True Gaming Monthly /r/truegaming Post Feedback Thread |
- Monthly /r/truegaming Post Feedback Thread
- Non-gamer here looking for an experienced gamer to answer a question
- Blizzard's games feel so good and snappy to play, while many modern games these days feel so unresponsive. Do you have the same view?
- Why has almost every modern JRPG such an insultingly easy difficulty? So far, that they play themself.
- How much do you truly care about in-game stats or progress?
- Do you all play games that continually make you angry, yet, you still keep coming back.
- Thoughts on "Buying" Trophies/Achievements - Good, Bad, or Indifferent?
- Comparing the endings of Far Cry 5 and Life is Strange. [Non specific Spoilers for both games]
- Why RPGs turn to shooters?
| Monthly /r/truegaming Post Feedback Thread Posted: 30 Mar 2018 11:08 AM PDT Many regular posters here at /r/truegaming may often wonder how to improve their posts to better improve possible discussions, but have been unable to get the feedback they desire in any form besides a downvote. This monthly post is designed for frequent posters of /r/truegaming to receive the feedback they'd like in an organized fashion. If you are seeking feedback for your posts, we recommend linking to your threads and explaining your thought process in posting them. Explaining the reasoning behind how you posted may be key to finding out what you did wrong and what can be improved. We also recommend including what type of discussion you wanted to start within your threads, and what you believe your own strengths/weaknesses are as a discussion author. This way, people can gauge how you see yourself and can give feedback appropriately. If you would like to give feedback, we emphasize to please be constructive and polite when doing so. This post is designed for posters to learn from their mistakes, and in order to do so, a decently-sized explanation of their mistakes may be needed. Please also consider replying to those who may not have any replies yet, for even the smallest amount of feedback can help discussion authors. [link] [comments]  |
| Non-gamer here looking for an experienced gamer to answer a question Posted: 30 Mar 2018 09:19 AM PDT So my boyfriend just bought for me South Park: The Fractured But Whole. It was great up until there was what I now know is called a 'game ending glitch'. Luckily I was able to connect to the internet and it provided me with an update on his PS4 to fix it. But I'm wondering, did they have these back in the day of consoles that didn't have the internet? And if so, what would happen? An entire recall of every single game sold, or did they take greater care back then to make sure things like that never happened? Sorry if this was a really obvious question, don't know much about games but was just really curious. Thank you for all of your answers in advance :) [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 30 Mar 2018 11:04 AM PDT Do you guys feel the same way? Games nowadays are missing the point of the fun, core, responsive gameplay. I feel like Blizzard and Platinum Games are of the few developers that care about latency left. Have you guys noticed this too? Can some developers share his/her thoughts on this topic? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 30 Mar 2018 01:09 AM PDT Currently I'm playing Ni no Kuni II and The Alliance Alive, both of them are JRPG's but in it's structure, gameplay and battle system, they are very different, regardless they both have on big negative in common. Both of them have complex battle systems, which you never are forced to learn or even apply. As far as I could play Ni no Kuni II (30 hours in the game) I never had to use any of the special systems which the game offers. At first I thought: "well, the game will surely begin easy and give players the time to adapt and after a certain while, the difficulty will ramp up, because most gamesdo have a difficulty curve right?" Sadly that wasn't the case. I haven't sensed any rising difficulty edge while playing the main game. The game looks beautiful and the character design is superb, but the gameplay gets boring after a while, so far that I only want to see what beautfiful scenery I see next, I'm not longer interested in the gameplay because it's more than trivial. I just slash on the enemies without any second thought, even those who are 20 level over my characters were pretty handful in combat. I'm feeling treated like a braindead child, with no alternative to switch to a higher difficulty. I don't have a problem with easy games, but in JRPG's where the combat is much more undynamically and where tactics are in foreground over mechanical execution, a certain level of tactics must be provided, otherwise it turns into "Press A to win" you are mostly an observer whose decisions don't matter. You could switch on auto-battle and the characters would win the fight nevertheless. Are there really people who enjoy this? Then why bother with such complex system which offer a level of extra strategy when you don't need them? That's also my problem with The Alliance Alive, which has very poor enemy variety, where you fight in almost every dungeon the same enemies like on every corner of the world map. Most of them come alone, yes only a single or a maximum of two enemys per encounter, where the they don't get stronger for longer time... such a bummer. Well unlike Ni no Kuni II this game can have it's challenging moments, but you have to seek them by searching for difficult special encounters on the world map, where there are very few and I believe most of them were suited to a higher level party, because the main story is pretty much a nobrainer with trivial fights. Those two games are the most recent examples, but I've encountered much more modern JRPG's in this regard where I had high hopes on because, they seem to do a lot of things great and are very beatiful to look on And yes I know, some of you will probably downvote me because I will mention some famous titles, but none of them force you to use its tactical depth unless you are super underleveled.
