True Gaming I'm really tired of being the hero, god-woken, nephalem or predestined saviour of the universe. |
- I'm really tired of being the hero, god-woken, nephalem or predestined saviour of the universe.
- Splinter Cell: Conviction (PC/Original concept)
- The TRUTH Behind Fortnite's Record Breaking Success
- I think the gaming industry is on the brink of revolution, and that is a very good thing
- Hip Fire or Aiming Down Sights?
- Games need to have choice
| I'm really tired of being the hero, god-woken, nephalem or predestined saviour of the universe. Posted: 03 Mar 2018 02:07 PM PST I don't really have much to say about it. It's just really cliche and tiring when it happens in a game. I'm playing Divinity Original Sin 2 right now and was loving the unique backstories of the characters and how they're caught up in the regional/worldly events unfolding...only to shortly find out they've been written for me because I'm the Godwoken and it's always been my destiny to save the world! The same problem is in World of Warcraft these days and it makes the story rather cheesy and hard to enjoy. Even look at Diablo 1 and 2 where you're just adventurers, but in Diablo 3 you have to be the Nephalem with Angelblood who is the only person capable of stopping the demons. My favourites are always the stories like Fallout New Vegas where you're just a messenger who gets caught up in larger events and stories, but not be the one destined for them. [link] [comments]  |
| Splinter Cell: Conviction (PC/Original concept) Posted: 03 Mar 2018 04:44 AM PST It's roughly 11 years since they showcased a playable demo, everything looked great, but they decided to scrap it and go down a ''new'' path which in my opinion wasn't true to the splinter cell series, even for modern standards when I watch the videos of the original concept I can't help but think they made a huge mistake not going with it. The 2nd video shows a lot of similarities to Assassin's creed crowd mechanics, first AC game released in 2007 and it's possible that's the reason Ubisoft pushed for a different gameplay in SC:C, all though that's just a guess and probably not the deciding factor. Obviously SCC wouldn't just copy paste past splinter cell games but it would bring something as a natural progression to such games. Semi open map design with lot of variables and choice, ability to blend in a crowd to move that way. Splinter cell wouldn't work like an open world sandbox as those games always suffer from same problems, but more so like the hitman series, where there's a lot of civilians, lot of open areas to cross which would be very immersive yet action packed. It's a great concept that was sadly overlooked. In my opinion of course. It's getting a bit difficult to find all the old videos but here are a few: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzVySazMVeY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js6BEF0WwMo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPeWpTW2qGM If you find any other videos please share, feel free to voice your opinion. Do you remember that concept? Did you look forward to it? [link] [comments]  |
| The TRUTH Behind Fortnite's Record Breaking Success Posted: 03 Mar 2018 10:24 AM PST https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH_XmB0BK4o&t=148s Text post for those that just want to read tl;dr: game is free, all 2017 main pvp games were ass, easy to pick up, building allows for unique combat not see in any other game Introduction If you have been playing videogames for the last 3 months or watch YouTube/Twitch you have definitely come across Fortnite. People weren't expecting another Battle Royale game to pop out of nowhere, much less become the most popular game just about ever. Fortnite started out as a small, co-op survival game for the PC with only one mode: Save The World… a game where 'Minecraft meets Left 4 Dead.' (3) But down the road everything changed as Epic brought in Chinese juggernaut Tencent (4) to help provide direction for a new service based platform and a new vision for the game: battle royale. It soon went free to play as it's development shifted towards this new rising popular game type. Somewhere along the lines, Fortnite has turned into the most popular game ever, and today we will go over why this all happened. Mechanical Diversity with Building (Replayability) Fortnite is the third popular game designed with the Battle Royale format, following H1Z1 and Player Unknown Battlegrounds. The format is simple: 100 players are dropped into a single map, where players pick their landing spot. After that, players search for weapons and items to be the last man standing while eliminating enemy players. At first, the concept isn't terribly exciting given that we've played games like this for years now. But, Fortnite does a have a few competitive advantages that often make it more appealing than other battle royale games. Fortnite's unique touch is building, which replaces vehicle combat in other Battle Royale games. Players can scavenge resources or break down structures to build walls in combat. This allows combat to not just have depth, but also allow for dynamic, vertical gunfights, which can be a lot more interesting than fighting in a square box. The beauty of it is that it lends to an extreme amount of gameplay diversity. The battles of Fortnite are limitless. You can find on top of towers, blow up and collapse enemy walls and tons more. Situations are many and always different. You can find straight up, use launch pads to invade squad territory, utilize traps to isolate enemies and use rockets to get an advantage on the battlefield. There's just so much to do at any given moment. You find yourself in unique situations