True Gaming God of War's approach to the Waypoint Compass |
- God of War's approach to the Waypoint Compass
- Gaming personalities over-emphasizing their fandom. Necessary? Good or bad for the community and the future?
- What's your biggest pet peeve in a game?
- Why aren't there more games with 1st person and 3rd person options?
- I love/hate Hireable NPCs in Video Games
- Opinion: RPG should be defined as a game with meaningful choices
- Do i need to agree to software games eula if im from philippines?
- The "single take" camera in God of War
- A more methodological approach to getting gud in (multiplayer) games.
| God of War's approach to the Waypoint Compass Posted: 07 May 2018 02:17 PM PDT I can't recall another game that held off on introducing it for so long. It took me about 3 hours to get to the NPC that gives it to you. Upon reflection I greatly appreciate this design choice because it gives players time to navigate the world in the early game without relying on it. They also carefully timed it with the world becoming less linear and opening up a bit in the following section. However having gotten used to exploration I opted to keep the compass toggled off and had no problems finding where i needed to go. With games looking as beautiful as they are now it's a shame when the Waypoint Compass draws our eyes and keeps players from immersing themselves in the artwork on display all around them. Have any other games put off enabling the compass this way? And can bigger open worlds benefit from this too, or is it only possible for a semi open world like God of War? TL;DR this clip sums up my feelings on the matter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IleDJvtm2g0 [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 07 May 2018 06:12 AM PDT I was watching a Q & A video with Karak from the YouTube channel ACG, and he was talking about how much he gets asked about why he's not suffering burn-out, and how many other public-facing people talk to him about getting tired of always being "on" for the public. His comment on this was that he was just this way all the time so he never put on a different personality for the camera. Which connected with some other stuff I've been thinking about, specifically how a lot of "gaming personalities" (I'd include here anyone that appears regularly on Youtube, Twitch, or their own media outlet) tend to over-exaggerate how much of a fan they are, and how they are a "real gamer". I wonder if it's necessary, does this make the content more compelling, or does it set unrealistic expectations of how dedicated to gaming you need to be, and how excited you should feel by everything gaming related? Now to be clear, this is NOT any kind of witch-hunting topic, and all of the people I mention are personalities that I like to at least some degree, certainly more than people I'm not naming, These are all people I'm going to go back to at some point for more content. But I think examples help:
Obviously this isn't exclusive to games. Youtube movie critic Chris Stuckmann is infamous for always starting a review of any franchise movie by saying he grew up with it and was a massive fan as a kid, and is a long-time fan today. This extended to his review of the racial drama Get Out by saying that he grew up around some black people, showing a picture as proof, and saying that he's been a big fan of racial equality for a long time. Re-reading this, I didn't think it would be this long, and again my intent is certainly not to try to tear down people's "gamer cred" or call them phonies. My concern is more with maybe that our idea of a gamer or passionate gamer is not realistic, and these people have to present themselves to the public as being more excited and passionate than they actually are. Is it really good for video gaming at large to present this image of always being hyped up for the brand new thing? Currently, are 100% of the people in gaming media really playing through the new God of War and enjoying it thoroughly? What would happen if someone just said on the record that they weren't into it, or didn't think it was worth their time or that they might get to it in a year or two? [link] [comments]  |
| What's your biggest pet peeve in a game? Posted: 07 May 2018 02:30 PM PDT For me, it has to be reload animations. Specifically how reloading in many games takes precedence over everything. I've been shot full of holes and desperately need to heal because a single cough from a mouse could kill me? Better reload first though, unskippable animation awa-oh damn game over you died. Was just playing Metro: Last Light Redux, desperately trying to put a lamp off before someone sees me...however the button to do that is the same as the reload button, so you can guess what happened. What's your biggest pet peeve in a game? Specifically in a game, not about gaming in general. [link] [comments]  |
