Games Weekly /r/Games Discussion - Suggestion request free-for-all

3/02/2018 10:13:00 pm
A+ A- Print Email

Games Weekly /r/Games Discussion - Suggestion request free-for-all

Weekly /r/Games Discussion - Suggestion request free-for-all

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 01:08 PM PST

/r/Games usually removes suggestion requests that are either too general (eg "Which PS3 games are the best?") or too specific/personal (eg "Should I buy Game A or Game B?"), so this thread is the place to post any suggestion requests like those, or any other ones that you think wouldn't normally be worth starting a new post about.

If you want to post requests like this during the rest of the week, please post to other subreddits like /r/gamingsuggestions, /r/ShouldIBuyThisGame, or /r/AskGames instead.

Please also consider sorting the comments in this thread by "new" so that the newest comments are at the top, since those are most likely to still need answers.

submitted by /u/AutoModerator
[link] [comments]

Monthly /r/Games Discussion - February 2018 gaming news review and recap

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 08:59 AM PST

Let's talk about this month's highlights in the industry and video game releases!

Did a specific piece of news surprise you? Is there an obscure game that released this month that didn't get much attention on /r/Games? What do you hope for or expect will happen in the coming months? Talk about whatever.

I'll keep this thread up for a couple of days until it gets auto-replaced by Free Talk Friday.

Major submissions: news, rumors, trailers for upcoming games

Video game releases: announcements, review threads, articles, videos

Most upvoted self-post submissions

Thank you to /u/keyblader6 for suggesting this idea in the daily threads suggestions post!

/r/Games has a Discord server! Come join us and say hi! https://discord.gg/rgames

submitted by /u/Vespair
[link] [comments]

Detroit: Become Human Launches May 25

Posted: 01 Mar 2018 06:34 AM PST

A video game-playing AI beat Q*bert in a way no one’s ever seen before, glitching out the game to rack up an extremely high score

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 07:23 PM PST

Forza Horizon 3 Is Still the Finest Thing on Four Wheels - IGN

Posted: 01 Mar 2018 02:34 AM PST

Fortnite patch 3.1.0 is now available, brings new location, weapons and CPU optimizations

Posted: 01 Mar 2018 04:29 AM PST

Epic Games has released a brand new patch for Fortnite and Fortnite Battle Royale. According to the release notes, this patch adds a new point of interest that is located on the Southern edge of the island, a Hunting Rifle in Battle Royale and a Dragonfire Auto-Shotgun in Save the World.

In addition, this patch improves overall frame rate by using less CPU for characters that are far away, and optimizes weapon load times and reduced their memory usage. It also features minor adjustments to Loot and rebalances the drop chance for Tactical Shotgun, Burst Assault Rifle and Revolve.

This patch will be auto-downloaded from the Epic Launcher and you can find its complete changelog below.

Fortnite Patch 3.1.0 Release Notes Fortnite GENERAL Controllers and Mice can now be used in tandem. UI Notification UI has updated animations and now promptly exits the screen when dismissed by an action. Added a confirmation dialog for exiting the game using the window close button on PC. Bug Fixes

Ping times displayed in the Net Debug Stats panel have been improved to be more accurate by removing frame times from the calculation. Removed some heavy hitching that could occur during texture streaming. Fixed issue that caused location text in Party Finder to clip into buttons, now marquees properly. Fixed issue where the input icon for selecting a lobby player podium slot would disappear after switching tabs. Fixed some memory leaks that resulted in crashes Battle Royale WEAPONS + ITEMS Hunting Rifle added! Single shot rifle that has no scope and is effective at medium to long range. Uncommon and Rare rarity. Found in Treasure Chests and Floor Loot. Adjusted inconsistent drop rates for various weapon rarities. Burst Assault Rifle drop chance: Common decreased by 20%. Uncommon increased by 60%. Rare increased by 150%. Revolver drop chance: Common decreased by 10%. Uncommon increased by 33%. Rare increased by 75%. Tactical Shotgun drop chance: Uncommon decreased by 10%. Rare increased by 33%. Epic increased by 75%. These weapons had unnecessarily low drop rates as they progressed in rarity. This does not change the overall likelihood of finding these weapon types but it does increase your chances of finding a higher rarity version. – Developer Comment Bug Fixes

Fixed discrepancies between crosshair location and muzzle firing location when shooting at close range targets. Fixed shotgun collision inconsistencies when aiming through openings or around corners. GAMEPLAY Minor adjustments to Loot in the following locations: Snobby Shores (removed 13 Floor Loot spawn locations and 4 chests) Industrial Plot north-east of Flush Factory (removed 4 Floor Loot spawn locations and 3 chests) Tilted Towers (removed 8 Floor Loot spawn locations and 4 chests) Bug Fixes