all the time in Fortnite because of this secondary mechanic, which is the problem other battle royale games haven't solved yet. PUBG offers gameplay diversity with how the game is built and how big it is. You do find yourself in a variety of circumstances from game to game. You'll fight all over the map, up hills, in buildings, or across bridges. You'll enter final circles in the military base, school, in the middle of a grassy field or even on a mountaintop. The map is so big and there are so many players, so every game will definitely be different. But a couple hundred hours in, and you start to realize that the only thing different is the circumstance. Your still playing the same game, just in another scenario - shooting the same gun at the same enemy. This isn't actual gameplay diversity because the only mechanic in PUGB is shooting. PUBG does have vehicles, which add lots of diversity - but not everyone gets them. You can set up bridge camping and ambushes, but once you exit the vehicle, you're still returning to its core gun mechanics… which haven't changed. This is where Fortnite steps in to offer actual diversification through mechanics. Fornite's unique building mechanic allows not only for tons of new things to happen every match, but your playing the game differently while doing so. The building mechanic offers an extreme amount of gameplay diversity outside of basic shooting and moving. In fact, being a smart builder may very well be just as important as being a good shooter. Even in the same circumstance, in the same area of the map, each scenario becomes unique. Because you're mechanically playing those moments different, the game often feels a little bit more dynamic to us. Fortnite's success took off because casual players love diversity, whereas more serious players want consistency. Fortnite's ancillary building mechanic is one of the tools Epic used to exploit this. Release Window The battle royale format is also a relatively new game genre that has very recently peaked popularity, so Fortnite is really a game that has experiences unavailable in other mainstream titles. Fortnite honestly has gotten lucky with its launch. Gamers, specifically shooters fans have gotten tired of the same experiences with games such as Call of Duty that haven't added anything to the sandbox that objectively improves the gameplay experience since 2009. Cod WW2, Destiny 2, Star Wars Battlefront 2 - all games that came out during Fornite's rise to power - they disappointed us, so the natural game to turn to was Fortnite or PUBG. Lucky for Fortnite, pubg had already been in the spotlight for over 6 months prior to this moment and many casual fans were looking for the next fun game… just when Fortnite arrived at their doorstep. Many of those players would be console gamers, patiently waiting for a console port. Suddenly being released to console 3 months earlier than PUBG it was able to cash in right away. It is also free, which removes barriers to entry and eliminates any worry of buyers remorse - two things that absolutely deter people from buying games. And not to be forgotten, Fortnite also had very little controversy with it's launch during a time where other games were getting whiplashed for things like microtransactions, loot box garbage and day one dlc. So, Fortnite was the white knight of gaming compared to all that crap, which helped boost consumer confidence in the product. Accessibility The last thing that propelled Fortnite's success was it's ease of accessibility. Like pick up and play first person shooting games like COD4, you can jump right in. The game is simple and easy to understand. But, unlike other modern shooting games, it still retains in depth gameplay with building mechanic, shooting and small unknown tactics. You can become a bush and camouflage in plain sight, or bait a player into chasing you to walk into a trap of spikes. The controls are simple and easy to adjust to your preferences. Colors stand out and are vibrant, allowing players to see others quickly and see items player drop from a distance. If you have played another battle royale game, you know this is a major problem in many a game. When you are shot, you are given a clue as to where the fire is coming from, something that new players find a shocking omission from PUBG. It helps people return fire and get lopsided kills, which makes players feel good. There is also color coding if an item is better than another - a nod to those familiar with MMOs. There are no complex mechanics such as bleeding, managing massive weapon recoil or high time to kill. Scavenging loot & inventory management is also easier - controls are snappier and the game just feels a lot more smooth. Compared to the horrendously bad FPS, ping, and unresponsiveness of PUBG's weapon pick up system (which has been terrible through its entire lifespan), and you can see why people find it easier to jump into a game of Fortnite. And in terms of gameplay, all houses contain weapons that can be seen quickly and even outside of the structure. Chests are colorful and make sounds when nearby, cutting out the middleman of having to search every nook and cranny of a house. And building is easy, you can pop up walls out of nowhere even as a first time player. Fortnite is incredibly accessible, which is one of the reasons why it's so popular. Concluding Fortnite has become a titan in both the console and pc world in less than 6 months. It has a great building mechanic, it had a fantastic release window and it's incredibly accessible. It's not a perfect game and some people will not find it's art style and building mechanic enjoyable, but but the price tag of free won't stop them from at least trying it. With fortnite hitting 40 million players and 3.4 million playing every day for 2 hours, it may very well be the battle royale game of the future… [link] [comments]  |
