 2018 02:13 PM PST Spoilers for New Vegas and Life is Strange coming up! So I've been replaying New Vegas recently and I've been leaning heavily into the speech and barter skills. I've found that, due to the game's relatively poor combat, managing to make my way out of a situation with no weapons being drawn and no blood being spilled can be much more satisfying. However, despite the speech path in many scenarios being 'about' debate, I don't feel that it, or any other speech check-style systems before/after it, have really managed to make a 'game' out of the act of debate. The primary reason for this is because, due to the game's statistical nature, one cannot pick a 'wrong' option when it comes to the speech and barter skills. This is no more exemplified by NV's final boss, Legate Lanius. Upon reaching him you can either fight him or talk him into a surrender and that's one of the many reasons why I love the game. The issue here is, if you have 100 speech, you've won. That, to me, is not a debate as the player does not have to think about what to say; you're given a clearly signposted 'right' answer that will solve the situation. The game tells you how awesome you are with words when you didn't actually say anything, you merely passed a skill check because you decided to level up Speech. Now that's not really a major problem to me; New Vegas isn't about its speech skill and the skill itself is but a single option to enhance the overall role-playing experience. However, there are a few examples of games built around dialogue that, to me, fail in the same area and I find that much less forgiveable. There are two types of these games: Telltale-style 'narrative' games such as The Walking Dead and Life is Strange, and 'courtroom'-style game franchise such as Danganronpa and Ace Attorney. The first type tends towards making conversation into a simple "what do I want this person to think of me" situation. They do sometimes create scenarios where a careful choice of words is needed (Batman Season 2 is great for this) but, generally, the player will be able to achieve their objectives either because the game simply needs to progress or because the player remembered key information or made the right choices earlier in the story. Take the climactic 'save Kate' scene in episode 2 of Life is Strange. The scene starts out strong with the player character having to pick between equally valid options that differ greatly in how genuinely sympathetic they are to the character in question. However, it soon devolves into a memory test as you're asked to remember which family members care for her and/or what bible verse she wrote down in a notebook. It is a debate, but those final few choices, like New Vegas, make said debate into a very 'gamey' skill check. That concern for making debate into a simple "correct/wrong" test of memory and deduction is my primary concern with the second type I mentioned above. I haven't played Danganronpa but I have played the Ace Attorney games and, whilst I love the series, it is definitely more of a puzzle game than a debate game. You're picking holes in someone's arguments but you're doing so based on highly strict deductions and there is no room for the linguistic and acting skills necessary in many debates out there. There is also no grey area between the two sides, no room for compromise, you know the defendant isn't guilty, you just have to prove it to the prosecutor. So would it be possible to create a game centred entirely around verbal debates which doesn't fall into the two types I described above? I'm personally not too sure as debate, by its nature, is very subjective and true subjectivity generally isn't gaming's strong suit. However, that's not to say it's impossible, The Talos Principle, for features occasional debates with a character that genuinely felt like a true debate. Whilst the game does like to tell you you're wrong, you're being judged not on some arbitrary information you remembered from earlier, but on your personal values and judgements towards a subject. Yet, those debates aren't the game's focus, and they don't have any form of win or failure states. They're a side-show to the game's numerous puzzles. Personally, I think that if a game is to be based around debate it needs to stop thinking about debates as a challenge to objectively be overcome but as a spontaneous attack on the 'opponents' values and beliefs and defence of the player's chosen/given values and beliefs as well. What do you think? [link] [comments]  |
| What are your favorite review aggregate websites? Posted: 25 Feb 2018 10:57 AM PST I'm sure we all have specific reviewers who we enjoy and trust, but I also like to know how communities at large react to a game, so I'm looking for more websites that aggregate reviews, either be critics or regular players. Of course there is Steam's built in review system, but I'm not a huge fan. The binary like/dislike system isn't to my taste, and leaves most competent games in the "very positive" category. It has also become more and more common to see review bombing campaigns rapidly distort a game's rating based on a singular unpopular decision that gained traction. They did recently put out some nice tools to filter out abnormal spikes in ratings though, which is much appreciated. Then there's MetaCritic. Honestly, the user reviews here are awful. They are almost entirely 0's and 10's, with no actual content to the reviews. The critic reviews can be pretty good though. There's also OpenCritic, which I generally enjoy more, but doesn't have a very long history. It really only has games that are a couple years old. By far my favorite site that I have stumbled across is called Glitchwave. This website is by the same people who brought us Rate Your Music, which is a wonderful site for users to rate, review, and find new music. After the success of RYM, they decided to expand to movies and games. Glitchwave is specific to games, although I think it is still in beta. Users rate games on a 5 star scale, and can optionally write reviews or discuss the games. Honestly my only complaint is that the site is a bit buggy still, and I wish the user base was higher because some games just don't have enough ratings. So what are your go-to websites? [link] [comments]  |
