- May be an obvious question to some but - Why is multiplayer gaming with other humans so much more satisfying and engaging than with AIs, even "Hard" AIs? Does it make a difference if it's Online multiplayer vs local couch multiplayer?
- Enemies Who Value Their Own Lives | Are There Ways To Do It Well?
- Do many gamers fail to understand how fickle morale is when they complain about disobedient units?
- 3rd party voice and games with intentionally difficult communication
- 1000s of small mechanics, or the complexity of some Japanese games (Nier, MSGV, Yazkuza O, MonsterHunter, Persona 5....)
- Why are most fantasy worlds so generic ?
| Posted: 22 Feb 2018 11:51 AM PST I was trying to put my finger on this. When I was a kid, I really liked to play games like Smash, MKart, MParty, Bomberman, Rampage, and mostly other fighters like Soul Calibur or DBZ Budokai. But it was so much less satisfying for me to face off against computers, even if the AI was set to hard and was a challenging battle. At first, I thought it was because I liked talking to people I was facing off against - could that be the reason? But if so, wouldn't online gaming be similar? Yet there's tons who love to game online and not everyone has a headset I think (not sure since I almost never game online - could use some thoughts on this). Then I thought maybe the AI was too predictable with their patterns and gameplay got stale. Yet then I think of adventure games with the same enemy patterns and think it can't be because of that since adventure games can still be stimulating. Anyway, I was wondering - is there something intrinsic that makes multiplayer with AIs less enjoyable for humans? I feel like it's something fundamental I'm not understanding or just some words that I can't quite pinpoint and would like some thoughts. [link] [comments]  |
| Enemies Who Value Their Own Lives | Are There Ways To Do It Well? Posted: 21 Feb 2018 08:27 PM PST In most games, enemies will fight you to the death no matter how injured they are or how hopeless the fight is on their part. They will run into you like a brick wall with the same level of aggression until they die with no sense of self preservation. Part of me can understand why this is done. Chasing down your enemy as they are running for their lives could grow old fast. And making the enemy weaker over the course of the fight ruins the crescendo of to the climax. With that said. If enemies were to value their own lives more then I think the priorities of the player could change in interesting ways. Is it worth pursuing them to finish them off? Will they ambush you if you leave them alive and will you be able to deal with that? With the right mechanics, questions like that could become a part of the experience. The thought came to me when watching the Bokoblin in Breath of the Wild running away in fear from lit bombs. I'd love to hear more examples and ideas for how enemy AI with self-preservation instincts can be implemented. [link] [comments]  |
| Do many gamers fail to understand how fickle morale is when they complain about disobedient units? Posted: 22 Feb 2018 02:07 PM PST Inspired by a few posts I saw on the internet. https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=36307 https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=36308 http://historum.com/war-military-history/55118-how-terrifying-barrage-arrows-even-shield-walls.html As I recently started replaying Total War, Close Combat,X-Com,Majesty, Lords of the Realm, The Sims and Civilizations V I recognized everything in the above links and more such as how angry peasants are for simply upping the tax by 1%. Before I read the above posts I was even yelling quite angrily at how riflemen in Close Combat would refuse to attack the enemy because the loud noise of machine gun fire was scaring them to hide behind a house and that citizens kept revolting because I merely tried to change the local religion from Islam to no religion in a Civ game. However reading various posts online (not just the one above), I'm wondering if strategy game's insistence on how petty stuff like placing a temple near a guard house is quite an accurate reflection of real life? Are so many of us gamers fail to understand just how much people can change their thoughts simply because a house is very clean (which literally gave a promotion to one of my Sims in his job)? Or just how demonic a witch's minions are when we yell that troops refuse to attack a dark castle in Majesty? [link] [comments]  |
| 3rd party voice and games with intentionally difficult communication Posted: 22 Feb 2018 01:38 AM PST That is, how do you handle players being able to communicate. In situations where the game would not allow for it? Intruder has local voice by default. Long range communication is only possible via radio. The catch is that anyone can hear you speak. Asking your teammates anything can be risky since it's very much about sneaking around. It has hand signs to allow for silent communications. It really goes all in on this uncertainty. There is no kill feed. Falling down doesn't mean you are dead. Being shot can simply ragdoll you. Hearing shots and asking on the radio "Are you still alive?" with no answer. Space Station 13 also has local communications by default. Any long range communication can be tampered with. Hearing an explosion and not being able to get in contact with anyone on the station. Makes for a very nervous situation. Squad is milder and they have written about this very issue in their dev blog as well. By default you can speak locally or with your squad. Only squad leaders can ask other squad leaders directly via voice. This means that the grunts have to trust that their squad leader is telling the truth about the other squads' plans. Enemies can't hear you speak however. Mainly for a fear of everyone moving to other voice services. In all these examples. Being able to speak with anyone. Even those you shouldn't be able to speak to. Breaks the design in some way. Knowing your buddy died in Intruder. Knowing that the engine has been blown up and that the perpetrator was last seen in a particular maintenence shaft. Or just knowing the real exact plans of the entire team. So how do you deal with this problem? Is it even a problem at all? Personally I adore these limitations and hate to step outside of the uncertainty and immersion it brings to a game. Still I know that playing to win is a big thing for many others. Getting the upper hand in literally any situation is the best thing to happen. Letting the enemy hear you speak before breaching a door is not ideal. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 22 Feb 2018 02:08 AM PST I have been playing these games lately, while I am not a big fan of the over the top tropes in japanese games (it honestly ruined Persona 5 for me, it's too... childhish? ridiculous?), the gameplay and game mechanics surprised me and looked inciting. But one things I realized is the apparent crazy complexity of these games. Whereas most of popular successful games focus on 3 or 4 mechanics (combat, crafting, resources management...) at most, these games just bombard you with never ending new mechanics (Persona5 is ridiculous with these, 30 hours into the game you are still receiving tutorials messages because they introduce new systems....). In the end, when you get down to it, they really are shallow simple systems. These game mechanics appear and seem overwhelming because they are presented "in game and within the game story context", but taken by themselves they really are just basic core stuff (dungeons to grind, crafting=cooking, simple relationship AI, etc). Nevertheless, these games twist all this in a manner that they make you think either : As an example, I am on the verge of giving up Persona 5 because they introduced the "new type of dungeons that are not main dungeon but you need to do it and it means this and that...." - ugh. Please. I was already a bit skeptical when they tell you about the fusion system for your Persona (I actually dont use it, thus I believe it's completly optional?). Same thing with Yakuza 0, at one point you are introduced to a game system where, through the store of a NPC, you can send AI on the hunt for materials in order to craft stuff... the game is already full of game mechanics (food, mini quests, relationship, combat * 3, XP, ....), this is too much and it isnt clear if i NEED to do it or it is just optional? So the big question : thank you [link] [comments]  |
| Why are most fantasy worlds so generic ? Posted: 17 Feb 2018 10:38 PM PST It seems most "fantasy" games no longer indicate fiction, but rather is synonymous with a Tolkein-esque world; elves, dwarves, magic. Perhaps it is time to break these conventional stereotypes for true fantasy ? Or is the reason why 'fantasy' tropes of the dungeons & dragons kind so plentiful because the world is already so established ? What are your thoughts ? [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