True Gaming Is competition between platforms good because it drives low prices and innovation, or is it bad because it spawns things like platform exclusivity and platform wars? |
- Is competition between platforms good because it drives low prices and innovation, or is it bad because it spawns things like platform exclusivity and platform wars?
- Why don't people talk about old RPGs when talking about "open world" games?
- How often do you ignore a specific game mechanic on purpose in singleplayer games?
- Why are most mobile games crap?
- How well a game translates to real life.
- Do people understand that developers like Bungie are just brands at this point and a shell of its former self?
- My concerns and thoughts regarding the Division 2
- In light of resent events, lets talk about boycotts.
- Why have online trading card games evolved so little from the original formula of Magic: The Gathering?
- Why does no one enjoy my games ?
| Posted: 21 Mar 2018 06:50 AM PDT Title says it all. On one hand I sometimes hear "Competition is good for consumers" On the other hand I hear "Competition is bad because exclusives are anti consumer". So which one is it? [link] [comments]  |
| Why don't people talk about old RPGs when talking about "open world" games? Posted: 21 Mar 2018 09:15 AM PDT Like the Ultima games. Or the Might and Magic games (the RPGs, not the strategy games). These types of games were doing open world gameplay before "open world" became a distinct category. So I'm always a bit weirded out by various threads talking about open world games. Especially ones where open world gameplay is treated like some new imposition. I've even seen someone post that RPGs should move away from open world gameplay and back to linear gameplay. Are some too young to know about these older RPGs? Or are they using a specific definition of open world? [link] [comments]  |
| How often do you ignore a specific game mechanic on purpose in singleplayer games? Posted: 21 Mar 2018 10:28 AM PDT Just got Mafia 3 on big discount. They added 2 game mechanics that strips some enjoyment from the game for me so I don't use them, you guys do the same on some games? Mechanics I ignore are the whistle to get enemies attention, AI is moronic so makes it stupid easy to pick them off; and the 'see enemies through walls' thing. Dishonored/Deus Ex I don't use the npc marking thing to track positions, just makes it like game breakingly easy/boring. You guys ever do the same, or what mechanics in a game did you ignore and not use to cater the game experience more towards how you enjoy playing it? [link] [comments]  |
| Why are most mobile games crap? Posted: 21 Mar 2018 09:24 AM PDT What do you believe is the reason for most mobile games being bad? Is it the economic pressure to make something full of microtransactions? Is it the inherent lack of creativity in the mobile gaming market? Is it limitations of the technology, or limited resources? I can't help but think it is the first one because I'm sure if you look hard enough there are mobile games that are worth the time. I sure it's not the limitation on technology because they are now porting six gen games on phones, and those games were amazing. I am also hard to believe its resources, as many of the big mobile game companies make a lot of money. Also, are there any mobile games that you think break the mold, and are comparable to either high-quality indie games or maybe even a triple-A game? I'd like to hear your thoughts. [link] [comments]  |
| How well a game translates to real life. Posted: 21 Mar 2018 10:33 AM PDT Basically how do the games you play affect your brain? One of the few games I can think of that feels like a positive influence is Mastermind. That game really trains self checking logic. It also has immediate 'true' feedback. Though there are also puzzle games out there that can potentially negatively influence 'proper' or 'effective' thought patterns. I was thinking of this while playing a card game recently called Duelyst. It is a very complex game, it has a lot of factors you have to memorize and take into account like faction specific cards, what their deck might have, what mana costs and combos they might be able to pull off next turn. With a game of 800+ cards those considerations start to go beyond reason. I was thinking about all that crap that is necessary to play competitively and that even if you master it, the game will still come down to luck of card draw... and not always reinforcing that the decisions you made were right or wrong because of that. FPS require a significant amount of dedication to mouse dexterity (or thumb twiddling on console). Fighting games require memorization of ambiguous combo timings and hitboxes. Though I would agree that dexterity could translate well, I also believe that some game design is toxic to our overall brain health by promoting thought patterns that are non transferable. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 16 Mar 2018 08:37 AM PDT For example Bungie: most if not all the big creative leads have left many years ago and it's not the same studio anymore. Of course they make all these weird desicions and design directions. It's other leads if not suits doing half these things. My point is stop following studios and like the film industry, follow the directors and such. Popular example: hideo kojima Also take into account the gaming sphere landscape has drastically changed in the past decade since halo and marathon were a thing. [link] [comments]  |
| My concerns and thoughts regarding the Division 2 Posted: 16 Mar 2018 01:29 PM PDT edit - plus, it is pretty common knowledge now that when Ubisoft releases a new gameplay video, it will be very likely that it will downgraded and trick us into buying the game. If such a thing will happen again, I will not lie ... I will be angry at myself for fallinf for it again even though I suspect that Ubisoft will probably do such an ethically shady thing again just to sell a few extra copies After a released this post a while ago on this sub-reddit, I was later also exposed to some criticism from Division players about the announcement of the Division 2. Even though I expressed excitement for the game and hoping that it will be better than the first Division game, now I am expressing concern and contempt as well. It took the Division at least two years for it to be playable with just the right amount of polish and lack of glitches and problems and with just the right amount of content to make it worth playing. Two years is actually quite a long time and it is incredibly lucky that despite the sheer criticism that the game released when it was launched for its buggy release (my judgement that it was because of the brand new engine that was never used for another game before) so it makes sense that it had a lot of bugs when it was launched and Massive Entertainment does not have that much experience developing games with open-world RPG mechanics combined with a semi-tactical third-person shooter elements from previous Tom Clancy games). It is incredibly lucky that Ubisoft still focused on the Division and still prioritised on fixing the Division as well and it is also very lucky that people even still played it and trusted Ubisoft enough that the game would actually be fixed (me