True Gaming Xenogears (PSX) turned 20 yesterday. Do you remember it? |
- Xenogears (PSX) turned 20 yesterday. Do you remember it?
- Has a game ever looked like something you'd like on paper, you but just isn't doing it for you?
- Two Major Types of Boss Fight Design
- Why have FPS titles converged into the same formula?
- What is your opinion on stun mechanics in games.
- Will the Lord of the Rings Living Card Game coming to Steam thrive and popularize a new genre of CCGs?
| Xenogears (PSX) turned 20 yesterday. Do you remember it? Posted: 12 Feb 2018 08:28 AM PST From my perspective, Xenogears gets treated like the ugly stepchild of the 16-32bit era jRPGs. It's vastly overshadowed by the Final Fantasy series in the west, and since Squaresoft never let go of the IP, the Xenosaga series could only be a successor in spirit. It still was critically praised in its day and doesn't deserve to be forgotten. For those that don't know the game, a few cornerstones that set it apart:
People who did not play it on the PSX will have a hard time stumbling upon it though, because unlike the Final Fantasy series it has not been graced with remakes on newer consoles. [link] [comments]  |
| Has a game ever looked like something you'd like on paper, you but just isn't doing it for you? Posted: 12 Feb 2018 02:05 PM PST I've been following Kingdom Come Deliverance for awhile and it looks like a game I would enjoy, but it's I'm on the fence about it. What not to like about Skyrim but without dragons? I have to admit that the concept is intriguing, to say the least. A medieval simulator, I can dig that. On paper it seems like everything I would like, open-world, free form exploration, the ability to go-your-own-way and make you own path. But there are things that bug me. One of the things that bug me is the Prespective. IMO it would be better if it was 3rd person. If was, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. Honestly, I don't have anything against first person games, I've played my share of FPS's and loved Dying Light, but Kingdom Come seems it like it will be much harder to play from a first person perspective. To me it seems like it would be harder taking on a gang of bandits. I think that's one of the reasons that a games like Uncharted or even The Witcher is 3rd person, it gives you kind a situational awareness. I get that the game is going for realism, but does that it's sacrificing fun for realism. Another question is: How free form is it? Is it like The Long Dark where it completely open and you can do you own thing or are you always tied to the story? What about the end game, am I then free do do whatever I wish or does it end? Personally I would prefer to carve my own path, that's the fun of Skyrim, I mostly ignore the story and do things my own way. But am I asking too much from this? [link] [comments]  |
| Two Major Types of Boss Fight Design Posted: 12 Feb 2018 06:37 AM PST Boss fights are supposed to be some of the most challenging portions of a game, and in order to do so, different games adopted different strategies. I have found that most boss fights are made according to one of two design philosophies, sometimes with different degrees of blending but usually leaning towards one side. Type 1. Key words: Reactive / Generalisable Skills / Reflex / Situational Awareness This is the type of fights where you have to draw upon your knowledge of fighting previous enemies and your character's combat skills in general, and react to the boss's moves appropriately, but do not usually require you to memorise the boss's whole moveset, phase order etc. You need to be good at playing your character, but not necessarily good at fighting this boss. A good example of this are fights in Witcher series. You defeat your enemies by being a good witcher, which means use your light attack to wear down your enemies, use your heavy to break defense, dodge/roll when being attacked and parry/counter whenever convenient. Most enemies, even bosses have similar cues as to when they are going to attack and whether it is going to be a blockable attack, and some common monster knowledge can help you identify weaknesses of enemies in general. Your skills are usually widely applicable to most situations, e.g. Quen can be used to block some of the seemingly unstoppable boss moves, and many bosses can be set on fire. Fights can become very unforgiving, but being a good player with decent sitiuational awareness can help you bring down difficult, unfamiliar bosses even on your first try. On the other hand, it does make some fights feel repetitive/samey, as you are not required to do unique things for each boss (although the fight preparation part sort of remedies that in the Witcher games) Type 2. Key words: Predictive / Fight-specific mechanics / Memorisation / Rhythm This is the type of fights where you often simply cannot win no matter what on your first try. You must observe, figure out and deal with the mechanics of each specific boss. Knowing what types of moves a boss has is crucial, so is the order in which they come or the condition to trigger each move. Bosses can have multiple phases requiring drastically different strategies to throw you off guard, and you must be aware of that and prepare for it. This is your typical WoW boss and is widely used in many MMOs (e.g. FFXIV uses this extensively, especially in the "Primal" fights. However, in other MMOs like ESO, Type 1 is used more often). It can also be found in many JRPGs. The biggest difference between this and Type 1 fights is that it is less about what you know about your character and more about what you know about the boss. You have to be able to predict what is to come, and reflex alone typically