Positive Examples I can think of lately are the Etrian Odyssey Series, Kindgom Hearts 0.2 and The Shin Megami Tensei Series (including Persona) I'm really disappointed with that fact, because in the past, the battlesystems of JRPG's weren't that much complex, but at least they did have it's difficulty where you have to think of an efficient strategy. Even Final Fantasy X which is no difficult game, have it's difficulty-curve and unique bosses where you have to develop a certain approach. That's something which I see more and more rarely. Even Dragon Warrior 1 which is considered as the first JRPG ever, has its ressource-management, which is something I only see nowadays in games like Persona 5 and The Etrian Odyssey series. I'm pretty sure Dragon Quest 11 will become a easy brainfart as well, where you just battle without any second thought countless boring encounters, with no ressource management, which is the complete opposite from the dragon quest games in the past. So yeah well, I get gloomy if I think to much about this stuff but it really annoys me, I just can't have fun because all those games play themself regardless how promising they look... [link] [comments]  |
| How much do you truly care about in-game stats or progress? Posted: 30 Mar 2018 08:52 AM PDT Recently, in the Overwatch community, Jeff Kaplan (the Game Director) debunked a common practice in the game by revealing that leaving a match immediately upon seeing the 'Victory/Defeat' words at the end of a match does not in fact let you queue into a new match quicker than if you were to simply stay in that match and wait for the next one to begin. Actually, the game doesn't let you enter into the matchmaking queue until your previous match resolves completely, and most people think they are speeding things up by skipping the post-match stats, top four cards, and Play of the Game. Much to my surprise, the Overwatch subreddit was filled with highly upvoted people claiming that they really don't care about the post-match stats anyway, apparently they leave quickly because they just want to keep playing, they don't want or care to see all the high scores and POTG. "Just let me play!" is what they shout, echoing the age-old "is it enjoyable" question that permeates all entertainment, often pitting critics against audiences. So, that got me thinking introspectively. I don't understand this mindset fully. Who doesn't enjoy winning? It's natural for humans to enjoy seeing their name up in lights. At this point, we're digging into the bedrock of why we even bother playing video games in the first place, the very nature of the hobby itself, the "goal" if you will. Certain games in recent times have challenged traditional game design, like the brilliant 'The Stanley Parable' for PC, but even in that game you inevitably finish an aspect of the game. Perhaps I am more competitive than I give myself credit for! Personally, I love the top four, stats, upvote system, and POTG in Overwatch. It validates the game for me. If I make the top four, get lots of medals, or POTG, I feel like I've done something. Surely that's part of the reason they're there. So when people say they don't care about these things, I become skeptical, I wonder if maybe they just lack the attention span to stick around for these relatively brief highlights. In-game stats aren't everything to me though, I'll concede. There are very few games that I've sincerely felt the desire to complete 100%, stats wise, or be the best in. In Overwatch, I typically rank in Gold/Platinum tier and I'm satisfied with that, mostly; I don't want an "alt" account so I won't "ruin my stats" like so many do. I have never felt compelled in a single-player title to collect literally everything for the "100% completed" stat, like in a Ubisoft title. If there's a codex in a game, I will collect only what I stumble upon naturally, I won't go for the whole thing unless I'm very invested in the game world If I go for broke and do everything, it's usually only because there's an incentive, like in a Bioware RPG where there are lots of different choices and outcomes, or character types. If I feel like I'm missing out on something, I have to get it! If I'm not missing out, it's different. Admittedly, that's why I switched to primarily PC gaming, even though I love my consoles; I felt left out when 'BioShock Infinite' was reviewed with a higher score on PC for its superior graphics, and decided I had to see what the fuss was about, and for me it made all the difference in the world. For an example, when Terraria first came out (a retro-styled sandbox building Minecraft-esque game), my brother and I played it for dozens of hours, day after day. It was a blast until we got to what was the hardest boss and dungeon, at the time. When we beat that boss...well, I began losing interest. I felt as though I'd "completed" the game in a sense. I stopped playing after that, even while they kept updating it. My brother, on the other hand, never fell out of love with it, but then again I've known him to be obsessed with building-type games. The same thing happened for me with Minecraft, coincidentally. Once we reached The Nether, my interest dropped like a stock market crash, I felt as though I'd essentially conquered the game, save for its Ender Dragon. So, I digress, my question is this: how much do you personally