True Gaming Is there any way to solve the issue of RPGs dumping a million sidequests on you all at once when you reach a town or city?

---

• Is there any way to solve the issue of RPGs dumping a million sidequests on you all at once when you reach a town or city?
• What do you think of weapon degradation in games?
• AI in gaming; where will it go from here?
• Does increasing non-traditional game monetization practices change the social dynamics between gamers?
• Someone's First Video Game
• Company Retrospectives: Bioware
• Fantasy RPGs shouldn't have classes
• Why i think current craze about battle royale games won't last long.
• Are Politicians Response To Loot Boxes Rational?
• Is the divide between main quests and side quests too rigid in modern RPGs?
• How I learned to stop worrying and love the Switch...

Is there any way to solve the issue of RPGs dumping a million sidequests on you all at once when you reach a town or city? Posted: 01 Mar 2018 04:03 AM PST In just about every RPG with WoW-style "exclamation mark above head" quests it always happens that you reach a town and then boom, a million people to talk to and a ton of quests to take on. So of course you take as many as you can. Players always lean towards efficiency and if you give them a ton of quests to take on they will take on all of them at once and fill their quest log to the brim. Nobody does one quest at a time before accepting the next, that's not how most people are wired. But then that becomes so overwhelming. When you're introduced to dozens of characters who all tell you their life story and then ask you a favor it's harder to keep the details straight in your head and being invested in their story when there's so many stories going on at once. And seeing a wall of quests on your journal while the game usually also bugs you to hurry up with the main quest can be really discouraging. Is there any way to "fix" this? I mean it makes complete sense that there's a lot of people in towns so you'll get lots of quests there, but it always feels wrong from a gameplay perspective to pack everything together so much in certain hubs. submitted by /u/irelann [link] [comments]

What do you think of weapon degradation in games? Posted: 01 Mar 2018 10:29 AM PST Recently, I've been playing a lot of Dying Light, but within the first quarter of the game I'd downloaded a mod to mess with the durability system so that each weapon can be repaired an infinite number of times. I prefer this over simply having weapons not break because I think, in this game, the chance of your weapon breaking adds some suspense to combat. Overall, though, I don't think weapon degradation is a good thing in games. Using Dying Light as an example, it seems that the whole point of the system is to keep me from settling on one weapon I like and using it forever. Each weapon can only be repaired a fixed amount of times, so once you've used up those repairs, if it breaks again it's broken. The item used for repairs in Dying Light, Metal Parts, is so incredibly common that after beating the game and running around for a bit, I'm sitting on more than 300 of them. Metal Parts can be obtained through scavenging, or by breaking down (presumably old) weapons. So right before your weapon breaks for a final time, you change it into a Metal Parts to repair whichever one you pick up next the first time it breaks. However, the whole point of Dying Light's weapon system is that weapons are randomly generated. So the random stats cause me to switch from weapon to weapon as I find one with better stats anyway, and they're so easy to find that even before I added the mod onto my game I always had serviceable weapons and was constantly discarding my old ones before the durability system even mattered. So as a way to keep the player from sitting on one weapon the entire game, it's wholly unnecessary. All the system really did was keep me using my weakest weapon all the time, forcing me to play suboptimally in order to protect whatever my best weapon was at the time, only for it to be outclassed by the time I'd ever get to using it. Another problem, besides the fact that it's wholly unnecessary for its main purpose, is that the repairs system is heavily weighted against the player. At the beginning of the game, I was both picking up and dropping weapons like hotcakes because they broke (and used up all of the 2-3 repairs they were allotted) lightning quick. By the end of the game, I would've been hoarding powerful weapons that I would never use for fear of breaking the things. Even after all the upgrades I can get to make the system easier on me, weapons still break much more quickly that I would expect them to. A solid steel wrench is not going to fall apart from being bashed into a zombie skull 5 or 10 times, and a metal baseball bat certainly won't. Very often, it served to kill my immersion rather than aid it. Even in other games, my experience with durability systems has been that they do nothing except keep the player from using the actual cool weapons. What do you guys think? Those of you who enjoy the durability systems, why? submitted by /u/Darkmayr [link] [comments]

