True Gaming Just wanted to share my thoughts on why the Silent Hill franchise is so good at being terrifying. |
- Just wanted to share my thoughts on why the Silent Hill franchise is so good at being terrifying.
- Explain to me why GTA series is more popular than other similar, bigger games
- [On Platform Exclusives] A discussion on Pros, Cons, and Predictions.
- I'm not sure why the "auto-attack" battle system is used in single player rpgs.
- Games that started as a clone of another series and went on to be something else entirely(in a good way)
- Should the choice between a male or female character extend beyond the character selection screen?
- The modern gamer's game
- Did you consider Strategy Guides for SNES RPGs cheating?
- When you're on Steam, it seems like every other indie game is tagged "rogue-like" or "rogue-lite". Seeing as how this has been a historically obscure genre, is there another forgotten genre that is due for rediscovery?
- Will we ever see an online rpg like ready player one or like spy kids 3D?
- Gaming is about form, not content anymore.
- Why is a game being excessively large viewed as a good thing?
- Limbo, Inside and Little Nightmares have as story problem; it's the lack of one
| Just wanted to share my thoughts on why the Silent Hill franchise is so good at being terrifying. Posted: 02 Mar 2018 10:02 AM PST The Silent Hill series has always done a great job of capitalizing on the fear of the unknown and the need for connection. Most games distinctly want you to fear something they throw at you. Something known. Whereas Silent Hill wants to isolate you and then scare you. Then isolate you. Then scare you....Let me explain. Let's look at Silent Hill 2 (before i begin though, there is a lot to be said of the symbolism and general narrative brilliance behind this game, but I just want to talk about why it's widely regarded as the most terrifying entry in the series and also in gaming as a whole). One of the most terrifying parts of Silent Hill 2 is the radio. This is because it taps into the primal fear of the unknown in a profound way. Instead of having a distinct growling noise, and a shape, we instead have an uncomfortable noise that lets you know something that is somewhere wants to kill you. It hides the danger behind a wall, thus increasing it's potency. Most people won't say they are scared of the dark, bu they have a very good reason to be. It's a survival mechanism. And everything in the game is designed to play off of that trait. To keep you wondering what is coming. The radio static. The fog. The darkness. And doors... See doors play a special role in Silent Hill. You ever notice the sound of a door opening is louder than most of the other sounds? And creeeeaaaky? That's because it's meant to ratchet up that tension of finding out what is on the other side. It is very much a trigger, like Pavlov's dogs. It's meant to create a primal fear instinct in you because of the tonal quality's the sound possesses and the fear of the unknown. It was honestly one of the worst things for me about that game. Humans don't like high pitched noises and low growling noises because those noises make us realize that danger is close – bugs and things that poison us and things that want to eat us respectively. That's why most people don't like creaky floorboards or squeaky hinges. It reminds us on a primal level of death. Just listen to the music that Akira Yamaoka created for the game. It's all highs, lows and industrial noises. Because even the music plays on your fears of unknown dangers. Just like when you move into a new level of the apartment, the music changes. A dull silence turns into an industrial growl....and you're left wondering: Why did the music change? Which brings us to "Isolation". True Isolation for a human isn't just being alone. It's being alone without anyone or anything that makes you feel like you aren't alone. Even reading books or having a dog can help someone not feel alone. True solitude destroys the mind. That is why Silent Hill is so interesting. So let's go back to the music. Most of us are familiar with music that originates from our own countries. Whether it be the ancient Chinese flutes like the dizi, Indonesian gamelan, African djembe or a western violin or piano. These sounds come from nature. They are familiar to us. So when you hear them in a film or game, they ground you. They make you feel comfortable. Just look at any good horror soundtrack, they'll always have something like this...notice anything familiar? The music is part of this grand tapestry designed to make you feel more alone. Everything is designed to. Even the people. You notice that? Every person you meet is almost normal...but then they turn into something else. See people can acclimate to pretty