Fixed issues where weapons would not equip because they were not pre-loaded. This resolves the issue in which weapons did not equip / did not function during the early game. Efforts have been made to address an issue where players are suddenly unable to build in rare cases. Fixed a crash that occurred if players kicked the ball out of Greasy Grove or the Soccer Stadium. Fixed some edge cases where players pushed up against ramps / ceilings could toss grenades through to the opposite side. Fixed the Boogie Bomb not properly refreshing its duration on a player who is hit with more than one. Fixed an issue that reduced the distance that the light on chests could be seen. Fixed the soccer scoreboard awarding points to the wrong side in Pleasant Park. WORLD The new 'Lucky Landing' point of interest has been added to the southern edge of the island. UI You now receive Party Suggestions while in the lobby. Rich presence now provides the player's party size. Added new intro/outro animations to the party invite notification. Invite notification now closes upon being clicked. Presence text that is too long will no longer overlap the Invite/Join buttons. Bug Fixes

Fixed an issue where you couldn't emote in lobby if a player left. Fixed an issue where changing language to Chinese or Korean would not render text properly. Fixed an issue that caused the '60 FPS' mode to reset back to 30 after relaunching the game on PS4. Fixed an issue where the Party Finder dialog could double spawn. Fixed an issue where full parties would show as solo players and appear joinable. Fixed an issue where sometimes the Invite/Join action wouldn't show correctly. Fixed an issue where the party bar sometimes wouldn't show party members while in a filled squad. ART/ANIMATION Re-enabled sprinting dust effects on low settings. Hip fire positioning is now maintained if a player fired recently and switched weapons. Bug Fixes

Fixed player jittering when sliding against a surface. Fixed an issue causing other characters to not animate while spectating them after being eliminated. Fixed an issue where weapons were unholstered early when using Emotes. Fixed character body parts not animating at low framerates. Fixed shield visual FX not properly displaying on the Alpine Ace and Crackshot outfits. Updated the flag on the arm of the USA Alpine Ace to face the correct direction. AUDIO Reduced the volume of the Hand Cannon audio to match that of the Revolver. Reduced the volume of the Windmills found in Anarchy Acres and Fatal Fields. Bug Fixes

Set the volume of hitting weak points back to what it was prior to V.3.0.0. Fixed an issue where building placement sound would play repeatedly while skydiving if you had the Pickaxe equipped in the lobby. Fixed an issue that caused the lobby music to restart every time it was attenuated to 0 volume because of music from emotes. Fixed an issue that could cause the Storm Audio to play from an invalid location in the map. The build mode 'click' sound no longer plays while the player is downed. PERFORMANCE Improved overall frame rate by using less CPU for characters that are far away. Optimized weapon load times and reduced their memory usage.

submitted by /u/fesbanu
[link] [comments]

Naoki Yoshida, Yosuke Saito, Shinji Hashimoto, and Yoshinori Kitase Appointed Directors for Square Enix

Posted: 01 Mar 2018 04:05 AM PST

PSN Plus games for March: Bloodborne and Ratchet & Clank

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 08:31 AM PST

What Happened to Dawn of War 3?- When Good Sequels Go Bad

Posted: 01 Mar 2018 01:00 AM PST

Metal Gear Survive - Review Thread

Posted: 01 Mar 2018 03:29 AM PST

Game Title: Metal Gear Survive

Platform(s): PC, PlayStation 4, Xbox One

Developer(s): Konami

Publisher: Konami

Trailers: Gamescom 2016 Trailer

Single Player Trailer | Co-op Trailer

Launch Trailer

Release Dates:

NA - February 20, 2018

JP - February 21, 2018

PAL - February 22, 2018

Review Aggregators

Metacritic - Unscored (PC)

Metacritic - 64 (PS4)

Metacritic - 60 (XB1)

OpenCritic - 64 (Cross-Platform)

Reviews

Areajugones - Alfonso Cánovas - 7 / 10 (Spanish)

Konami takes a chance with Metal Gear Survive and focuses on delivering a game with the same base, but a different type of genre. A risky bet that has its innovative moments, but fails to completely entertain and has plenty of monotone moments.

Atomix - Claudio Quiroz - 6.5 / 10 (Spanish)

The major problem of this game is having the name Metal Gear in its title. Seems like It has nothing to do with the franchise and while it has some good ideas as a game, in the end, the final product is disappointing.

CGMagazine - Jed Whitaker - 5 / 10

Metal Gear Survive is neither a good Metal Gear Solid game nor a good survival game. It feels more like a cynical cash grab due to being not only the most expensive survival game on the market, but also how flagrantly it peppers in the microtransactions.

Cheat Code Central - Lucas White - 6 / 10

Metal Gear Survive is just another middling survival game, with a name-drop that doesn't do it any favors.

COGconnected - Paul Sullivan - 6.3 / 10

If you're a fan of games like Rust and DayZ, you may well find that you love the hell out of Metal Gear Survive. It has lots of meters and things to craft, and an interesting navigation system that challenges the player. It also has a crushing amount of repetition, the slimiest of microtransactions, and it whiffs on anything but tangential connection to the main Metal Gear franchise. This is not Metal Gear Solid 6. If you can accept that fact with an open mind, you may actually like what you find.

Critical Hit - Darryn Bonthuys - 5 / 10

Metal Gear Survive is a good idea that finds itself crippled by an overwhelming mob of bad ideas. It's interesting but ultimately handicapped by a ruthless application of unnecessarily brutal constraints that serves to diminish what should have been a fascinating spin-off.