AI in gaming; where will it go from here? Posted: 01 Mar 2018 10:19 AM PST Recently, I came across an interesting story(here) that discussed AI in games like StarCraft, and it got me thinking: What benchmarks have modern AI reached, and how do they compare to the futuristic /super advanced standard we often see in popular science fiction/games like Mass Effect?. Sorry, you can tell I don't post here often, but I'd like to hear what people think/know about this :) Edit: Also, I'd appreciate any suggestions to any good stories/articles that go into this subject further; I find AI fascinating. submitted by /u/omar1993 [link] [comments]

Does increasing non-traditional game monetization practices change the social dynamics between gamers? Posted: 01 Mar 2018 07:59 AM PST TL;DR: Read questions in bold. I can't help but wonder if additional monetization methods have: Significantly impacted the social dynamics or standing of gamers within their communities, and more strongly highlights economic differences between gamers ...given that there are a lot more economic barriers to various game content: Pre-release access, pre-order editions, DLCs, subscriptions, season passes, in-game purchases (aka MTX), loot boxes, etc. When these monetization methods exist in games, do they significantly change how gamers interact with one another? Does this have more or less of an social impact than differences in hardware (e.g. older vs newer rig)? In otherwords, do monetization methods make the socioeconomic differences more prevalent between gamers? This could look like a number of social dynamics, wherein X is a form of paid content: Elitism ("I have X and you don't") Social friction (lack of acceptance when player doesn't have X) Social exclusion/barriers (lack of X prevents interaction with certain gamers or micro communities). I think the topic is important to discuss now that these monetization methods are permeating console, mainstream, and AAA games regardless of any initial game purchase cost. As implied by a discussion on this sub yesterday, gamers need to be able to voice the difference between games that are monetized differently (like "Live Services") and how they're treated differently by game publishers. Also, I am curious about this topic since I am a PC gamer who rarely plays AAA, F2P, or online games who isn't socially active in gaming communities aside from Reddit. To facilitate this discussion, I will put questions in bold, provide some examples in gaming to consider, and define some terms I'm using. Terms I'll Use Gamer Socioeconomic Status (SES): A total measure of a person's economic and social position in relation to others gamers. Micro Community: Any community formed around a game, part of a game, or even a specific piece of gaming hardware/software that is peripheral to a platform. Macro Community: Any community formed around a group of games, whether by genre or platform. MTX: Microtransactions Publisher: Whoever markets and monetizes the game, AAA or not. May or may not be the same company as the game's developers. Monetization Examples & Additional Questions Traditional game monetization: In order to consider how non-traditional game monetization can make Gamer SES more notable, let's review traditional game monetization. The economic ability of a gamer to buy into platform(s) increases their social reach (and possibly social status) with macro communities, whereas as buying into a game was a binary choice that allows for joining micro communities - You owned & played it, or you didn't. This made the socioeconomic differences between players relatively simple and flat, aside from measuring it based on the number of sheer consoles & games owned or perhaps whether players had the newest games or not. Aside from its basic economic gates that I explained, what are ways that traditional monetization contributes more positively or negatively to player social dynamics vs non-traditional if all else is constant? (e.g. comparing monetization methods between games with the same core mechanics) DLC: Whether for an offline or online game, how often does DLC tend to fragment micro communities? Best case scenario here is if DLC adds content without significantly changing the existing story or gameplay. If DLC makes any notable changes to story or gameplay, it could indirectly become socially exclusionary when it comes to discussing the game on forums, on voice chat, or with friends. Worst case scenario is if DLC adds new game areas/modes that are considerably different from the base game and directly fragment the micro communities. Pre-release access: When a game does this, the game's micro communities and social structure are created before it even exists. How often does elitism or social exclusion occur with pre vs post-release gamers? How often do publishers enable this behavior? If a game provides certain exclusive benefits to purchasing certain pre-release packages (i.e. founders pack), these can come with certain perks that differentiate these players from others, and may even provide exclusive social channels until or beyond release. Just one example: The highest tier of Warframe's founders pack included access to an exclusive forum and the privilege of voting on certain new things being considered for the game, and perhaps even more chat with the devs. F2P/Games with MTX: One common dynamic of games with MTX, F2P or not, is that they often present the player the choice of working toward achieving characters/items vs directly/indirectly purchase via MTX. This could create several different Gamer SESs: Gamers who have less items because they are less willing to grind or pay, gamers who are more willing to grind, gamers who are more willing to pay than grind. How often does the nature of F2P/MTX games cause more social division between players, if at all? I can imagine some degree of elitism from gamers who buy many of the popular items as they get released vs gamers who buy little to nothing & are only willing to grind for select things. Extreme online game monetization: Consider an AAA game with notable online experience, upfront AAA-like price, and all monetization methods listed earlier (perhaps except subscription). Are the social dynamics of extremely monetized games much different than games with fewer monetization methods? Considering all the different ways individual monetization methods create Gamer SESs, such a game would create a lot more chances for social divides, but I can't say I've played such a game for me personally to know the answer to this. submitted by /u/Renegade_Meister [link] [comments]