much any situation given enough time. But Silent Hill makes that process as hard as possible. Afterall, not having something isn't as hard as having something and losing it. So the game isolates you further by giving you what seems to be human interaction but corrupting it. The woman in the graveyard is at first normal...and then isn't. Eddie - existing without fear in a land of monsters...even your wife who isn't you're wife. The one thing that couldn't possibly make you feel more alone, your wife – the entire reason you even came to Silent Hill – makes you feel even more alone than you did before you found her. Even the man you find in the room in the apartment. He's dead. And you're left wondering who he was. Why he's dead. And dammit....why couldn't I have had someone here to talk to for once. See. The scariest thing about Silent Hill isn't that it's filled with monsters. It's that it is almost familiar. The boring town. The normal looking fog. The living manikins. Your wife.....Everything is designed to almost give you comfort and then take it away. The manikins aren't monsters. Nor are the nurses. They're corruptions of what is normal to you. What is safe and comforting. All in an effort to push you into your head. Because no one likes to be inside their own head for too long. Your head, afterall, is the scariest thing about a human. Think too much about stuff and it will drive you mad. And all the most heinous travesties ever perpetuated came from someones head afterall. And the most terrifying things that you could experience don't exist anywhere else.... That's why it's so brilliant. It takes everything about a horror game and makes it more about you than you realize. All in an effort you make you feel so alone that fear is the only thing you can feel...even if you don't know why. [link] [comments]  |
| Explain to me why GTA series is more popular than other similar, bigger games Posted: 02 Mar 2018 03:30 AM PST I'm not saying that I don't see what's there to like in GTA. I remember being amazed how big and varied where GTA3 and later San Andreas, how cool graphics looked, how much freedom there was. However GTA5 has insane sales. It's the only game in top 10 Twitch games that isn't just multiplayer. People love it. I didn't finish it because it felt boring to me. What I finished was Far Cry 3. Just Cause 2. Saint's Row 3, 4. Those are pretty similar games. In all of them you can drive vehicles, follow main plot or complete a lot of side activities. Apart from graphics I don't see how GTA5 is more appealing to public, because other games have much more apart from this basis. Some have RPG elements, stealth gameplay, mad weapons and enemies, huge world size, variety of playstyles. What keeps people bying GTA5? Is this just an online element? [link] [comments]  |
| [On Platform Exclusives] A discussion on Pros, Cons, and Predictions. Posted: 02 Mar 2018 05:06 AM PST It's a topic that keeps coming up. Many gamers don't like the fact that exclusives exist. I propose a discussion on why they exist, their impact, and their actual necessity to exist. 1) What do console makers have to gain if they port all their developed titles to other consoles? 2) What do console makers have to lose if they port all their developed titles to other consoles? 3) How would console-hardware be affected if their focus was on titles and not on their hardware and getting people to it through exclusives and deals? 4) How has, if at all, Microsoft X1 sales been or will be affected, by possibly porting all their titles to the PC as well? 5) Could it ever come down to one of the players, say MS, leaving the console hardware market completely? If so, what do you think will happen to the hardware made by the only one left? Will they feel any pressure to improve it if they are the only player? 6) How would funding for these titles be affected if they were not exclusive so as to bring people to their platform? Since this topic keeps coming up all over the place (Exclusives = Bad), I've given it some thought myself. I'd like to hear your thoughts. -This was a reply I made to someone in another post, but I thought it was worthy of discussion- Made some edits to make it broader. Any other questions any of you would like me to add in the OP, let me know. [link] [comments]  |
