True Gaming The Weirdness of Game Review Scores |
- The Weirdness of Game Review Scores
- Aiming down sights in FPS games: what effect does it have on the gameplay style?
- Trading Life for Power as a Game Mechanic
- Microtransactions in Mobile Games Compared with AAA Games?
- Favorite spyro game of the first three?
- Why have some areas in gaming declined?
- When Open Worlds Overwhelm
- Discussion: What's the middle ground between "Gamer Needs/Demands" vs. "Gamer Acceptance"
- Fortnite PC
- Let's Take a Moment to Appreciate How Smart Dunkey Is
| The Weirdness of Game Review Scores Posted: 05 Apr 2018 04:40 AM PDT I've been thinking about how strange it is that anything that scores below a 7/10 by a reviewer is really taken to mean it's not worth playing. Reasonably, a 5/10 should be a mediocre, average game, right? So a 6/10 would mean "above average". But in the gaming world it does not mean that. People will dismiss a 6 outright. A 7 is generally considered a disappointing score too, and fanboys will riot over a score like that. It seems game scores are skewed one point above where they should be. 6 really means mediocre, a 7 is "okay" and a 5 is "pretty bad". Which makes no sense at all. If a game gets below a 5 it's implied that it's a genuinely awful game that isn't worth picking up, even in a sale. Scores of 1 - 4 all mean the exact same thing as each other really. Don't get me started on how a "AAA" game is almost guaranteed to get 7's or above unless it's a total failure, and publishers will consider even a 7 to be a failing score. It seems like we have a really unhealthy reviewing system, but I don't know if it can be fixed unless we scrap scores altogether at this point. It's been like this for as long as I can remember though, maybe even before I was born. What caused this? and what is your opinion on it? [link] [comments]  | |||||||||
| Aiming down sights in FPS games: what effect does it have on the gameplay style? Posted: 04 Apr 2018 11:56 PM PDT Many of the first "original" FPS games like Doom, Unreal Tournament and Quake had no aiming down sights at all, as well as several Valve games (TF2 and CS:GO with only scopes for snipers). However, a lot of modern AAA games, especially games on consoles, have iron sights or aiming down sight features - the Call of Duty series uses them a lot to the extent that it's very, very difficult to hit anything that's not very close range without aiming down sights. Aiming down sights can slow down gameplay, since they often reduce movement speed, whilst earlier games without sights were much faster paced than the majority of new games. In addition, iron sights could be beneficial to allow console controller users to aim easier, but they're still very prevalent in PC games as well. What effect does aiming down sights generally have on gameplay? Does making a tradeoff between mobility and accuracy improve gameplay or not? Is it possible to use or not use iron sights in a different way that they are usually used? [link] [comments]  | |||||||||
| Trading Life for Power as a Game Mechanic Posted: 05 Apr 2018 12:27 PM PDT I find it fascinating when a game gives the player an option to trade health in exchange for more power, higher damage output, etc. Basically, "You can die more easily, but you also become stronger." I've seen this in only a few games -- Bloodborne has a couple weapons with this effect. The Warlock's hero power and class cards do this in Hearthstone. And Slay the Spire has lots of ways to do this (the vampire event, for example). What games have you played that do this well? [link] [comments]  | |||||||||
| Microtransactions in Mobile Games Compared with AAA Games? Posted: 05 Apr 2018 12:42 AM PDT Microtransactions in full priced AAA games used to be far less common than they are now, especially with a lot of new games having loot boxes. However, in mobile games the vast majority of games are "free to play" with microtransactions that are extremely intrusive to the gameplay, with very obviously implemented energy bars, waiting times and pay to win systems. However, a lot of people still play them without too much complaint, as opposed to the backlash that AAA games with excessive microtransactions get. Besides the fact that AAA games already cost money in the first place, what is it about the nature of mobile games that makes them gravitate towards free to play and using so many microtransactions? [link] [comments]  | |||||||||
| Favorite spyro game of the first three? Posted: 05 Apr 2018 03:49 PM PDT I played all of them back in the day, but part of my memory is still fresh. I think the first one was the hardest, but a lot of the level design was rather straightforward and the combat was limited compared to future installments. The second one (riptos rage) I think had the most variety in levels, but it's definitely the shortest The third one (year of the dragon) I think was the better one with a lot of mini games and different characters to play. I liked that one the best. [link] [comments]  | |||||||||