Someone's First Video Game Posted: 01 Mar 2018 01:21 PM PST I love video games. I feel that way even if my actions don't often reflect that notion. I know this to be true because I want other people to play them, and it brings me joy to discuss the medium with other people who are discovering it for the first time. However, what intrigues me is the question: how do we introduce people to games? At work, I was talking to one of my coworkers, a non-gamer, about a podcast I want to make in the future; a game focused series about non-gamers about their experiences and perceptions with and of games. As the conversation carried on I gave her a recommendation of Va-11 Hall-A: Cyberpunk Bartender Action. It's a simple experience, being a visual novel, but a very well designed one none the less, and I anticipate her playing it in the future. I often wonder if that was the right approach to the situation, trying to get someone playing a new game, Are certain genres easier to get into than others? Is there a more complex game you can think of to recommend to newcomers? What are some of your favorite games to recommend to newcomers of you favorite genres? submitted by /u/stupidnameguy [link] [comments]

Company Retrospectives: Bioware Posted: 01 Mar 2018 08:42 AM PST Hey everyone this has been a topic that's been bouncing around for a while and I was hoping to get a discussion going on what the fuck is going on/has happened to Bioware and where they're at now. For me personally Bioware around when Dragon Age: Origins came out was one of the formative companies that helped me get into WRPGS and helped shaped my taste to years to come. That's not to say it didn't have a huge pedegree with Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, NWN etc beforehand and I think it would be safe to say they were one of the premiere WRPG developers but I feel they truly hit mainstream acclaim around this era imo Fast forward to now and they've become somewhat of a joke in the gaming community. What lead to this happening? Was it EA's fault? Was it the fame or several prolific writers leaving? How would they be able to redeem themselves in your eyes if they're able to at all? Or are you of the opposite opinion that they're fine/better then they've ever been? submitted by /u/Stop-Hanging-Djs [link] [comments]

Fantasy RPGs shouldn't have classes Posted: 01 Mar 2018 08:28 AM PST Maybe it's just me but I don't feel like open-world fantasy RPGs should have classes. I know that most fantasy RPGs come from a premise of D&D where the game does have classes but I don't like classes, because I'd rather feel like I'm in an actual fantasy world where you can be anything you want to be rather then automatically be a mage just because "Yeah you know that's the kind of playthrough I'm going for." I know when Skyrim was released a lot of people bashed it for the fact it didn't have classes but personally I'd praise any game developer who creates a open-world fantasy RPG that doesn't have classes, because if I want to become a mage I feel like I should work to become a mage, not pick a class and have every skill in that class boosted up by 5. Edit: By fantasy RPGs I mean open world fantasy RPGs, post has been edited to reflect that. submitted by /u/Throwaway54546787 [link] [comments]

Why i think current craze about battle royale games won't last long. Posted: 28 Feb 2018 11:17 PM PST I find it really ridiculous when people say games like PUBG etc are going to replace CS GO, CS GO is dead and PUBG is future etc. Well, to start, PUBG is already loosing that appeal already and it's not even a full year. And it was sure to happen because of inherent nature of the games of this genre. You will probably relate to my theory as well. PUBG/Fortnite hook you initially because you play a game or two and get a particular rank. You get hooked because you have hope that trying again will get you a better rank next time. You are playing again and again not because you really like the game(some people may) but because you develop a kind of ego that you can do better than this next time. I have experienced it when i start playing score based game. Initially i may play it for fun but then i play because getting a higher score gives a sense of satisfaction though game itself may not be that much fun now. But soon you realize it is not worth keep playing because you mind had become tired and you start thinking what i am achieving by spending all the time into it, just a score or a good rank. Moreover suppose you topped enough times you loose interest because there is nothing else left to achieve and getting top rank doesn't excites you anymore. At other end games like CS GO have almost infinite skill ceiling. There is no particular high score to achieve. You are constantly being bettered by some other team or person and there is this 'skill' factor which keeps you engaged in game. That 'skill' level you achieve is a long lasting achievement. You are recognized by community, friends etc. So that's what i think. submitted by /u/abhiccc1 [link] [comments]