Destructoid - Chris Carter - 5 / 10

Metal Gear Survive should have been a free-to-play game just like Grasshopper's Let it Die or an actual Metal Gear release. It doesn't accomplish either aim.

Digital Trends - Phil Hornshaw - 5 / 10

We can imagine a Metal Gear game with zombies that would be a lot of fun, but Metal Gear Survive is not that game. Everything about it, from the thin and uninspiring story and characters to the survival systems and combat, feels tuned to keep you busy, but not entertained. It's a game that crams in mechanics and ideas without finding a way to make them fun together, while always failing to respect players' time.

Eurogamer - Martin Robinson - Unscored

Metal Gear's first post-Kojima outing plays fast and loose with the formula, with results that are equal parts brilliant and baffling.

Eurogamer Italy - Manuel Santangelo - 7 / 10 (Italian)

Though only marginally linked to the main story, Metal Gear Survive works. Doubts and prejudices aside about the continuation of the brand after the Kojima departure, Survive is a good and entertaining product, with a solid history and valid survival mechanics. Although not revolutionizing the genre, what prevents the title from achieving higher results are microtransitions, which although not excessively invasive, should not be present in a full price game.

Everyeye.it - Francesco Fossetti - 7.8 / 10 (Italian)

Although it is legitimate not to sympathize with Metal Gear Survive, in short, those who decide to approach the title with an open mind will find a more than discrete survival, which could even improve in the event the support post-launch is decisive and convincing.

Gadgets 360 - Rishi Alwani - 8 / 10

All in all, it's this hodgepodge mix of ideas that makes Metal Gear Survive a unique entry in the franchise, and perhaps its most divisive entry yet.

Gameblog.fr - Thomas Pillon - 6 / 10 (French)

This Metal Gear spin-off surprisingly sets itself between a hardcore survival and a 3D tower-defense game, which will hardly satisfy most gamers. If you survive the initial ruthless hours, you could realize Metal Gear Survive's true potential, delivering a long and tough survival experience. Unfortunately, Konami's greed for micro-transactions breaks the game's balance and is way too prominent to appear as a minor feature.

Game Informer - Suriel Vazquez - 6 / 10

Metal Gear Survive doesn't fail due to its baggage or expectations. It blunders entirely on its own merits. Its co-op suite shows promise and could become legitimately great in time, but the rest of Survive is a boring, grind-heavy slog where the biggest reward is simply more stuff. For as many bits of metal, wood, and fabric I had after 70 hours of play, I couldn't help but think I'd wasted all of my time.

GamesRadar+ - Leon Hurley - 7 / 10

A decent survival game with a rewarding, if uninspired, grind to its resource collecting and base management.

Game Rant - Dalton Cooper - 2 / 5

Thanks to overbearing hunger and thirst systems, unintelligent enemy AI, and an utterly forgettable story, Metal Gear Survive is the worst game in the series yet.

Game Revolution - Jason Faulkner - 8 / 10

If Konami would have introduced Metal Gear Survive as an entirely new title, and marketed it better, it would likely be a Spring hit. However, slapping Metal Gear on it weirdly makes it have this generic feel. Despite the enjoyable gameplay, I always felt like something was missing, and there is. You can tell Kojima went nowhere near this Metal Gear.

GameSkinny - Ty Arthur - 5 / 10 stars

From a horribly botched launch to clunky UI and a hunger/thirst meter that actively tries to kill you, there's so much this game does wrong that it's hard to focus on what Metal Gear Survive does right.

Gamersky - 不倒翁蜀黍 - 7.5 / 10 (Chinese)

Metal Gear Survive is a decent survival game, and it's definitely fun to play with your friends. But it's not fun enough to completely satisfy, especially compared with Hideo Kojima's Phantom Pain.

GameSpew - Richard Seagrave - 70 / 100%

Metal Gear Survive is a far cry from any other game released prior in the series, but that doesn't make it any less compelling. So it's up to you: either cling on to the notion that Metal Gear Survive is a terrible cash-in and miss out on an interesting adventure, or put your misconceptions aside and jump right in and have some fun. I know what I'd do.

GameSpot - Tamoor Hussain - 5 / 10

Metal Gear Survive feels oppressive, demanding, and obtuse, and needlessly so. It's a shame because there's actually a good survival game in there, but the pressures it places on you make uncovering and enjoying that unappealing.

GamingBolt - Rashid Sayed - 6 / 10

Survive does many things right and wrong but it doesn't deserve to be called a "Metal Gear" game.

GearNuke - Daniel Arshad Khan - 7 / 10

Metal Gear Survive is a strange mix of survival horror with open world. On the one hand, there are some superb ideas seen in the game that could have been great to play but on the other hand, the game constantly keeps testing your patience by forcing you to micromanage the health of your character.

Hardcore Gamer - Jordan Helm - 6 / 10

Sadly, its invasive microtransaction structure and otherwise lack of engagement as a Metal Gear/stealth entrant is what will likely stand as its greatest downfall — inevitably cancelling out all the goodwill the game creates in its shorter spells. Metal Gear Survive as a whole isn't the utter abomination many had suspected it would be, but it doesn't push itself beyond the still-waning status of being tepidly average.