| I'm not sure why the "auto-attack" battle system is used in single player rpgs. Posted: 02 Mar 2018 06:56 AM PST The auto-attack battle system (FFXII, Xenoblade and what not) or whatever its supposed to be called just seems like a poor choice to me still. When I play these games, all I can think about is that they would be better as either just pure turn based rpgs or action rpgs. They try to incorporate things like positioning and movement, but these are things action rpgs do better and more naturally. Even though it feels like you should be able to dodge attacks, you can't actually do that, or at the very least if you can the method is very poor in comparison. They try to incorporate a party, but these are things once again done better in turn based rpg because you get direct control over everyone. Plus they feel a bit too auto-piloted. Almost like they are very simple RTS's or something. Xenoblade tries to avoid this by introducing a bunch of gimmicky commands and timings, but it just makes you once again wonder...why isn't this game just an action rpg if skill is going to be a factor? I get why this system is used in an MMO. They want to keep the non-reflex based battle system but don't want to bog down the pace with a pure turn based battle system (as a bunch of players all selecting turns individually would turn into a mess). But as for single player games I'm still finding it to be the weakest of the three other options available (traditional, strategy and action). Funny enough MOBA's sorta use an auto-attack system like these games, but for some reason it works better. Not sure what the difference is there. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 02 Mar 2018 10:07 AM PST Like how saints row started as a gta clone but by the end of 4 you're a demi deity and your bff and side thang are both angles. [link] [comments]  |
| Should the choice between a male or female character extend beyond the character selection screen? Posted: 02 Mar 2018 08:24 AM PST In the Bioshock Infinite DLC Burial at Sea episode 2 you play as Elizabeth instead of Booker, this also brought with it a change in how to play the game, because unlike Booker the character of Elizabeth was not a battle-hardened former soldier who could take on 10 enemies at once, but instead had to rely on stealth and silenced weapons. Playing as Booker; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpgKajxcOlc Playing as Elizabeth; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96oYmWveumE In recent games such as Prey and Dishonored 2, you get the choice between playing as a male and female character, but to my disappointment the 'choice' seemed illusionary, as it did not bring with it much difference in how the game was played, and the difference was mostly in the form of voice-overs and cutscenes. In Dishonored 2 I felt the game wasted a lot of potential for giving you a different experience and increasing the replay value of the game other than simply giving you two different set of special powers to choose from. Emily could have had better stealth capabilities than Corvo thanks to her smaller size and be able to sneak trough openings to small for Corvo to enter. But at the cost of having less physical strength making her inventory smaller and being unable to carry dead or unconscious NPCs on her back. In Prey it was like 'why even bother'? Just decide on a male or female protagonist and be done with it, don't make me choose if my choice of character is meaningless. Then it is a gimmick rather than a feature. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 02 Mar 2018 10:15 AM PST Singular, that is, to the near or total exclusion of other games. Has anyone else noticed this? It seems that with the rise of mmos and mobas we've incrementally gotten more and more skinner box games designed to never truly be finished and eventually take up all of a given person's gaming time. [link] [comments]  |
| Did you consider Strategy Guides for SNES RPGs cheating? Posted: 02 Mar 2018 03:50 AM PST Back in the days SNES RPGs like Chrono Trigger and Secret of Mana often came in a bigger box which contained a Strategy Guide. My friends and me all used this guides, as it felt like "They come with the game, so they are part of it and you are encouraged to use them". It's also more so, that I wanted to use them, because having to study a book for the game was somehow interesting, it gave the game more depth, because you had to do some research off screen or had a real map in your hands. At least this is how I felt about it. Recently I started Chrono Trigger for the first time in my life. I got hold of the Strategy Guide and being used to it as a kid I started playing with the book open. But then it struck me. It felt like a mere Walkthrough, not like 'research' or using a map. It never felt to me like this as a kid. Yesterday I started playing without the guide, and everything was a bit more rewarding, I had a sense of accomplishment and was tied more closely to the story, because I had to read closely and think more. For the next step, I now will try to stick to weapon/armor-tables on the internet, as I still want the reseach aspect of it I liked so much as a kid. But for now ..: What's your opinion on those Strategy Guides?
