True Gaming Videogame vs tabletop RPGs - why the lack of persistent shared universes? |
- Videogame vs tabletop RPGs - why the lack of persistent shared universes?
- Have the "scoutflies" in Monster Hunter World solved the Detective mode/press R3 to ping your surroundings problem problem in action, adventure, RPGs?
- Dark Souls is wonderful, but is it important?
- Following the money - zero-sum economies in management games?
| Videogame vs tabletop RPGs - why the lack of persistent shared universes? Posted: 23 Feb 2018 07:06 AM PST I really like the basic structure of tabletop RPGs, where they have a very detailed and vast shared setting (eg. Forgotten Realms, Battletech, etc), and players are able to experience all sorts of smaller stories and adventures in that universe. At the same time, there are many content creators fleshing out that setting, with all sorts of different media. And an overall organisation keeping everything consistent. I've always been a bit disappointed that such a thing never took off in video games. Video games never really achieved "horizontal diversity", with many similar games exploring different stories in the same setting. (Only example I can think of are the old "Gold Box" D&D games.). In most cases, video games have "linear diversity", ie. sequels, but the subsequent games vary so much in technology and game mechanics that you can't get that feeling of "many adventures in the same universe". If we're talking AAA games, then yes technology moves on and its hard to reuse assets from previous games. But there are many low-fi RPGs, from the RPG Maker games to stuff like Avernum, mobile games, handheld JRPGs, etc. I'm saddened that no such franchise has ever taken off. Lets discuss why this is? Is it a market driven thing? Do video game players have different expectations, and they would be bored with playing many RPGs with identical mechanics (you could even transfer your characters over?), a mix of old and new locations, but just new story? Or is it a developer thing? I would have assumed such a franchise would be cheaper to develop due to shared assets and possibly crowdsourced writing, but maybe there are other factors that make it difficult? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 23 Feb 2018 09:36 AM PST A lot of games in the past decade or so have relied on a detective mode or press R3 to ping style method to highlight important objects in the world. The game designers understandably want to keep you immersed in the world, so they don't want the added "gameplay relevant" UI elements present at all times. As a result, in Batman Arkham games, and the new Tomb Raiders, and Witcher 3, or Horizon Zero Dawn's focus, and many others, you activate a detective mode thing that essentially clouds out the normal presentation of the game in order to give you a more "gameplay relevant" presentation of the game in order to highlight important stuff for the player, whether it be plants to pick up, or enemies, or an arrow pointing you to your next objective. Some other games, dragon age inquistion for example, used a ping style system, where you click in the right stick, and a pulse emits out that temporarily highlights important stuff, or gives you your objective arrow. Several problems crop up with these systems. Firstly, even when there's a good "lore" explanation, it often takes me out of the immersion of the game. It makes sense in the lore for batman to be able to enter detective mode, it makes sense that Geralt can focus his mind and see monster tracks, it...kind makes sense that Lara Croft can maybe stay still and focus in other to see important things around her. What's annoying though is that these systems always alter the presenation of the game to make it less immersive...the screen becomes blurry, or black and white, or it's just a bunch of vectors in detective mode. You'd never WANT to play the whole game in these modes. Another problem is that you're giving the player another toggle or annoying thing that they feel compelled to constantly click or press to make sure they're not missing anything. It just adds tedium in my mind. Monster Hunter World, however, uses something called Scoutflies and to me this seems to be the best possible implementation of this idea yet. They're always active, unless you're in combat, and they automatically fly around to highlight the important things in the environment, and also guide you to your next objective. You don't have to press any buttons. You don't have to make the whole game world become black and white, or blurred, or vector graphics. And they still maintain immersion and are integrated into the lore of the game. Have scoutflies solved the "detective mode" problem? [link] [comments]  |
| Dark Souls is wonderful, but is it important? Posted: 23 Feb 2018 07:34 AM PST It's very rare that I find myself so satisfied with a game as I did with Dark Souls. Yeah, it's unforgiving, it suffers from some pretty major slowdown issues on consoles, and it certainly isn't mechanically flawless like a lot of people would have you believe. But in an era where every game tries to do everything, Dark Souls is extremely focused in what it's trying to do and absolutely nails what I think are two of the most important things in any RPG: combat and exploration. There's no window dressing, either. Nearly every item found in the game can be used to gain an advantage over the surroundings. More than anything, it's a marvel of focused game design. It's hard for me to call Dark Souls anything but "reactionary", much in the same way Maximo: Ghosts To Glory was back when it was released for PS2 in 2001. Maximo was an obvious throwback to the old Ghosts n' Goblins aesthetic of unforgiving platforming, tight controls, and window dressing-free design. As such, it was lauded when it was released. A lot of people found it very refreshing. And yet, almost no one I know talks about it today. It was a reactionary title that faded into obscurity as time went on. I'll always remember Maximo, and I'll always remember Dark Souls. But in a way, are all reactionary titles such as these doomed to take a back seat to progress, despite their time in the sun? [link] [comments]  |
| Following the money - zero-sum economies in management games? Posted: 22 Feb 2018 09:26 PM PST In the interest of not turning this into a promotion post and violating the rules, I'll keep it general, but this discussion pertains to an element of an in-development video game . In many city-builders and management games, the total amount of money in the system at any given time pretty much just increases - money appears from nowhere as buildings that produce some resource generate income from thin air. This generally allows the player to build up a critical mass of funds that can be used to purchase high-level upgrades or buildings that have comparatively large gameplay effects or are rewarding in some other way, but what about games where when money is spent, it gets tracked and spent again later by the game itself? There are several interesting scenarios which could represent this, but I'll focus on just one here: In a city builder, the total amount of money the population has to spend on goods and services you produce is tied directly to the wages you, the manager, pay. Now, expand the concept to a multiplayer competitive setting: multiple managers trying to turn a profit and grow their cities, all vying for the money of a shared public. This means that wages you pay will eventually end up in the pockets of your competitors or vice versa, so you are encouraged to strike a good balance between the cost of your goods (lower is more attractive and encourages the population to spend money on you, but also reduces your profits) and the wages paid (higher makes people happier, but also cuts into profits). Are there any standout examples of games which utilize this dynamic? [link] [comments]  |
Post a Comment