True Gaming Konami's strategy behind Metal Gear Survive |
- Konami's strategy behind Metal Gear Survive
- Legal analysis of whether loot boxes in games such as Overwatch actually constitute gambling
- I wish that one day someone will release a game similar to how Rainbow Six Patriots was planned to be release
- Why do I never get better at FPS games?
- Geek vacations and research help requested
- What is or could be the video game equivalent of the MCU?
| Konami's strategy behind Metal Gear Survive Posted: 20 Feb 2018 08:47 AM PST Metal Gear Survive comes out today and it got me thinking about the game. I played the beta over the weekend and thought it was pretty fun, but this is definitely not a Metal Gear game. As such, the chances that this game isn't going to get shit on by both fans and critics is precisely zero. But I think that was the whole reason behind Konami's decision to make the game. After Kojima's departure from Komami and the bad press the company received afterward, the future of Metal Gear looked grim. Being such a huge money-maker for Konami it was a sure thing that they were going to continue the franchise, but this time without any involvement from Kojima. And Kojima's work on these games was so off the rails and brilliant that it was pretty much impossible for Konami to deliver the same kind of experience that fans had come to expect. So no matter what they did, it was pretty much guaranteed that the first post-Kojima Metal Gear game was going to get a lot of hate. Konami could have instead started work on Metal Gear Solid 6 and spent millions of dollars on the product in an attempt to make it the best Metal Gear yet, but fans would still most likely boycott it. That's why Metal Gear Survive is so brilliant. They want to get the hate out of the way as quick and inexpensively as possible so that they can continue on the franchise for real. I mean, the game seems designed to annoy Metal Gear fans. It's a survival game with zombies set in another dimension with no series regular characters and no real relevance to the overarching Metal Gear plot. What is there for fans to love? Hell, even the $40 price tag implies that it's not a full game. Plus the game was made using assets from The Phantom Pain, which keeps cost (and risk) down. And the addition of microtransactions helps to offset the (likely) low-sales of the game. Metal Gear Survive also lowers the bar for future games, while simultaneously making fans more excited for them. If they had gone ahead and made Metal Gear Solid 6, we would all be comparing it to Metal Gear Solid 5. But now when they get around to making it we'll instead be comparing it to Survive. Sure we'll also compare it to 5, but most of the buzz around the game will be about Metal Gear's return to form and how much better it is than the last one. Plus at that point, a lot of fans will likely have gotten over their Konami boycott (having gotten to hate on Survive) and just be excited to play another Metal Gear Solid game. All in all, Survive seems destined to fail, and I think that was the point. [link] [comments]  |
| Legal analysis of whether loot boxes in games such as Overwatch actually constitute gambling Posted: 20 Feb 2018 05:39 AM PST This is something that has been in gaming news a lot recently and so I thought it would be interesting to bring up as a discussion. A legal journal I subscribe to just uploaded a detailed analysis of the matter regarding UK gambling law that also considers recent attempts to regulate the matter by China and Hawaii. Here's the article: https://www.keepcalmtalklaw.co.uk/innocent-fun-or-underage-gambling-loot-boxes-in-video-games/ Personally I don't think they're gambling (unless you can sell the proceeds of the boxes like in CS:GO), but I do believe there should be some regulation seeing as the psychology of loot boxes and gambling are equally predatory. What do you all think? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 20 Feb 2018 07:28 AM PST Here is a video for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICVHMOjKncU Being a long-time Tom Clancy fan, you often expect a lot of story-driven narratives where some elements have their own sci-fi elements like Splinter Cell's near-future technology, combined with some real-life elements like for example The Division (though technically a Tom Clancy game in terms of gameplay, mechanics or even story since it is not based off of a Tom Clancy novel and it has the Tom Clancy name) is mostly based off of Operation Dark Winter, a mock simulation where the U.S. Government tested on how to be prepared in case an actual biological pandemic happened in the U.S. Most stories in the Tom Clancy series have some form of realism in it which is a part of its charm with the usual heroes-vs-villains type of story with a more mature or dark look and