Hobby Consolas - Álvaro Alonso - 77 / 100 (Spanish)

Behind a cloud of dust formed with controversy and bad decisions hides a zombie survival game that's highly enjoyable. It's far from the level of quality of past Metal Gear games (particularly the script), but we would be lying if we said we didn't have a lot of fun with it.

IGN - Chloi Rad - 6.5 / 10

Survive might not compare well to the tactical espionage action that's defined the Metal Gear series we know and love, but its oddly hit-or-miss combo of some solid old ideas and some clumsy new ones has at least some appeal.

IGN Italia - Marco Esposto - 7.7 / 10 (Italian)

Metal Gear Survive is a good survival game that need some balancing. An interesting spin-off with is own dignity.

IGN Spain - David Soriano - 6.8 / 10 (Spanish)

If it had not been called Metal Gear Survive, this survival game would have been received in another way. However, many of the questionable decisions such as micropayments or permanent connection tarnish a remarkable gameplay based on The Phantom Pain.

LevelUp - Rodrigo Muñozaltea - 7 / 10 (Spanish)

Metal Gear Survive is a strange and unique mix. On one hand it's an interesting survival game, on the other it's a merge of Sci-Fi elements with a shoehorned political plot and dull characters. The game has some genuinely fun and intense moments, but its mechanics and stiff controls sometimes make the experience unnecessarily difficult. Despite all of this the game can be quite rewarding and keeps you in a state of urgency that can be really fun.

Merlin'In Kazani (Turkey) - Hakan Hervenik - 40 / 100 (Turkish)

Metal Gear Survive is a bold and brave move for Konami. BUT, It's just not fun. If you like Metal Gear series, you should probably stay away from this game.

Metro GameCentral - GameCentral - 5 / 10

Not the Metal Gear fans will be used to in terms of either quality or action. But despite a few interesting highlights, it's just too boring to get very angry about.

New Game Network - Alex Varankou - 70 / 100

Metal Gear Survive is an enticing, challenging, polished and occasionally frustrating spinoff that doesn't devalue the reputation of the franchise, and offers a unique standalone experience that fans of survival games should enjoy getting stuck into.

PC Gamer - Andy Kelly - 59 / 100

Has flickers of brilliance, but the painfully slow and gruelling survival simulation routinely snuffs them out.

PlayStation LifeStyle - Tyler Treese - 8.5 / 10

Those who are able to accept Metal Gear Survive for what it is will find one of the most captivating survival games in recent memory. It's an incredibly unforgiving experience, which can definitely be detrimental at times, but one that ultimately feels fulfilling.

Power Unlimited - Samuel - 63 / 100 (Dutch)

Metal Gear Survive is a powerful survival experience which is sadly being hindered by sneaky microtransactions. But the game has proven that the gameplay and story of Metal Gear might be able to survive without the help of Kojima.

Press Start Australia - James Mitchell - 5 / 10

An uninspired mish-mash of poorly balanced systems that translates to an experience that feels like a chore.

Push Square - Liam Croft - 8 / 10

Metal Gear Survive is not what many envisioned the follow up to Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain to be, but that doesn't inherently make it a bad game. This is definitely a different experience, thanks to the introduction of survival mechanics and the extensive base building, but these aspects actually benefit what the title is going for. With a punishing but fascinating open world to explore, a crafting system that allows for all manner of items to be fashioned, and a suitably bizarre story that is sure to surprise even series veterans, Metal Gear Survive is likely to please those that give it a solid chance.

Shacknews - Brittany Vincent - 8 / 10

As it is, it's an interesting and wholly engrossing exercise in survival that I enjoyed more with every hour that passed. Don't go into the game looking for any sort of Metal Gear gratification, and you'll come out relatively pleased with what's on offer.

SpazioGames - Mario Petillo - 7 / 10 (Italian)

Metal Gear Survive is a good survival and crafting game, but it's fun to play only in the initial hours. Konami has taken a chance with its idea, but fails due to plenty of monotone moments.

Telegraph - Joe Parlock - 6 / 10

Survive isn't the lifeless husk of the Metal Gear series many thought it would be with its creator no longer running the show. When it gets its groove, it's something very special indeed - its story, world, and freedom for exploration and creativity are all remarkable. The problem is that it'ss difficult to ignore the malingering corporate influence that has filled the gap in Kojima's absence.

The Daily Dot - AJ Moser - 5 / 10

This lack of confidence is the ultimate undoing of Survive's story. For every unique idea the game presents, it almost immediately backpedals into a generic, played-out conceit.

The Games Machine - Mario Baccigalupi - 6.7 / 10 (Italian)

Let's put aside the controversies about the Metal Gear saga, and talk about the game, and what it can really offer. The idea of mixing the gameplay of Metal Gear Solid V with a survival setting could have really worked, but the truth is that the very foundation of the game is pretty weak and messy. There are some fun and challenging moments, but overall it feels like a wasted opportunity.