| Why have some areas in gaming declined? Posted: 05 Apr 2018 02:11 PM PDT Just looked at some footage from good old Crysis and Far Cry 2 and noticed how these games, especially Crysis, have more impressive physics than any games today, and that was over 10 years ago! Why is that? In Crysis you could shoot individual branches of trees and the leafs behave in a realistic way that no game does today. Why have games not progressed, but gone backwards in some areas when it comes to realism and dynamics over the last 10 years? [link] [comments]  | |||||||||
| Posted: 05 Apr 2018 08:21 AM PDT When I began Far Cry 5 and got past the tutorial and the world was opened up, I looked at the map and just...froze. I scanned over the section I was in and couldn't decide where the hell to go or what to go or anything. I was totally overwhelmed. Which, as I realized right then and there, happens to me every time. Skyrim, Watch Dogs (Both), Ghost Recon Wildlands, Horizon Zero Dawn, Any Assassin's Creed, Dying Light, Mafia 3....I could go on and on. But I always, always freak out when I look at that big wide map. Add in a full log of quests and icons that I have no idea what they mean yet and it's just sensory overload. I eventually start to unpack it in bits and pieces until I get a rhythm and I have a great time. I love open world games, in general, and I don't think of it as a problem with the games individually. I wonder if this feeling of being overwhelmed is a design issue with open worlds or am I just a nervous nelly? [link] [comments]  | |||||||||
| Discussion: What's the middle ground between "Gamer Needs/Demands" vs. "Gamer Acceptance" Posted: 05 Apr 2018 08:30 AM PDT
The Middle GroundThe middle ground. Communication. Relationships. These are what we call "two-way streets". It takes two to tango. There's always give and take. So where should that middle ground be? The reason I ask is due to three distinct examples in the games I play, and the subs I frequent. Feel free to chime in if you've played these games, or if you've got some input in the other games you play. Example One - Vermintide 2: Vermintide 2 released early in March, and within a week or so has sold more copies than the original had in its three-year lifespan. Thousands more gamers played it, but a lot of people also recognized that the game had some bugs. The game itself, while it had issues, remained fun with well-polished visuals and atmosphere, engaging and challenging gameplay, and hit all the right notes of what a coop-FPS/FPM (melee) game set in the Warhammer Fantasy universe should be... all for the measly price of $15 (currency converted to my local one). And, in spite of these issues, the developers have also released multiple updates and patches tirelessly (around 5 in less than a month). However, a lot of gamers also became very vocal with these issues - the latest of which is the power and capability of heroes to stagger enemies. Before, some players complained that the game was becoming too easy, and no longer challenging in the end. When a developer explained that this was due to a missing line of code, one of the most upvoted comments was [paraphrase]: "Lol! They screwed up, how simple! So funny!" That missing line of code apparently 'made your characters stronger than intended'. When players found out about this, many freaked out - because it meant you'd be weaker, and thus the game would be harder. So yes, we had folks who were complaining about needing a challenge; to laughing that a game had a bug; to becoming angered that fixing that bug would make the game more challenging. Whoops! And added into the mix are, of course, the most vocal ones with the oft-repeated justification: "we're only this way because we want the game to improve" - which everyone literally wants. But then, you'll also have to consider how these reasoning came about. For instance, some gems of replies I found:
And a couple of hilarious comparisons to a "Video game with bugs" and "Game development/programming":
Sources: here; here; here; and here Example 2 - Destiny 2: Destiny 2 has had a litany of issues in the past months, most notably because despite of all the hype, it just was a disappointing sequel. I know, I'm a D1 vet who slogged through three years of the first game, and yet found that the second game made it 'too easy for me to get stuff' that I had nothing else to do after three weeks. Still, the Destiny community is one of the most vocal ones - and yet - far too often, it sets a certain goal post that developers need to meet... or else.