Are Politicians Response To Loot Boxes Rational? Posted: 01 Mar 2018 02:40 AM PST -TLDR: Before we go all Genghis Khan on the gaming industry. Can we make sure we do some fact checks? This has been bugging me so I just wanted to get it off my chest. I kind of don't like the direction we are going in tackling "game gambling," specifically loot boxes. I feel people in power. Are just taking advantage of a situation of angry Star War fans because of the way EA has treated Star Wars Battlefront 2. Even though this has slowly been building up over time from the gaming industries milking tactics. The funny thing is the free market has already voted with their wallets and even made EA back track on some of their decisions. There are several things to take into consideration when trying to resolve a problem. 1st, you need to know what the problem is. 2nd, what case study factually proves this will resolve the problem and is there any study that contradicts it? 3rd, is this the best method to resolve the problem? 4th, are we being consistent in all scenarios? Lastly or possibly this part can be skipped, but it is very unlikely do to human nature, is the solution to resolving our problem moral? Reason why I would not include that is because we all have different moral values. Regardless it still should be worth talking about and always saving it for last. So nobody has the ability to bend the facts and narrative to fit their moral values. So to answer step number 1. The problem people are having right now is that people are getting addicted to stuff like loot boxes and companies are taking advantage of them. Some of these people include children. So everyone wants to find a way to stop this. Before we go on, is there any actual proof that the majority of the population is getting addicted to loot boxes? For now I will assume yes so we can go onto the next steps. Step number 2. Politicians have suggested on classifying loot boxes as gambling, increasing regulation on games, and potientially charging a extra 10% tax on violent video games. That will go to helping the "mental health and counseling resources in schools." http://gameranx.com/updates/id/140317/article/politician-proposes-a-tax-for-violent-videogames/ I don't know of any politician in the recent months giving studies showing that these methods would resolve the problem. The reason why this is important is because we could potentially make our problems worse. If there is no case study and we just need to test out to see if these things will work. Why not start small? Have a vote amongst districts of a county. The districts with the most votes gets to be the guinea pig. Then after that do it with counties, then cities, then states, and if everything works out amazing. Do it for the entire country and even talk to the united nations of our great findings. Step number 3. Say that what has been stated in step number 2 actually resolves the problem. Is it actually the best method? Is leaving it up to the free market a better option? Such as giving consumers the option of buying the product. Even if a person buys a game they don't have to buy additional DLC for it. Step number 4. If we were going to assume step number 2 fixes the problem. Where does this leave trading card games? How about bosses and monsters that drops different random loot when you defeat them? What about those happy meals for kids at mcdonalds that come with a random toy? What about prizes and sweepstakes that companies always do? Step number 5. Is it moral to intervene and make companies do something through the force of government because "we say so?" IMHO it is immoral, but I rather do this one immoral thing if it means it helps our society and even said companies. I'm open for discussion, just don't be toxic. It is actually fun to have conversations. Feel free to share this wall of text on other websites. You don't have to credit me, I just want a discussion on this. If you do post this some where else. Can you PM me so I can see how everyone took it? PS I would also like to say Chris Lee. Is a good looking dude who also happens to be a gamer. I think people emotionally respond better to good looking humans, especially ones they can relate too. To me this negatively effects ones' rational way of thinking. submitted by /u/SDgundam [link] [comments]

Is the divide between main quests and side quests too rigid in modern RPGs? Posted: 28 Feb 2018 06:30 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; 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]