TheSixthAxis - Miguel Moran - 8 / 10

It's a sad truth that still puts a pit in my stomach, but Kojima and Konami are done. Konami still owns the Metal Gear name though, and they still want to make video games for it. Please let them. A new Hollywood reboot of your favorite franchise does not retroactively ruin the quality of the old movies, and Metal Gear Survive does not suddenly make the Metal Gear Solid series any less brilliant. Metal Gear Survive, instead, stands alongside those as perhaps the strongest spinoff in the franchise to date. Metal Gear Solid as we know it may be finished, but after having so much fun with Survive, I'm excited to see what Metal Gear looks like in the future.

ThisGenGaming - Jordan Phipps - 7 / 10

What you have here is a quality survival experience, but those looking for tactical espionage operations might want to keep looking.

Trusted Reviews - Simon Miller - 5 / 10

Metal Gear Survive is a brave move for Konami and a decent survival game – it's just not particularly fun. If you like the more abrasive side of the medium, give it a go. Everyone else should probably stay away.

Twinfinite - Zhiqing Wan - 5 / 10

Survive is a serviceable game, but its story and writing lack the one thing that drew fans to the series in the first place: heart.

USgamer - Mike Williams - 6 / 10

Metal Gear Survive isn't a great game, but it is a fun game. Journeying into the Dust to find resources and survivors is a legitimately tense experience and your progress through the game feels satisfying. Unfortunately, hunger and thirst drop a bit too quickly, leaving you diving into menus for upkeep far too much of the time. With some tweaks and changes, Survive could be great, but as it stands, it's just good.

Video Chums - A.J. Maciejewski - 8.5 / 10

Metal Gear Survive doesn't come close to offering the same level of immersion that past Metal Gear games did but it's still definitely one of the most addictive survival-based gaming experiences that I've ever played.

Washington Post - Michael Thomsen - 6 / 10

"Survive" is a theater of minor irritations made from the disassembled essentials of human survival.

Wccftech - Kai Powell - 8.5 / 10

Despite the backlash from fans decrying that Metal Gear Survive isn't a true Metal Gear game, what's available in this $40 package is a hundred-plus hours of one of the most polished survival games to ever make it onto consoles.

Xbox Achievements - Richard Walker - 60 / 100

A Metal Gear game in name only, Survive is a decent – though often frustrating - survival game with a few unique tricks up its sleeve. While the Metal Gear name brings with it a certain weight of expectation, as long as you don't go in expecting Metal Gear Solid 6, you'll be fine.

submitted by /u/Sir_Darkness
[link] [comments]

New Overwatch hero: Brigitte

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 10:04 AM PST

David Lynch Teaches Typing Game Now Available

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 02:54 PM PST

Is the divide between main quests and side quests too rigid in modern RPGs?

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 06:31 PM PST

Nowadays in mainstream RPGs, main plot line quests and side story missions are usually clearly labeled as such. The developers just has this expectation that there are designated quests that players would feel free to skip through, and so mostly contained within their own mini arcs. I feel by singling out "main quests" outright to players, it makes the narrative structure of games less natural.

Take an example, The Witcher 3 is widely praised for it's writing quality for quests, either main or optional. But since the location of next main plot point is always pinned on the map, I never really felt particularly clueless in my search for Ciri (which is at dissonance to the narrative); and I would do side quests at leisure, knowing for sure they won't give me new information of Ciri's whereabouts. The game just felt... game-y.

Still taking TW3, maybe it could tie everything to the main plot better, by making some adjustments and sprinkle some red herrings: Let Geralt ask "oh by the way, have any of you seen an ashen haired girl?" when collecting a contract bounty - it's a sensible thing to ask, no?

Let the innkeeper comment how Geralt's footwork in fistfights resembles "the sword girl who brawled here a month ago";

Let Geralt's heart skip a bit when he saw a familiar back view when rescuing children kidnapped by a monster, who turns out to be just another Cintrian girl;

,etc. these are still side quests, but less unapologetically so

submitted by /u/ybfelix
[link] [comments]

FTL Creators Subset Games Talk Returning To The Spotlight With Into The Breach

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 04:48 PM PST

Spellbound is heavily in development and its magical school life will have quests, dating, character development and combat

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 12:16 PM PST

How Inmates Play Tabletop RPGs in Prisons Where Dice Are Contraband

Posted: 01 Mar 2018 06:02 AM PST

Warhammer: Vermintide 2 Gameplay Trailer

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 10:04 AM PST

Sony Interactive Entertainment Announces Organizational Transformation

Posted: 01 Mar 2018 05:29 AM PST

Starting March 8th 2019, Playstation Plus monthly line-ups will no longer include Playstation Vita and Playstation 3 titles

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 08:41 AM PST

Assassin’s Creed Origins Retrospect- A Recognisable Reinvention

Posted: 01 Mar 2018 06:21 AM PST

Zero Punctuation - Kingdom Come Deliverance

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 10:11 AM PST

For gamers who have disposable income, where is the fine line in Monetization in games? -ie. "It's okay to spend extra for this" versus "I'm not spending anything extra for that."

Posted: 01 Mar 2018 05:47 AM PST

I just wanted to share a personal experience.

I'm 35, married and we have a toddler now. Gaming has been a major past time of mine for the past 30+ years.

I've been there since I was a tiny tot, and my parents were still giving me quarters for the local arcade; to the past years when I had disposable income that I can buy a lot of games and decide when and when not to buy those that have extra monetization in them.