will not carry you very far. Bosses can be more predictable / scripted than Type 1, but also usually more unforgiving in that there will be mechanics where there exists only one solution. For example, your character might have skills like Quen, but it either will not block that team-wiping spell or is on an extremely long cooldown; instead, you have to break a specific column to interrupt the casting. Many players call this type of boss fights "choreography". Personally I think a well-done Type 1 (reactive) boss fight can potentially give you the best experience, as it is closest to how a real in-game character would defeat their enemies - drawing inspirations from their generic skills and previous experiences. However, many skilled players, especially MMO players and "git gud" game (Dark Souls etc.) players consider Type 1 to be "shallower", and I agree that learning and solving mechanics can sometimes be quite fun. What is your preferred type of boss fight (including mixtures) and maybe a few good examples of it? [link] [comments]  |
| Why have FPS titles converged into the same formula? Posted: 12 Feb 2018 03:48 AM PST I've slowly played less FPS over the past decade until the point we're at now where I don't play them at all. For me this is because they all have all converged into a similar formula, one I don't particularly enjoy, which includes: killstreak rewards, loadouts, perks, sprinting, and level-up unlockables. Why is this style so prevalent? Does the community really prefer to have all these things? And why isn't anyone making a AAA FPS game without these mechanics? [link] [comments]  |
| What is your opinion on stun mechanics in games. Posted: 11 Feb 2018 07:33 PM PST I'm not sure if I'm the odd one out or not, but I have always found stun mechanics to be poor game design.I think that they make gameplay less fun, and are artificial difficulty.I'm sure there are good implementations of this in some games, but for the most part it ruins my experience when I have no control of what I can do in a game. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 11 Feb 2018 05:09 PM PST Hello all, I'm a big fan of digital collectible card games (CCGs), but I'm not a huge fan of PvP. Since most digital CCGs are centered around PvP, I am very intrigued by the upcoming Lord of the Rings Living Card Game coming to Steam, which is based on a tabletop collectible card game with a similar name. A distinguishing feature of this game, it seems, is that it will be focused on relatively short PvE missions. The player plays against Sauron, an AI that has its own deck of cards customized for each mission. The player can carefully construct his or her deck specifically for the mission in order to overcome the specific challenges it presents. Now here is my question for you: does this type of game have the potential of thriving, and if so, does it have the potential to popularize a new genre of digital CCGs? Now, current digital CCGs usually do have a PvE mode, but it is rarely the game's focus, content is often limited, and deck-building, surprisingly, is not always a central feature. For an example of the last point, Magic Duels has quite a few story-mode campaigns, but the player must defeat the various scenarios using pre-constructed decks. Now, some games, such as Hearthstone, do have PvE modes in which the player is invited to construct his or her own deck. But there are only so many missions, and the only way to acquire the cards needed to beat some of the challenges is to play the PvP side of the game, or to buy booster packs for real money (the price tag, in which case, is far too great if one's primary interest is the PvE missions). By contrast, the structure of the Lord of the Rings Living Cards Game seems to open the door for a distinctive experience: 1) The game will be focused on PvE, 2) players can grow their card collections through PvE, and 3) deck construction, aimed at overcoming specific challenges, will be a central feature. Consider this last point for a moment. Instead of trying to construct a generalist deck that can defeat a variety of PvP opponents, as is typical for digital CCGs, the player is invited to construct a deck specifically for the mission at hand. With a sufficiently great diversity of missions, this could provide a unique experience among digital CCGs. The player will be actively encouraged to constantly try out new, interesting strategies in order to beat different missions, rather than to perfect a single, ladder-climbing generalist deck. The developers can enhance this effect by utilizing daily quests to present more specific challenges - for example, "Beat Quest X with Aragorn" or "Beat Quest Y with 2 Lore heroes." Of course, another distinctive feature of the game is the "Living Card Game" distribution model. Rather than rely on randomized booster packs for growing your collection, which can be frustrating, the developers promise to create a system that allows players to acquire specifically the cards that they want, through booster packs with set cards, and through a "valor" system which allows players to purchase specific cards (these features are all still under development, though, and a more randomized card acquisition system is available for those who wish to use it, called the "Palantir"). What do you all think? Could such a gameplay model thrive? Will PvE-centric, deck-building puzzle scenarios engage players? And if so, could this game popularize a new genre of digital CCGs that mimic this style? I look forward to hearing your thoughts! For more information, see the Steam page or the Twitch channel, which has some alpha gameplay footage. [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