| I think the gaming industry is on the brink of revolution, and that is a very good thing Posted: 03 Mar 2018 03:35 AM PST What I see happening at the moment with the recent pay to win and microtransactions is simply the result of the gaming industry becoming increasingly monetized. It is a immensely popular and rapidly growing entertainement niche that in the technological aid is no doubt a great investment for publishers and corporations. Herein I believe lies the problem. To me it is inconcievable to imagine the amount of delegation, management and funding needed to develop a AAA game. Thousands of people, each with hundreds of ideas. A few managers and directors. And then the money men. The shareholders. The producers. I believe there is a massive disconnect between the development, the individual programmer or story writer trying to weave his or her dream into an experience, and the producers who have invested 10s of millions into the project, and need to make a profit. Humans wielding that much money want a 'safe' return, that is, they do not want to take a risk. So they see what is popular with consumers: they tell the studio they want that. So we get another battle royale. Another survival - sandbox - co op - crafting simulator. But no risk. No innovation. No new ideas, because that would be a risk, and thus money could be lost. This is the fatal flaw I see in mainstream gaming, and the reason why despite the millions of wonderful ideas in capable heads, it is so rare for a game that attempts something new. But what I believe most publishers fail to understand is that gamers will not buy the same thing forever. Yet the industry is still contiously growing, and thus as money and investment increases, risk and creativity decreases. This is what I think will happen until these companies and franchises become too rich to succeed, too bloated for cohesion. So I believe large companies will crumble under their own weight and simply deliver products that are too safe and generic to make enough money. Then, the indie companies will shine. Clever, compact ideas with a small dynamic team and the focus on creation, not financial compensation. I believe these companies will grow into the new giants. (and too be honest the whole cycle will happen again, but only in a while.) TL;DR: Large companies are getting too money fat to risk creativity, their product stagnation will lead to collapse, indie companies will become the new big boys. [link] [comments]  |
| Hip Fire or Aiming Down Sights? Posted: 02 Mar 2018 06:27 PM PST Hey there! So I was watching this excellent breakdown and analysis of FEAR 2 Project Origin and why it is so poorly regarded by fans of the series and there's a segment at 9 minutes 39 seconds where he talks about how FEAR 2's shift to Aim Down Sights really hurt the gunplay. In short, he argues that Aim Down Sights forces players to play in a more slow, cautious, easier playstyle which largely goes against FEAR 1's visceral hip/blind fire chaotic gunplay that made the game a critical hit. The reasons for why the shift probably stem from the decision to move to consoles and probably to compete with COD and not seem 'old school'. But yeah, it got me thinking about shooters and how so many modern shooters have you just looking down the ACOG, Reflex Sights, Iron Sights, etc., moving at a snail's pace or just hiding behind cover for most of the combat engagements. Rarely do you ever have to spray and pray or get up close and flank the enemies like you do in FEAR 1 or Doom 2016. I don't know if I should include Wolfenstein TNO as a Hip Fire or ADS game because from my experience, i couldn't tell what it wanted to be. Hip fire drained too much of your ammo and i swear you never had enough ammo for your guns (and picking up ammo was like 10+ ammo per pickup...), while ADS really made the game play like a typical shooter. The video made me remember how I actually always loved turning off Crosshairs in Call of Duty (before MW2 prevented you from turning crosshairs off even in Single Player) so I would not only get a more immersive experience but I also played the older CODs in a hip fire fashion because even as a kid I thought the ADS felt 'unrealistic' and too easy. I liked the chaotic firefights where i'm unloading magazines hoping to hit the enemy instead of having perfect accuracy picking off enemies one by one with ADS. That's not to say I don't think ADS has a place in gaming. I think it definitely works for games that have large open expansive settings like Arma 3, Squad, Red Orchestra, etc. where accuracy, ammo conservation, distance, and your stance matters. But even in those games just lining up your sights on the enemy hundreds of meters away isn't a guaranteed kill because bullet drop off and other factors. Meanwhile in COD and co. shooters your accuracy is almost always pinpoint on the bullseye at every range. And while it allows players to engage the enemy at every distance with the same accuracy, it also sacrifices that movement, forcing you to play cautiously, getting behind cover, picking off the enemy. I think Brothers in Arms, no not the console one which I still rather liked, managed to have Hip Fire and ADS work in sync. The game was known for his enemy suppression system where you could force the enemy ducking behind cover if you laid down enough fire on them, allowing you to get around and flank. You could sit behind cover and try to pick off the enemy with your rifle at a distance with ADS (but even with ADS it wasn't as accurate as COD or even BiA Hell's