Monetization in this case I would define as anything that you pay extra from the base purchase. It could be a $40 expansion, a $15 dlc, a $5 character/skin/weapon/map pack, a $3 cosmetic helmet, a $0.99 gems bundle microtransaction, and so on.

As someone who has the income to spend extra on these things, I draw a fine line between what I want to spend extra on, versus what I avoid.

In theory - I am against extra monetization since I don't readily spend in an instant.

In practice - I will always think if the hours I get from my gaming time will be worth the amount I spend.

My preference:

  • I will probably buy a strategy game like Total War or Civilization at full price
  • But I will only buy Total War dlcs as they come out; I will buy only some of the extra Civ dlcs, and then the rest when they're on sale
  • For games like Skyrim and Fallout 4, I bought these games a couple of times already, including their expansions and special editions (although to be fair, I did not buy any Horse Armor dlc, or any Creation Club offerings since the mods on the Nexus were more awesome - and free; I just donate to some mod authors)
  • I bought Diablo 3 essentially three times (Vanilla PC, Vanilla X360, Ultimate Edition on PS4)
  • Conversely, I may not buy a game like Borderlands or the Arkham series at full price, nor would I buy their dlcs; instead I'll wait for their "GOTY editions" when they are on sale

Another example:

  • I will probably spend $5 to $10 on a microtransaction for a game I really like; but this will not apply to all the games I have
  • For instance, years ago in a game called Gunbound, I spent around $20 in total for extra avatar items so I could play in the "avatar enabled" servers
  • For Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, and Stellaris - even though some have criticized the monetization in Paradox Interactive games, I still bought a few extra dlcs (that ones I felt truly revolutionized the game by adding meaningful content - ie. The Old Gods, Horse Lords for CK2; not the ones that were just fluff); I also avoid buying unit/portrait packs since they aren't as important to me when playing
  • For Metal Gear Solid: Phantom Pain, it already had an awesome singleplayer experience, but I shelled out an extra $10 for some MB coins in the multiplayer - why? - because I haven't experienced the MGS series in multiplayer and wanted to have a pretty good base going
  • In a game like Destiny 1, I spent only $7 and that was for the Thriller dance alone (and as an MJ fan, it felt 'worth it'); whereas in Destiny 2, I never spent a single dime since I could not get a directly purchased item (and none of the cosmetics on sale felt 'worth it')
  • In Overwatch, I don't even spend anything to buy extra lootboxes; ditto for Battlefront, I was gifted the game last Christmas and haven't even installed it

One more for MMOs:

  • I would more likely pay for the base game, plus expansions, and the monthly subscription for World of Warcraft (which I did - Vanilla to Cata)
  • But I would only buy Elder Scrolls: Online to try out the base game, and see if it's worth playing for longer periods (which I did - and it was not to my taste; also I did not pay extra cash to buy a horse)

I currently have 1,000+ games on my Steam backlog and I will probably not be able to play all of them.

But I do think I'm a sort of collector who does spend some extra cash to buy cheap bundles and games on sale, increasing my library and also supporting game developers. I value my money, and I also don't feel like blindly handing it out to everything that looks 'shiny' or gives shortcuts. If ever I were to get something similar to that, I'd give it a lot of thought first and only if I enjoy the game a lot.

Regarding microtransactions and monetization itself being a problem in the industry, I also have to take a look at it as someone who's been gaming for 30+ years.

Gaming decades ago is different from gaming today.

In the 80's and 90's - you bought something and that was it. If it broke, you either returned it within the warranty period; or you blew air inside the cartridge.

A game you bought then was as it was - beginning to end, game over. Once you're done, you're done (for the most part).

Games today (particularly the titles with dlcs/expansions/MTX/subscriptions) are an ever-growing world. Some gamers might feel that Vanilla games are incomplete products and you need to pay extra to get the complete experience - but I would disagree.

A vanilla game of Dishonored still told a complete story, much like a Vanilla game of Civ 5, or Destiny, or Total War, gave you hundreds of hours of playtime if you wished. Adding dlcs or expansions simply expand on that complete story even more, if you choose to continue it.

  • If games in the 80's and 90's ended the moment you saw a Game Over screen; games nowadays feel more like a Sports Season. You buy something in January, it gets a Day 1 patch, it gets more patches, it gets a dlc on the second month, another dlc a couple of months later, a major expansion a year later, and so on... until the next game is out, or rather.

  • It's also worth noting that games in the 80's and 90's were made by smaller teams, with smaller means to work with, with simpler technology at the time. Today's games are made with an army of developers and technicians, using more complicated software and machinery, with additional spending required for the "3 M's" - make, market, maintain. And so I also have to consider these factors as to why some extra content is being sold.

As for monetization being a corrupt or predatory practice - that's relative.

For instance, a lot of players feel that Overwatch lootboxes are an awesome way to support the game; while also quick to decry the same lootbox concept in games like Shadow of War, Rocket League, or Destiny 2 - and remember, these games can be enjoyed or finished without actually needing to spend anything in lootboxes, and many players who don't feel as bothered by them will not even notice it affects them.

But lootboxes in themselves are something I don't like in general - and so, as mentioned, I don't buy them whether in Overwatch, D2, or other games.

