True Gaming Any examples of DLC that was just as good, if not better, than the main game? What makes them that way? |
- Any examples of DLC that was just as good, if not better, than the main game? What makes them that way?
- Let's Discuss Sexuality in Games. Is There Room for Burlesque Games in the West?
- What are the most unique or just downright strange game concepts you've played or heard of?
- What are some games that have best dealt with a class and skill system, and why?
- Am I the only who thinks karma based decisions railroad players into specific choices?
- I'm having some trouble finding a legitimate good FPS experience.
- Capcom and evolving design part 1: Megaman
- Series feature accumulation: how does it affect development, and/or how does development affect it? (Pokémon vs. Mario Kart as examples)
- Looking for a recommendation with excellent fusion of story and gameplay
- Controversial opinion : Negativity help gaming and benefit players.
- For those of you who have cut out violent video games, have you noticed any mood improvements or lessening of depression?
- Tell me, what do you love in video games? What makes you play them?
| Posted: 27 Jun 2018 07:34 AM PDT In my estimation, DLC can be extremely hit and miss, with far more failures than successes. Despite this, there are some times where dlc is so well made that it is just as good, if not better than the main game. Here are some examples that come to mind The Borderlands 2 DLC Suite: To me, every borderlands game has had great dlc, with BL2 having the best suite of the series. The clear standout is Tiny Tina's D&D inspired chapter, but all pieces of DLC are pretty great. I think BL2s DLC works because it plays off the strength of the game by doubling down on enemy variety and showing the prowess of the artstyle. Minerva's Den - Bioshock 2: To me, this is the greatest piece of DLC ever made. A sort of mini-campaign, this dlc puts you in the shoes of an entirely new character. Although Bioshock 2 is one of my favorite games of all time, Minerva's Den outshines it in nearly every aspect. It has a tighter more interesting story, more challenging gameplay, and more interesting level design. On top of that many new mechanics are added to tweak the formula just enough to feel fresh. Mass Effect 3's DLC Suite: I think ME3's dlc is the best example I can think of where a DLC helps to elevate the base game. From both a narrative perspective, as well as a game play one, ME3s DLC adds depth and much needed quiet moment. It is this reason why I feel like when taken as a whole, I have no issues with ME3s direction or story. [link] [comments]  |
| Let's Discuss Sexuality in Games. Is There Room for Burlesque Games in the West? Posted: 27 Jun 2018 07:10 AM PDT My friend and I ended up getting into a deep discussion about sex in video games. He seemed to have 2 complaints: In the west, there doesn't seem to room for burlesque anymore--light-hearted sex comedy. A lot western media is either hyper-sexual or sterilized. Porn or toothless. Also, he perceives a sort of classist overtone. People seem to default to the notion that having de-sexualized characters in your game is inherently a good thing. That works containing sex and nudity outside of a dramatic context are automatically for imbeciles and we're too good for that sort of thing. I tended to disagree. I compartmentalize. I want my humor funny and my sex to be sexy. It doesn't mean that I look down on people who do enjoy a mixture of both, it's just not my preference. Though, I did enjoy Sword Art Online, even with it's completely out-of-place, tonally wierd t&a shots. And speaking of anime, there is still a fair bit of burlesque in Japanese games. The recent controversy over Omega Labyrinth Z and other h-game titles show that there is still an audience for this sort of thing. I'm not talking about porn games, either. These are puzzlers and other game types with sexual elements and a heavy dose of comedy injected into them. TL:DR Where do you stand? Is there room for burlesque in Western games? Do we like our light-hearted sex comedy? If you want to mention your country of origin in your response, I think we could get a rough sampling of differing opinions. I am from the northeastern United States. If you want to hear the discussion that inspired this question, you can check out our video below: [link] [comments]  |
| What are the most unique or just downright strange game concepts you've played or heard of? Posted: 26 Jun 2018 09:21 PM PDT By that, I guess I mean something that might be difficult to classify genre-wise, not necessarily just a weird story or gameplay mechanics. [link] [comments]  |