| Why aren't there more games with 1st person and 3rd person options? Posted: 07 May 2018 12:49 PM PDT I know it might be difficult and in some games it might seem like an unfair advantage to have the 3rd person camera view but with customization of characters and gear, why not give us the option of playing in 3rd person so we can actually see what we look like? The only way I get to see what I look like in Far Cry 5 is if I die or look at wanted posters. They just added masks to the game but why would I want to buy? So my buddies can see it in multiplayer? In Destiny you are in 3rd person at the tower or when wielding a sword. I earned the gear and I pick what my character looks like because I think it looks cool. Some of that gear is extremely hard to get too! Let me see it more! Battlefront and GTA have the options, if I want to play in 3rd person then let me! [link] [comments]  |
| I love/hate Hireable NPCs in Video Games Posted: 07 May 2018 06:39 AM PDT I do have a question of what you guys think about videogame NPCs. Are they useful? Do you usually hire one in games like Skyrim, Fallout, or Far Cry? I always did in Skyrim because I just wanted someone to carry all my crap. I've enjoyed having companion NPCs, but it just happens over and over in Bethesda games that they just get lost and show up at some random time when I needed an item they were carrying. However, I always liked having extra firepower at the beginning of the game. It tends to make beginning sections much easier, but I couldn't help but feeling like I should probably avoid them if I wanted the 'true' gaming experience. Far Cry 5 companions have been a bit better, but don't seem to have a whole ton of personality. I did like Fallout 4's mechanics where you can really become close with the companion over time. That's probably the only time I felt like I was gaining a true relationship with somebody like Piper. I accidentally ran over my Far Cry 5 NPC Cliff Edwards, and decided to make a video about all the great things he did (or not). Framed it like he was leaving me for another player. Any feedback or suggestions you have would be great. And subscribe if you enjoy! I had a good time making it, and would like help improving. [link] [comments]  |
| Opinion: RPG should be defined as a game with meaningful choices Posted: 07 May 2018 09:57 AM PDT Hello. In this post i would like to share my opinion on RPGs, or how i think we should define RPGs. I hope that you will share your opinion and critique mine. Skyrim is a pretty well known game, even among "casual" gamers. It has great reviews and i think few people consider it a bad game. I find Skyrim's leveling system addicting. However, i do not like calling Skyrim an RPG. Think about your dialogue choices in Skyrim. How many times did you feel that you directly impacted the world? The speech tree in Skyrim is useless for speech itself, and is only valuable for the money traits you can get. The game even allows you to be member of every guild without any conflict, which feels really weird. I think that games that just because a game has stats and classes is should NOT be considered an RPG. The players ability to impact the story/world should be the main factor in defining an RPG, and by impacting the story i don't mean just the freedom to kill all the NPCs. So what i am trying to say is: There needs to be specific terms for RPGs that have dialogue choices that can meaningfully impact the story and the world of the game, and games that are just fantasy. Example: World of Warcraft should not be considered an RPG. I hope that this posts do not sound like i am trying to crap on people who do not enjoy games the way i do. It's just that i love the dialogue system in New Vegas, being able to talk your way out of entire quests and boss fights! We need more of this. I know subreddits like gamingcirclejerk joke about New Vegas. I just don't want this kind of RPGs to die :) [link] [comments]  |
| Do i need to agree to software games eula if im from philippines? Posted: 07 May 2018 08:09 AM PDT Do i or i just can ignored it and what if i bought an software or games from ph? do i need to agree to eula? [link] [comments]  |
| The "single take" camera in God of War Posted: 07 May 2018 05:07 AM PDT can someone like actually explain to me what's supposed to be so impressive about this? I have not played the game since I don't have a PS4 but I see all these articles https://www.polygon.com/2018/4/23/17263016/god-of-war-playstation-4-camera-single-shot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_RpwPcfhB8 and this video talking how impressive it is the game has no "cuts", and I'm sorry but this just sounds absolute bullshit to me. It's just a really pretentious, wannabe filmmaker way of saying our game doesn't have loading screens. When Half Life 2 came out, did the devs say yeah our game is "single shot" since the camera is always from Gordon's perspective from the beginning to the end. No they didn't, because it's a game. Games don't have "shots". Does someone actually play games like this? Do you play a level of Call of Duty and think "wow, it was so amazing how this level was presented in one single take, like in a movie", because no shit it's unbroken, it's gameplay. like am I crazy but does this Polygon article just sound insane and obvious?