sometimes even a level of conspiracy involved like hunting down an underground criminal organisation, or stopping a worldwide terrorist attack or even stopping a conspiracy that could result in nuclear war or World War 3. (and sometimes, there were often some shades of grey in terms of morality as some vilians had their own sympathetic motivations although they were also extreme too) However, most of the enemies that the protagonists face were external threats like ultra-nationalist Russians or worldwide criminal organisations and so on. Rainbow Six Patriots was promised to have a different look. The main antagonists, the True Patriots, although their motivations involved extremism, intimidation, terrorism and other illegal acts, they were domestic terrorists whose motivations were sympathetic because they felt that the U.S. was too corrupt and needed to be destroyed entirely. It was a more politically-driven type of story with more politically complicated elements because the topic regarding U.S. politics and possible corruption and other shady practices was a very hot topic during that time and it still is today. Even though I would not have liked the idea of neglecting the tactics and strategy focused elements that Tom Clancy games are known for, this idea of a complex story with different perspectives whose neither good or bad was a brilliant idea. Yes, of course people are going to take this too literally and will be personally affected by this (I mean, come on. Have you seen how politics often meddles with video games and scapegoat them for pretty much anything?) Yes, some far-right people would have probably taken the game too literally and think it was a propaganda to motivate people to become domestic terrorists. Yes, some legal action would have probably been involved (as if domestic terrorism was somehow a new thing because many TV shows and films used this kind of story as a plot element) But man, this would have been a bold move for Ubisoft to publish this kind of story and probably spark endless discussions [link] [comments]  |
| Why do I never get better at FPS games? Posted: 20 Feb 2018 02:50 PM PST I've been PC gaming for around 6 years now (since I was 13). Most of my FPS experience comes from TF2, but I have experience in plenty of single player games. I've recently been playing a lot of PUBG, generally upwards of 3 games a day for the last 4 months. I know there are learning curves to every game, but once most people get past the controls, basic mechanics, etc., they are generally able to compete with other players. But for me, regardless of how much I play, I always seem to be simply below average, regardless of how much I play. My KDR is always less than 1, I usually die in any enemy encounter, even if I have an advantage. I just always seem to make the wrong decision, or my hand tenses up and I miss my target, or something out of my control happens and I just die. I usually can't even top the leaderboard in a Valve server in tf2, even after 1500 hours, and in PUBG, I only have one win after 200 hours. I know everyone is going to say that practice makes perfect, but for me, that just doesn't seem to be true. I have great hardware and a great internet connection, so that's not the issue. It just seems like I'm naturally bad at games. [link] [comments]  |
| Geek vacations and research help requested Posted: 20 Feb 2018 01:50 PM PST Taylor, T.L. (play, social interactions, blur of lines, and ethnography) 2006 Play Between worlds: Exploring Online Game Culture Cambridge: MIT Press This book explores the online gaming world and the interactions that take place between the members, both online and offline. Taylor uses her experiences with both online and offline interactions surrounding EverQuest. Her main point seems to be the "the social is not just an add-on" (Taylor 2006: 9). This means that the social is an essential part of these online communities and they do not live within a "magic bubble" in that the relationships extend outside of the game itself into different worlds, forms, websites, and offline interactions. She also argues that the avatars not just a way through which the player is able to manipulate their identities, but it is also a representation of the community in which it was created. [link] [comments]  |
| What is or could be the video game equivalent of the MCU? Posted: 20 Feb 2018 06:46 AM PST I've never seen anything like what the MCU has done in the movie industry. They are not without their flaws, however the level of quality and consistency in each entry is unmatched. Also the pace of production. 18 films in 10 years. 3 scheduled releases in 2018. Tl;Dr Has there been, or will there ever be any shared universe in gaming that can achieve the critical, mainstream, and financial success of the MCU [link] [comments]  |
Post a Comment