| Is MMR really good? (philosophy with me) Posted: 25 Feb 2018 04:50 AM PST Hey. I'm 30 and this idea popped out as i was being rekt in PUBG. This topic however could still be applied to many other games. The thing is the game thinks that im top 5% in duo-s and last night we were being constantly put up with god like players. usually I'd think cheaters, but when we checked their ratings they were all like 2-0.5%. We are not good shots at all, we just use brains to position correctly and not die to the zone, and we avoid the lottery of the hot drop zones, because fuck waiting in queue waiting the plain, waiting to fall down to die because there was no gun in my room. So the function of the MMR is supposed to be matching you in games where it is a 50-50 (in a team based game) to get a win, so it is always competitive. My question is then, what is the point of getting better? If every time you get better, you will just be put up with harder guys, you will always no matter what (in an ideal system) be put up against players where you have a 50% chance to win. The way i see unless you are literally the best 0.01%, there is no point for you to get any better, because no matter how good you get, you wont feel it because you will be challanged the same way no matter your skill. You cant apply these skills anywhere outside of the games, so there is no benefit for getting better, unless you want to dick wave and show off your rank to friends. There is an arguement that close games are the best, but to be honest that is not true. It is not true because those are very stressful, and not every game that has close games are fun. For me LoL was fun when it was a close game (rare occurance) but in CS it isnt rly fun. Neither in pubg, as there is no such a thing as a close game there. It is also fun in HS, but at least that has an end to the ladder that is achievable. BUT people smurf, and they do it, because it is a lot more fun to win. And why would you not want to experience how good you are, if you have already put 300+ hours into a game and you are in the top 25% of players (which isnt even like an elite place to be) I think this is the reason why so many people are smurfing( i havent yet). You get to actually experience how good you are if you are playing with people not as good as you are. Let me explain. Let's say you are top 25% in a game. You never get to experience it, you are just told that is the case, but what your experience shows you is, no matter what, you always have a tough match, and if you are slightly underperforming u'll get smacked. If there was a way, or mode, where people were just put up randomly, you would actually have a chance to gauge how good you are compared to others and how far you have to go when faced with better players. I personally think this might be a better way to improve and learn than to be put into a 50-50 all the time. You would have a real sense of where you are, and i think a PUBG like game is the best place to implement such a thing, because of how many players are in one single game. I mean it was like this in the old days, where MMR wasnt really a thing. You just hop on the server finder, or if the game had one then you looked for your fav servers and went in. Pwnd the noobs, got your ass handed to you by the better players and you learned. I still remember whilst playing a mod for Q3 (excessive +) where i managed to win a duel match against the highest rated player(by the community), and it is still with me 14 years later. That is memorable. Being put up into the never ending grind of the ladder just makes it futile to compete, if all you care about is a good experience. Or are we so SJW-y that we want even the worst fucking players to feel as if they are good and have a real chance every game? (it is okay to make them feel it sometimes, but every game?) Have we forgotten how learning actually works? Would we prefer pulling a blanket of ignorance over every young gamer's eyes and make them feel special and do the opposite of preparing them for real life? I dont see losing and learning a bad thing, but i see never experiencing how good/bad you are something unjust that is taken from you nowadys. I'd like to hear your opinions with arguements about this. i cant be the only one feeling this way. TL;DR Matchmaking always puts you in 50-50 you never get to see how good/bad you really are. Is there even a point? [link] [comments]  |
| Super Mario Odyssey deserves far more criticism Posted: 24 Feb 2018 04:41 PM PST I'm going to preface this by saying that the game is decent and I hope a sequel arrives that addresses these criticisms and services hardcore gamers. This game is easily one of if not the most sub par video game in the Super Mario series, presenting some of the easiest challenges the franchise has ever seen. The difficulty ramps up tremendously for the last level, being overtly hard before sloping back to way too easy again. The brand new mechanic of possessing enemies is heavily underutilized, amounting to little more than a side addition. The levels are obscenely huge with lots of open space and very few platforming elements, running in stark contrast to Super Mario's roots. There's a hyper realistic level that appears out of nowhere only containing a few collectibles and is over soon after it is begun. The most iconic level from the series the mushroom kingdom, is only available after beating the game, and has ludicrously basic challenge. Half of the game's collectibles aren't obtainable until after you've beaten the game. Most of the collectibles can just be picked up upon their discovery, so having half of them gated until after the final boss is ridiculous. The game earns a good deal of praise for its movement system, which it just doesn't put to good use nearly often enough. The game is laden with absurd quantities of the main macguffin and even has them in shops for purchase in sets of ten. One of your useful abilities can only be executed by way of motion controls, this means players can't do it when their console is in handheld mode. Neither can you remap your move set to other buttons. This title seems like a hodgepodge of visual elements and experimental game play strewn together with no clear focus. Levels alternate between attention to minute detail and a lack thereof, there's no cohesion between the varying art styles that're implored. This game banks on players' attachment to the characters, and is largely aimed at casual gamers and a younger audience. It serves as a brilliant introduction to video games but it doesn't service hardcore gamers in the slightest. Seasoned veterans that are praising this game are doing so merely through rose tinted nostalgia lenses. It lacks staying power with a hardcore crowd and serves as a massive time sink for those willing to engage it openly. Replaying the game is an antithetical endeavor due to overall length of the content offerings, and completing everything is frankly a matter of patience instead of skill. What surprises me quite a bit is that Yooka-Laylee did as poorly as it did, when Super Mario Odyssey was praised by critics. They're very similar video games, only the former cannot quite capitalize on established characters. Overall its success can seemingly be attributed to brand recognition and sparing releases, as well as modulating game play cycles affording itself well to bite sized play sessions. It doesn't offer anything novel in terms of its platforming adventure genre, and is essentially a bloated appeal to fans and players new to games in general. [link] [comments]  |
Post a Comment