How I learned to stop worrying and love the Switch... Posted: 01 Mar 2018 12:16 AM PST I've probably been one of the Nintendo Switches biggest detractors. It's a system I was hoping would be the next big thing for me only to have it be a handheld with controls I don't like, terrible battery life, and a library of games that seemed laughable at best... Now my opinion has changed somewhat and I frankly love the Switch. Not for playing, I don't own one and I have no intention of picking one up... but for existing. The Switch has given me a few great things to consider as a gamer in my 30s and it makes me genuinely pleased that it exists. Here are my reasons. As a PS4 gamer, the Switch has put the breaks on the need to upgrade to 4k gaming. With the Xbox One X only managing mediocre sales and having zero exclusives, the need for PS4 to catch up and also make a 4k capable device isn't as strong as I expected. As I discussed in another thread, this means; because so many developers are making multiplatform games that are PS4/Switch (often missing out the Xbox One entirely), the PS4 will be getting high quality games running at 60 frames per second at 1080p, because the Switch is acting as a limiting factor. The PS4 is the more powerful system so it'll get the better versions, and as I rarely play outside anyway (and I have my Vita for that), I'll get the best experience possible. As a Vita gamer, the new Switch cases are delightfully useful. Seriously, I can fit a Vita, with a grip add on. A full charger with UK plug, and over 40 games (3x game case strips in the zip compartment containing 24 games, and 19 games in the pouches) into a single Switch case. This means my entire Vita collection can fit in a travel bag, with add ons. It's a silly thing to have come out of this system, but it's something that I've been enjoying for months now. It's genuinely useful. I love Nintendo games as much as the next guy; but with all the games coming out recently, I've not really had the time to play them all. While I've criticised the Switch for having no games, in reality what it has are no new games worth picking up... I've played Mario Odyssey on a friends Switch and frankly hated it. It's a busy-work filled collect-a-thon that took all the things about collect-a-thons I hate and dialled them up to eleven. But all the other big name games on the Switch are ports. 'Breath Of The Wild', 'Mario Kart 8', 'Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze', and 'Bayonetta 2', are all Wii U ports, which I already own while 'Skyrim', 'Dark Souls', 'Doom', 'Titan Quest', 'LA Noire' and 'Legend Of Kay' are all multi-platform ports I also already own (usually on PS3 or PS4). Sure, this is a great library of games at this point, but what does this mean for me? Well it means I don't really miss out on much. I already own these games so I'm free to tackle my PS4 backlog, safe in the knowledge that the 2018 and 2019 offerings from Nintendo are pretty much the same games I played back in 2014-2015 on the Wii U and PS3. I'm not missing out on much, and as daft as it sounds I hate missing out just because I'm in my 30's and lack the free time to just play video games 8 hours a day every day now. I still get to take part in the Switch discussions and now I have more people who can share my experience of Bayonetta 2, and Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze; two of my all time favourite games. (Hell, the Wii U holds more games on my top 10 all time games than any other system at this point). Being able to talk about how awesome these games are, and knowing more people will be able to experience them is cool. Here's hoping all you Switch owners get a port of Super Mario 3D World, it's genuinely one of the best games I've ever played. Made me feel like a kid again. Pure joy in gameplay. Indie games are getting even more exposure now, and they're getting more physical releases. I think the fact that the Switch is portable and lacks the ability to have multiple Terabytes of hard drive space is partially the reason for this. Games like 'Steamworld Dig 2', 'Owlboy', 'Axiom Verge', 'Wonder Boy: Dragon's Trap', 'Rime', 'The Binding Of Issac: Afterbirth', 'Slain: Back From Hell', 'Cave Story+', 'Shantae: Half Genie Hero', and 'Monster Boy & The Cursed Kingdom' are all available physically on the Switch, and that's pretty damn cool; and with a limited game library people are giving these things a chance. It's bringing the 2D platformers and indie games into a second renaissance and that's no bad thing... And all these games are also physically available on PS4 too, (except 'Cave Story+' sadly), so I've got loads of short burst fun games to play, which is very fitting for my current style of play. And finally, the Switch is selling well (and will hopefully continue to do so). The Wii U did not... this means my Wii U games will likely be collectable, but in 5+ years Switch games will likely be quite cheap due to simple being plentiful. So come about 2025, I can pack up my Wii U, put it's collectable games on display, and pick up a Switch with a Pro Controller so I can still play all my favourites, only this time with added portability if I want that. Which means I don't need to worry as much about the prospect of my Wii U ever breaking and losing access to some of my favourite games. So that's how I learned to stop worrying and love the Switch... Happy gaming guys. While I may dislike Mario Odyssey, and think Breath Of The Wild is severely overrated. I have to now admit. The Switch has over two dozen great games on it, physically released too (and as a game collector I appreciate this). It's a system well worth owning, ESPECIALLY if you don't own a PS4 or don't own a Wii U; and if you don't own either I could see it being a must-own system for many people. submitted by /u/TornadoCreator [link] [comments]