Highway. This was mainly because the recoil was so violent a single shot would off balance your aim significantly during ADS. A nice trade off I think. Accuracy at the cost of temporary recoil and vision), or you could use either hip fire or ADS to suppress the enemy from afar, use that moment while they're suppressed, and flank them from the sides or rear, using hip fire or ADS. I would love to talk about how I feel Rainbow Six Siege seems to rely too much on ADS (which is a bit too effective imo) or how I feel Fallout 3's Zoom In mode felt more appropriate than New Vegas' iron sights which felt jarring due to the RPG gunplay and much more other examples but for now I think I covered my thoughts on Hip Fire or ADS and it makes me somewhat sad that very few games promote Hip Fire combat over ADS which has arguably made most shooters too methodical, cautious, and uninteresting because of the increased accuracy and slowed down movement. What do you think about the two? Do you prefer one or the other? Do you think more games should take the hip fire, Doom 2016, FEAR 1 approach or are things fine the way it is right now? Also feel free to make suggestions to maybe fix ADS if you want. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 02 Mar 2018 06:23 PM PST I remember a long time ago I booted up Fable for the first time, which for me was the first game I played that emphasized choice. You could follow the path of good, or the path of evil. I remember being really enamored with the game, and of course being a kid I chose to go with good. I kept playing games like KOTOR and Mass Effect and I always chose the 'good' path. As I grew older, I found that I wanted to try a going 'evil' in games. However, as I soon began to find out, the 'evil' paths weren't nearly as fulfilling. You couldn't really get engaged with the game, as a lot of the choices you made were just comically evil. You didn't feel an attachment to your character, and you really didn't feel any desire to keep going the 'evil' route unless you had already beaten the game on the 'good' path and just wanted to see what happened on the other side. I usually stopped playing the evil path pretty early in a game, as it just felt like there was no purpose to slaughter these guys, but that was the evil path. That's where the problem set in, and where I started to realize that in many 'choice driven' games, you don't really have a choice. It goes beyond the good and evil aspect too. It seems like a lot of games allow you to 'choose' play styles, but through narrative emphasizes one over the other. A common example is non-lethal stealth or lethal combat play styles. The game has two ways of tackling a mission, but you better not choose lethal combat, or you get the 'bad' ending. I've been told it's a way to 'reward' the players that go stealth. Here's the thing: gameplay should be the reason you play a play style. If you like stealth, go stealth, if you like combat, go combat. A game shouldn't punish you for enjoying a play style better. It's the primary reason I haven't played Dishonored. I know from articles and word of mouth that the game basically boils down to sneaking around the map avoiding conflict. The game gives you abilities and cool powers that work and feel great in combat, but the second you use them you're setting yourself up for a poor and unfulfilling story arc and to be condescendingly told by the game that you're bad. I get it, I'm not killing people to be the good guy, but there have been plenty of 'end justifies the means' situations in history. Make me feel like my character is a real person with motivations who did what he thought was right, not some comically evil person with no attachments. Some great examples of games that actually offer choice: Metal Gear Solid 5. Most games make stealth the only way to get the highest ranking on a map. Not MGSV. You can got combat, loud as hell, and still get an S ranking on a mission. You have to move fast though, and you should try for headshots. It's not easy, and it's fun. Hideo knew that what players wanted is actual choice in gameplay. The people who actually like stealth, you can get an S ranking going that direction too. The key is that if you go half and half and haphazardly flow through the mission, you get a low ranking. You better be prepared for your play style. Going into a mission without a plan is going to get you a low ranking. Neverwinter Nights Hordes of the Underdark also made a fulfilling story from multiple angles. Looking back it seemed like you had so many options as to how you wanted your character's endgame to work. You could even skip the final boss if you set things up right. And you know what? It didn't feel like you missed out if you got a certain ending. Just play your character. Stop looking at guides to get "the best ending" and just play your character. All the endings are great. That's how games should be. I wrote this because I loaded up Mankind Divided for the first time today, and the game asks you on the first mission if you want to go lethal or non lethal. I know if I chose lethal, the play style I want, that game is going to do it's best to make me feel bad about choosing that play style. So I have to go non-lethal, and yawn for hours as I force myself to finish my play-through. My overall point is that I shouldn't have to stop and think about what choices the devs want me to go down to reveal their 'best' or secret ending. I should just be able to play a game and make the choices that I think my character would make. I should be able to play and enjoy ANY play style the game has set up, and the game shouldn't punish me for picking it. [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