Are they predatory in the sense that they can take advantage of people who have gambling addiction? Yes.

But is this a problem with the game or the playerbase? Probably not.

Are gamers who have extra income a "detriment" to the gaming industry? Are they part of the problem? Probably not.

You choosing to buy a shiny armor will not make me judge you, because that is your money to spend. And if you used that for something you enjoy, and not something that causes you or others harm, then good for you.

  • You cannot ask a casino to close down because your uncle is a compulsive gambler and he lives 30 minutes away from the strip.
  • Just like you cannot ask a 7-11 to stop selling cigarettes because it turned your 23-year-old cousin into a chain-smoker.
  • Just like you cannot blame the bar across the street because it made your father an alcoholic.

The point there is that businesses exist to make a profit - and make no mistake, video games are a business. But if there is someone whom you know who has a problem with addiction to certain things (be it gambling, or alcohol, or gaming in general) - it will always be the responsibility of that person (and yourself) to help them cope with it.

The most that you can ask video games with extra monetization methods to do is to plaster a warning on the box that says: "This game has in-app purchases" (or something like that - which is already present in many games, ie. mobiles).

Closing/Questions:

So those are my thoughts and preferences as a consumer and 30+ year gaming veteran.

What do you guys think?

Do you also have disposable income - how would you like to spend it?

What would be your do's and dont's when you spend on certain extra things in games?

Thank you for reading.

submitted by /u/el2mador
[link] [comments]

Ion Maiden Preview - Gggmanlives

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 02:32 PM PST

Into the Breach is a fantastic strategy game, but, more importantly, it’s a benchmark for how to properly create a strategy game, or really, just a game in general. Here’s why.

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 02:09 PM PST

Plenty of people have been talking about why Into the Breach is a fantastic game – its pretty much all over the front page. I haven't seen a lot though about what makes it a good game, or, more importantly, the design decisions that factor into what make it one of the best TBT (Turn Based Tactics) games I've ever played. Honestly, I think this game could be considered a bench mark for tactics gaming – here's why.

Perfect Information

One of the key elements of Into the Breach's design is this idea of perfect information. I'm going to start by looking at some other TBT games, ones with much higher budgets and studios, and then explain what I think ITB does better.

Let's start by looking at XCOM, one of the biggest (and most fun) contenders when it comes to TBT games. Keep in mind, I'm not saying that ITB is necessarily better than XCOM, though I think its more fun, personally – I'm giving an example of what ITB does different that I think games in the genre can learn from.

Picture a round in XCOM. You've used up all your squad to fight off 3 different aliens. They're dead, so you more one squad member forward, say, 3 spaces to get into cover. This small movement causes a second wave of enemies to spawn, with turn priority – before you even expect it, that single soldier is wiped out, along with another, farther back member of your troop. Obviously, a mistake has been made here on the player's part – he should have left his squad member where he was, waited until the next turn, and then moved as a single unit forward into the room/ field/ wherever this fight is occurring. It doesn't make it less infuriating, however – despite being a mistake on the player's end, it's hard to not feel like you've been screwed over in some fashion.

A better way to explain it is through Slant's review system – the top listed con by most players is that "Choices that affect the game are not obvious when they are happening and once realized is too late." Essentially, it's impossible to know what your choices are going to bring to the table until minutes, or even hours later.

This isn't a knock against the game inherently – in fact, it's the way that 95% of strategy games operate. You make choices, and then you see how they pan out.

In ITB, you make choices, see how they pan out, and then execute them. That's the key difference, and something I think a lot of developers could learn from this game. Literally everything in the game that you need to fight against is laid out beforehand. The entire basis behind the game is that enemy attacks are telegraphed, but it goes far beyond that. There are no "weird" interactions in the game that don't make logical sense, that you need to play through a situation 10 times before you finally figure out exactly how a mechanic works. If you want to make a move, you pretend to do it, and the game will tell you exactly what will happen each time. If moving an enemy will, for example, cause a train you are supposed to be defending to crash into that enemy, ITB will let you know beforehand, leading to less moments of "oh come on, how the hell did that happen?" and more "well, I guess I have to decide to do this anyway. This even comes down to turn order and enemy order. Enemy turn order follows a logical pattern each time, and highlighting over a small icon next to your bonus objectives will tell you exactly how turn order will play out. Will this fire kill an enemy before he has a chance to get his attack off? No need to guess -just look at the attack order and you'll know the exact answer before you make the move. This constant stream of perfect information leads the player to spend less time figuring out how the game works, and more time figuring out how to win, which is the big point here. In ITB there is no wrestling with mechanics, because the player knows everything at all times, down to what enemies spawn in which area, what rewards he will get for completing an area, what the enemies are doing, and what every single attack in his arsenal will do.

The Role of Randomness in ITB

Randomness is a core tenet of many strategy games. Different from the idea of missing information, randomness usually comes in the form of numbers – 95% chances to hit, 70% chances to avoid a hit, etc. The point of randomness in a strategy game is to increase replayability and give the players a consistent source of stress/ conflict.

In my opinion, a good strategy game should play out the same no matter how many times you reload a save. Chances to hit and number manipulation is a good standard for RPGs, not for tactics games.