On January 2018, the first communication arrived. And people still remained angry - (a) because the changes/improvements would take time and not happen instantly; (b) the changes/improvements should have been part of the game from the start; (c) the changes/improvements should not be given praise until we're back to the state of the first game. So yes - we went from wanting communication and answers and a clear plan... to suddenly not being happy that we received those.
Then as time went on, people felt there was a 'magic bullet' that would save the game - and this was, well, just making primary weapons kill faster. That was it. It's the great problem solver. This mentality spread throughout a huge portion of the community. When an update arrived that did give 'faster charging and faster zooming' - a lot of people became upset (even without trying it) - because they moved on from wanting that, and instead felt that 'the magic bullet of faster primary weapon kills' is the new answer.
So essentially - we had a game that was flawed (fact), and we had a community that wanted it to improve (fact) - but each and everytime a goal is achieved, that goal post is moved again and again; to the point that, well, you have a lot of disgruntled players who forgot what they wanted initially. Sources: here; here; and here. Example 3 - Total War: Thrones of Britannia: Last week, players found out that Ambushes would be removed from the next Total War game (a 'Saga' title which means it has a smaller scale than other bigger titles in the franchise). The community outrage was palpable because a lot of players felt that a feature was being taken out for a game; they needed answers - but could not wait until a community manager came back to work in a few days' time. When the representative did come back, he mentioned why ambushes were being removed:
But these explanations did not assuage the anger of some of the playerbase. Some notable replies included these gems:
Yes - so a portion of the playerbase wanted answers, and did not like those answers because they did not fit to their own gamer's concept of what the game should be, and thus it turned more into pestering the developer. Three examples in three different games. Gamers want some things; gamers are not able to accept those things, or want more/something else. As a gamer - where do you draw the line? Where is your middle ground? What is something that would lead you to accept what a video game is, and what a developer provides/communicates to you? At what point do you go - "Ahhh, cool, got what I wanted out of my purchase", versus "No, no, I need more; I demand more; this is not enough"? Do you feel that gamers in general need to be educated more about how game development works in order to have effective communication? Do you feel that developers should play a role in this, or should fellow gamers help inform others in the community? Thank you for reading and for joining the discussion. -- EL2 [link] [comments]  | |||||||||
| Posted: 05 Apr 2018 03:09 PM PDT Welcome to Fortnite PC, Here i will be posting all of my videos for links and such. check out my YT channel for more information. [link] [comments]  | |||||||||
| Let's Take a Moment to Appreciate How Smart Dunkey Is Posted: 05 Apr 2018 05:47 AM PDT Amidst the memes. perhaps overwhelming character. and silly for-fun gameplay videos of newer titles, I truly do feel that with or without that, Dunkey is still one of the best gaming related content creators out there, making surprisingly thought provoking videos. Even if people know this already, I can't help but feel the want to share my love for his ability to create strong, concise videos. The ones I will always come back to are his videos on Cuphead, Sonic Mania, and Ocarina of Time, his review to be specific. Between his ability to tell stories accentuating the empirical aspects of the game, like in his Cuphead and Sonic Mania videos, and his ability to meticulously craft a phrase into perfectly describing a game's aesthetic beauty like in Ocarina of Time, it's easy to forget how strong of a writer Dunkey is. Paired with his editing skills to manipulate clips in a concise, comical, and meaningful way, I feel he really proves a long time tenant of writing that shorter, trimmed down, quality writing is the reigning king. Especially where the diaspora on gaming is occasionally leading towards bloated, hour+ long exposes on why a game is overrated, or what have you. Dunkey proves his watchability thanks to his sub-ten-minutes bursts of genius. Of course, watch this videos again even if you have seen them already. My words can only do so much to demonstrate. What are some of your favorite Dunkey videos where he gets straight to the point? Edit: a word [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