that is... literally every game ever? why do they make such a big deal out of it. pretty much every 3rd and 1st person game you play the camera is from the protagonists perspective. yeah God of War might not have a single "cut" in the game but all these articles make it sound like the games camera did something revolutionary just by not having loading screens. I wouldn't even care about any of this if the title of the article was "God of War doesn't have loading screens", I just think the idea of games having "shots" like movies/tv is ridiculous. Games shouldn't use the vocabulary of film since they're two different mediums. [link] [comments]  |
| A more methodological approach to getting gud in (multiplayer) games. Posted: 06 May 2018 06:02 PM PDT EDIT: Playing vs bots is not the best way to learn, if you're really terrible in normal games, this could be an alternative play without the feeling of being helpless and always on the bottom of the leaderboard. Playing vs better players is the way to go. A lot of times I see in MP forums people asking if they should play competitive once they reach the requirement. Most top answers say that you should just go straight on and you'll get whatever rank you deserve and work from that. I completely disagree with this kind of learning. I think that if you truly want to get better you should wait a bit and learn the game's workings before going comp. In most games I play, I prefer a more standard, slower type of learning (RPGs or linear games I can't really do that and don't need to). This is how it will look like roughly: I start by playing the tutorial and mastering the basic mechanics. Then I go to a practice range or a sandbox mode (if there is) where I experiment with every variable to see how the game's systems interact with each other. After that I select a game of bots with medium difficulty (with also mixing a normal game here and there). Whether I get stomped or breeze through, I choose the next appropriate difficulty and do it until I beat the hardest setting the game offers. After that I play unranked and if I feel prepared to up the challenge I finally arrive to competitive. And most likely I get an average or above average rank. I try to absorb as much of the game's content there is, tutorials, guides, pro twitch streams, etc. Let's get an example (A). You play Overwatch for the first time and you learn how most characters work at a basic level. You go to competitive after hitting the required level 25 and get the rank, Bronze, the lowest division. You don't have terrible aim but you still have no idea how most of the game works, don't know all the map's intricacies and the game just loaded a map you've never seen, still don't know how that 2 or 3 heroes work, you know you need to capture the point or push the payload to win, so you go and do it and still die almost every time. After a lot of practice you're still stuck, why? Because you're playing with people who also play bad. You only improve by playing against better players and learning from mistakes. So you get punished and rightfully so for not taking it easy and making a huge effort just to get an average rank where a person who's more patient and deliberate will likely get it in equal or even less time. Other side of the example (B). You play OW for the first time and hit level 25. You feel like there's still a ton of stuff to learn. You already played in the highest difficulty with bots and you are competent enough to beat them. Good. What's the next step? Learning everything, which is not really possible since pros too learn something every day though on a much more micro scale. I mean by going into custom game and loading every single map and explore the shit out of them, the layouts, the health packs and the objective. Play at least 10 games on every hero to see how they interact with each other. Practice the aim, lower sensitivity and play mccree/genji/pharah/tracer on harmless bots. If you're good or really like a specific character play them on deathmatch all the time since it's a useful tool for learning combat dynamics. Meanwhile that you can read about the game, the game's subreddit/forums, guides, twitch, POV reviews, community interaction and maybe some funny moments montages because the games are ultimately for fun. After doing all that for a reasonable amount of time, say 50 hours (for a MP game that is very little) you feel ready to go competitive and finally get the rank, Gold or Platinum, realistically. And there you go, you saved a huge potential hassle of wasting time on lower ranks and get a nice starting ground. It will feel easier to improve on mid ranks since people probably have decent aim already and a general feel for the game. Of course this doesn't apply to everyone, some people will very quickly learn the game and get a high rank without much time invested, others, like most people including me aren't that good in FPS games and will take a huge amount of time to get a decent rank, that's life. What do you think, do you agree or what I'm saying is crazy because it's just a game and you just play it, don't make a huge plan or strategy out of it? [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