[link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 01 Mar 2018 07:06 PM PST I was on Steam looking for an indie title to play and it occurred to me that it seems a large portion of new indie games are tagging themselves with things like "rogue-like" or "rogue-lite". This is due in part, I imagine, to the successes of FTL, Don't Starve, Darkest Dungeon, etc. and how they found a way to take an old, almost forgotten aesthetic and reinvent it in a way that was more palatable to the mainstream. And so I says to myself, "self, I wonder what the next big thing is in the indie scene, since it makes its living primarily on reinventing old concepts and adding new dimensions to them". There is a game I'm surprised no one has made yet: a game very much like Final Fantasies IV-VI but open world and choice driven. I see a bunch of nostalgia for those games and I wonder what would happen if someone could nail that old aesthetic while introducing it to an open world and open-choice style of gameplay. [link] [comments]  |
| Will we ever see an online rpg like ready player one or like spy kids 3D? Posted: 01 Mar 2018 06:18 PM PST Ok has there or will there ever be an rpg in the style of something like ready player one or the movie spy kids 3D basically a large open world with a whole bunch of different environments and quests from racing super fast space ships to maybe exploring a haunted castle to slay some monsters to simple puzzle solving and building quests ? [link] [comments]  |
| Gaming is about form, not content anymore. Posted: 02 Mar 2018 08:16 AM PST Hello, never posted on this sub and was looking for a place to discuss this, and this sub seems perfect. Through my life , I saw how the perception of gaming has changed a lot through the years, from being shunned as a stupid hobby, to the biggest entertainment industry. Now, I have noticed a trend that is common to all the games that made gaming so popular these last few years. Overwatch, League of Legends, but also PUBG, Heartstone, Clash Royale, etc..., all these games have something in common: they are all about form, not the content. By that , I mean that, instead of concentrating on making a game they want to play, devs of such games make a game that people want to play. All these games are highly competitive, and most heavily rely on visual gimmicks, to give a lot of personnality to the game. Look at Overwatch, that game has been 100% made by people who knew a varied cast of handsome cartooney chatacters would garantee success, and the hype showed that. Bear with me , I am here to discuss my opinion, not to judge if the games are good, since people seem to enjoy them. I am just questionning what is bringing more and more people to play those kind of games. My 2 cents would be that , these 10 last years showed us that trends in video games are a thing not to be underestimated, proof being the ungodly amount of survival craft games we see each year since Minecraft. And companies make money, not joy, so any smart company makes games that'll work. That is why each and every big game publisher has now their own competitive shooter. Problem is, when every publisher makes the same kind of game, you find yourself with money making machines with no soul. My fav example are competitive shooters and their skins, but it applies to MOBA's or sports game too. The game becomes a platform to make money, it's content being tailored into making us feel the urge to buy for some reason. [link] [comments]  |
| Why is a game being excessively large viewed as a good thing? Posted: 02 Mar 2018 08:11 AM PST What I mean is I noticed a few questions that are answered by because it is so big. Why is this game so buggy. Well it's so big it would be impossible for it to not be buggy. Why are quests so short. Well, there is sooooo many different quests that they have to make them shorter to get them all done. Which would be fine except the question why are main quests things left unfinished is answered with there are so many side quests they didn't have time to get quests done. Why are so many quests exactly the same. There are thousands of quests, they have to repeat them to get that many done. Which makes me wonder, why is considered positive that the game is so large when all the problems are because it is so large. Wouldn't logic dictate, Game's excessive size causes problems, therefore make the game smaller? [link] [comments]  |
| Limbo, Inside and Little Nightmares have as story problem; it's the lack of one Posted: 01 Mar 2018 07:33 PM PST I just recently finished Little Nightmares, and enjoyed much of it, mainly the art and design and sound (the camera movement is remarkable). While that made for an atmosphere that's well maintained, I felt the controls and puzzles were average and weak sometimes, with plenty of room for trial and error. Now about Little Nightmares and the Playdead games, they are similar in style of design and mechanics, and it's pretty clear, and are also similar in story, not that they all fall under the same genre or something, but the way they implement the story, which quite honestly I didn't like. The varied concepts they carry on serious notes are both interesting and meaningful, even their execution, oftentimes especially in Limbo and Inside, is state-of-the-art. But my problem lies in the the lack of a stated narrative, or something that hints at it, not just some interesting concepts. In all these three games I wanted to love the story, but I didn't find any, it was a mishmash of concepts and ideas that never lead to a satisfying end, and I still feel not finished with them somehow, and not in a good way. [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