In ITB, the randomness that gives the game replayability comes from three elements – enemy actions, collected equipment, and starting mechs (optional). The fact that enemy actions occur before yours do, but don't execute until after yours do, means that the line between replayability and overt randomness has been successfully toed. Battles will never be the same because of your gear, the mechs you're using, and the way that enemies will attack each turn. Regardless of this, each individual turn will play out exactly the way you tell it to, rather than having to play guesswork at what is going to happen based on your own actions. There are no chance to hit numbers in ITB (except for 1, but it doesn't come into play very often) and no misunderstood plays, just plans for you to deal with.

To sum it up, ITB hands players randomness and then allows them to consistently play around it, rather than having the player plan and then ruining those plans with said randomness. It saves replayability without being frustrating, something many TBT games have trouble toeing the line with.

The melding of story and gameplay

Many games have great gameplay and terrible story; many games have great story and terrible gameplay. A lot of good games have both. However, one of the toughest things for a game to do is interweave the story with the mechanics, something that ITB does well.

I'm not going to provide an example for this – not only are there enough games that do this poorly that I don't feel the need to, but I want to focus on ITB for this section. The plotline behind ITB is simple. Your timeline is in danger of being destroyed by an alien race called the Vek. With a team of 3 mechs and pilots, your job is to fight the enemy long enough to secure islands, complete objectives, and eventually destroy the Vek Hive. The premise is minimal, but the minimalistic story has a way of seeping into every single part of the game.

For one, interactions between pilots, civilians, commanders, and mechs in this game are constant. Chris Avellone (KOTOR, Divinity 2, some of the best Fallout DLCs) does a fantastic job of weaving what little story is in this game through the gameplay at all times. Lose an objective, and your commander/ supplier will complain to you as it happens. Kill a Vex? Each pilot you can pick up in game will have a different reaction to it depending on the way its killed, what type of Vex it is, and who that soldier is. Level up? Your pilot, and other pilots, will comment on it. It makes you feel like you're honestly controlling a group of living people, not just a couple robots in suits.

ITB is a game about the apocalypse, and it plays like a game about the apocalypse. Victory in this game is not "kills all the bad guys every time," its "survive long enough for something good to happen, or before the Vek decide you're not worth it at that particular moment. The knowledge that you will never kill all of the Vek, and that no matter what you do, you are going to lose a LOT of life, is oppressive. Tradeoffs will happen. You'll have to make the decision of "do I want to let all these civilians die, or do I want to sacrifice my best pilot to save them?" you'll have to decide what is more important – allowing a shield generator to survive, or allowing a city to not get overrun. Its very rare that you will leave an island without any cities being destroyed. Even if you do manage to, You can only save a portion of each location before the Vek just decide to say screw it and dump the rest of it.

There are plenty of examples of this and I'm not going to cover them all, but there is one I want to bring up in particular – the idea of Game Overs and "starting again" in a roguelite like ITB. Your average roguelite will send you through a series of reattempts with randomized elements until you win. ITB does the same – however, each "loss" is considered an entire lost timeline. The only thing that survives of that timeline is one lone pilot, sent "Into the Breach" (geddit?) into the next timeline to save a different loop. This has a dual purpose – it a) acts as an organic, universe compliant method for starting a new game. Secondly, it acts as a in-game "vessel" for player knowledge – not only are you, the player, bringing knowledge of the game from run to run, but your surviving pilot carries it with you as a single, battle hardened soldier with intricate knowledge of the Vek offense.

There are a lot of other reasons that ITB is the fantastic game – the music, for example, written by Ben Prunty, one of the best in the video game industry – but I primarily wanted to focus on what I think makes ITB a benchmark for what TBT and strategy games should be looking for when designing their own titles – less of an explicit review and more of an analysis of why the game works the way it does. IF you have anything to add or contradict, I would love to hear it.

Edit:

I'd like to clarify a few things that I said in my post. Off the bat, any game that literally has perfectly perfect information will be solved, and any strategy game that can be solved is just a puzzle game. ITB obviously does have randomization, however that randomization doesn't apply to the moment by moment combat, which is really what I'm trying to get at here. There aren't any hit percentages, no surprise go-fuck-yourself enemies or traps, or, most importantly, no obscure turn orders or hard to identify mechanics. Really the transparency of the mechanics in this game is what I was aiming for with that first section.

I think another user nailed it - while ITB is a series of micropuzzles, technically so are a lot of other games if you think about it. what makes ITB a strategy game is the fact that not only are there multiple solutions to each battle, there are times where you will simply have to make a choice between losing an objective, losing a pilot, losing a grid marker... Not every battle is a win, and sometimes the best path is something that, short term, makes your life miserable.

Final note - I agree that the term perfect information is a bit superfluous - it means one thing to one person and something else to the next. In my case, it means that everything you need to perform the actions that want your characters to take is laid out in front of you BEFORE you do it - there is no disconnect between what the player wants to do and what the player knows how to make the game mechanics do.

submitted by /u/hepatitisbees
[link] [comments]

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Games26 © 2015. All Rights Reserved.
Powered By Blogger
Powered by Blogger.