care about in-game stats and progress? I've met very few people who legitimately did not care about winning or losing, and frankly I don't know if I buy the whole "It's all about fun" philosophy that people like to use. I mean, it is all about having fun, but in a competitive game I find it hard to believe that the "majority of people" as they claim really don't care about both the metaphorical and literal "post-game stuff". Then there are people who say that completing a game 100% is what they're all about. I understand this and I say if that's how you have fun, then go for it, I just don't share it. How about you? EDIT: It would be nice if we could honor the Rule's suggestion of not downvoting because you disagree. I would appreciate having at least one gaming sub that isn't straight cancer in my veins where people can have a mature discussion. At least post a respectfully disagreeing comment, don't just be all passive-aggressive and downvote things into obscurity. [link] [comments]  |
| Do you all play games that continually make you angry, yet, you still keep coming back. Posted: 30 Mar 2018 12:11 PM PDT My list of games are: Overwatch Call of Duty (Any of them) Dota2 Idk why. But I just get so frustrated. I leave the game. Then I come back an hour later and keep playing, so the cycle continues. [link] [comments]  |
| Thoughts on "Buying" Trophies/Achievements - Good, Bad, or Indifferent? Posted: 30 Mar 2018 10:56 AM PDT I recently finished playing Nier: Automata. For those who don't know, after finishing the third "Route" of the story, a shop unlocks where you can buy any unearned trophies with in-game currency. The prices are still fairly steep (50k for bronze, 100k for silver, 200k for gold), although once a trophy pops, you could reload your save, get the money back and buy the next one. I'm not really sure if Yoko Taro included this as a commentary on trophy chasing being an inherently meaningless pursuit...which would fit the overall theme of nihilism in this game. More likely it was included for players who may choose to have their save data deleted (which is an option during the true ending), and wouldn't have a chance to come back and finish trophy hunting. In either case, I found it to be a very interesting choice, and not one that I've seen done in a game before now (although maybe there are other examples of this). Even more interesting were the divisive opinions among fans and players; some calling it a cheap cheat, others saying it doesn't matter what anyone else does with their own game. I suppose which side of the fence you land on depends on how you see trophies in general:
Full disclosure, I did end up using the shop in Nier: Automata to finish up a couple trophies that otherwise would have taken several more hours to earn. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing this in other games. I love a nice 100% and Platinum as much as the next guy, and if I really enjoy the game I'll put in extra time to complete as many trophies as I can. But there's often one or two extremely tedious tasks involved, and as I get older I don't have the time or inclination to spend hours on those. Of course, some will argue that if you don't or can't put in the time/effort, then you don't deserve a platinum. Which is a completely fair argument...but again, what impact does it have on you if another player chooses to go that route? [link] [comments]  |
| Comparing the endings of Far Cry 5 and Life is Strange. [Non specific Spoilers for both games] Posted: 30 Mar 2018 11:38 AM PDT I ordered far cry 5, but cancelled it soon after both the endings were inadvertently spoiled to me, despite how much praise I've heard about it's gameplay and open world. I know that some games are far less defined by their narrative than they are by their gameplay, but I'm not sure I can spend a 100+ hours on a game only to have to choose between two extremely dark and nihilistic scenarios. Of course, it's a personal choice, so YMMV. Now, I want to talk about life is strange, the ending of which was also spoiled to me before I played the game, so I never bothered to play it (for the same reason as the one I gave for fc5) until I received it as a gift and decided to spare a dozen or so hours for it. It also had a "lose-lose" choice for the ending, but i felt like both were narratively satisfying. "Poignant" rather than "apathy-inducing dark" is the word I'd use for either of the endings, but I suppose that I wouldn't have decided on that based on simply hearing or reading about it and not actually playing it. Which makes me believe that I can also find some narrative depth in Far Cry 5's ending if I play it, but I'm holding off on it for some time. So tell me your thoughts about whether you think "ending too dark" is a valid criticism for a game, or if different games have differently dark endings with one kind being better than the other. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 30 Mar 2018 10:37 AM PDT http://store.steampowered.com/app/783170/InSomnia_The_Ark?utm_source=red&utm_campaign=announce Devs say this game is RPG with lots of text content, however, the only aspect they demonstrate is action. According to them the reason for this is that no one will take notice of their project otherwise. So why RPGs are the dying breed? [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