included and still play this game) But to be fair, the game just managed to be just the right amount of playability now and all of a sudden, they announced the Division 2. It seems that what this guys says is right - contrary to Ubisoft's choice to continue to support another popular Tom Clancy (Rainbow Six Siege) and even said that no sequel is planned in order to continue to support the game and put more content, it brings the question of why Ubisoft decided to suddenly develop Division 2. After all that time, after all the patience the first Division game playable and all the time taken to fix the games balance issues, glitches and so on and all of a sudden they want to move on with the sequel ... it feels like all that effort was done for nothing. I am probably going to look forward for the sequel and hoping that the game will be better but considering that I wanted to stick with the first Division game and stayed patient that Ubisoft eventually manages to make the game playable which should have been done at launch by the way and now we have the new Division to be marked on our calendars soon ... it just feels that those two years of patience were all a waste [link] [comments]  |
| In light of resent events, lets talk about boycotts. Posted: 16 Mar 2018 09:26 AM PDT So I just read this article, jumped into the comments on reddit and was surprised to see something of a trend. A good deal of people felt that a complete boycott of everything EA creates was some kind of force for positive change in the market. I don't think it is at all and to explain why I think it would be best if we talked about boycotts in general first. What is a boycott? Well really it is the strongest tool in the consumers belt. It allows you to in a way force a company to make drastic steps to change something or risk major loss in profits. In a lot of ways a boycott is like a labor union strike. The workers all stop doing there jobs make a set of demands and refuse to work until that set of demands is met. Now the most important part of the labor strike is that the workers return to work after there demands are met. If they don't well there is a word for that and it's quitting, And why should any company care what the demands of someone quitting are? So lets get back to game boycotts. So at this point I am going to voice a few of my own personal feelings about this Battlefront situation. I get that not everyone might agree that this is enough and I think that is fine so long as you agree that SOMETHING will be enough. That sort of hits my point on the head. Why does anyone EA included care what you think if you are simply not going to buy games any more? Speaking with your wallet is just as much about when you spend your money as it is when you do not. So if this update happens and the game still doesn't sell and people still hate on it I think the message to EA is two fold. One the game is a failure period, and such makes EA less inclined to make another Star Wars game, Two the efforts to change the game where not worth the time spent, that leads them to think any game broken in the future isn't worth trying to fix. I respect the fact that under the surface past all the corporate bullshit there is some real talent working at EA. I don't want EA to go away forever. I also don't want that talent going to waste making senseless cash grabs. I want EA to get back to work making the kinds of games I grew up loving. To do that I need to encourage them through not just telling them when they failed but also buying there stuff when they do right. I understand that to some gamers this might be to little too late or just simply not enough and that is totally fine. I can respect that point of view as long as somewhere inside that point of view there are reasonable limits. Something has to be good enough some actual demand must be present. If not you are just saying "Keep making shitty games, keep tapping into players that buy shitty game, don't bother even trying to improve because you suck.". I just feel like if nothing is good enough why even bother saying anything at all. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 13 Mar 2018 06:21 PM PDT As a life-long lover of TCGs I've been really hoping to see new and interesting types of online card games produced, however all of the major TCGs, with the exception of Gwent and MAYBE Clash Royale at a stretch, have mostly retained MTGs basic formula. (Gaining mana every turn, spending mana to play minions/cast spells, minions only having 2 stats of attack and health totals, deck building being limited by which 'class' or 'faction' you're playing as). (I'm not counting Yu-Gi-Oh! or Pokemon since they're just online versions of physical TCGs and have little to no changes to the actual game.) I can understand Hearthstone being a derivative of MTG as it was the first major online CCG but it seems as if most online card games are content to be further derivatives of Hearthstone rather than try to create their own game. (Shadowverse, Eternal, Elder Scrolls: Legends) The only exception to this I can think of being Duelyst with the game taking place on a grid and introducing unit movement like a turn-based strategy game. This especially disappointing to me as someone who never particularly enjoyed Magic: The Gathering in the first place. (Though I can appreciate how well designed and popular it is) Hearthstone showed that without the restrictions of physical paper and ink all sorts of new mechanics could be introduced (C'thun gaining buffs anywhere in the game, cards duplicating or producing other cards) but largely haven't been taken advantage of. It's baffling to me that even with almost every single restriction that previously limited TCG design being lifted with the introduction of the ability to create games online, that card games have evolved so little. [link] [comments]  |
| Why does no one enjoy my games ? Posted: 14 Mar 2018 08:38 AM PDT I created a game for Android and "forced" family and friends to install it and review for me, everyone looked super excited about it, so i posted it on the play store and asked my friends to share it with theyr friends. The reviews were: "Awsome" , "Fantastic" and the little constructive reviews i had, i attempted to learn what i could from it and fix the game. The game was played like once or twice by each person for like 2 or 3 min. So i thought maybe it was the concept that was just not appealing, and decided i would make another one. This one i would improve the graphics, so along the development i asked people for preferences on the looks of the game. And now instead of asking family and friends to review it, i invested some money to bring people to play it and review it. Even if all the reviews were awful i would still be happy i learned something. Instead people just download the game. Play it once for 2 or 3 min, and close it never to return. They didnt even bother writing "boring" , or "Ugly" or something TLDR: Do you usually review the games you play? If so what are the requirements for you to bother reviewing the game ? EDIT: Thank you for the support and info provided ! Was really helpful, and i'm sorry for the initial frustration. I just was running out solutions without knowing the problem. ^ [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