| What are some games that have best dealt with a class and skill system, and why? Posted: 27 Jun 2018 12:42 PM PDT Talking more about single player games, which, in your opinion, have found great ways to implement both class and skill systems, while still maintaining freedom and fun for the player? [link] [comments]  |
| Am I the only who thinks karma based decisions railroad players into specific choices? Posted: 27 Jun 2018 02:38 PM PDT I know people would argue that's the point in some way, but I've never felt karma or good/bad decisions in gaming to be organic at all. They feel presumptuous in a way. Why is it so hard for game developers to integrate choice properly without forcing you to choose between one of two options? [link] [comments]  |
| I'm having some trouble finding a legitimate good FPS experience. Posted: 27 Jun 2018 03:31 PM PDT Now listen, I genuinely accept when I am bad at something, or when I lose. I do not have an ego for that type of thing. However, I am consistently having a problem finding any singular good FPS game that doesn't have some goddamn game-breaking aspect to it or atleast some balanced aspects. An example, CS:GO. I've played that forever, and now it's completely prevalent how broken it can be and unfair it can be. It's pissing me off beyond repair at this point. Siege, I've tried it but it just doesn't seem fun. And I've heard numerous reports of hitbox issues (no idea how true they are). Quake Champions got my hopes up, until I realized their hit registration is atrocious. Same with PUBG. Is this issue of hit registration prevalent through a lot of modern FPS games, at least it's beginning to feel like so. Why isn't something like this a number one priority for development to at least make sure it isn't too noticeable when there's a mistake. Am I the only one experiencing this issue? [link] [comments]  |
| Capcom and evolving design part 1: Megaman Posted: 27 Jun 2018 09:26 AM PDT This is a repost from r/gamesociety because I was unaware of this sub being a place for discussion. I wrote this as a rough piece on Capcom, inspired by Devil May Cry 5. I intend to make a proper article or video series about it once finished but I thought it might be fun to share the first part before I go any further. The main point is illustrated in this part, while I intend to go in depth on each individual series one by one later, with Megaman as a whole the focus this time. There was a time in my life when Capcom was a mark of difficult but amazing games. They might just be able to stand against Nintendo for most memorable franchises by a single developer of my childhood. Sony and Microsoft had plenty of their own hit franchises but not in the way these two giants did. They have 3rd party exclusives but few in-house classics. Nintendo has Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid, Star Fox ect. Capcom never made their own console but has a lineup that stands tall against the all star cast of Nintendo (though many were from the arcade cabinet days and were designed with this in mind). Ghosts and Goblins, Street Fighter, Megaman, Resident Evil, Devil May Cry, Onimusha etc. All legendary in their own right. It also interested me how they would evolve their franchises. Megaman was dated and rather bare bones by the time 6 released. So rather than make a sequel that was a drastic departure they made a sequel series that drew on both the story and gameplay to make a larger scale, complex platformer in Megaman X. It had more complex levels, a new and advanced look to fit the story, advanced mechanics and extras like the armor capsules and Hadouken. Smart design had the game teach you the mechanics yourself through the first level with the new multi level charge shot and wall jumps. Others have covered this in depth so I will move on. As time went on Megaman X started flagging as a property and the decision was made to return to an old idea for the first. The character of Zero, beloved by fans for his long hair, red armor and signature Z saber, was intended to be the protagonist of X. It was decided that his design (which lacked his Z saber at the time) was too drastic a change and so the character of X was created and the story as we know it happened. The decision was made to give Zero his own series after being the playable dueteragonist for several games, which had each refined his play style. So we got Megaman Zero for GBA. A return to the punishing difficulty of the classic Era, while being a streamlined and faster paced successor to X. It again built upon the story and world by way of a time skip which serves as an easy explanation for the art shift. Unlike the previous series though, Zero was given a definitive ending. It was ambiguous as to the outcome but it was the definitive end. So they decided to reinvent the wheel one more time. Enter Megaman ZX. It drew heavily on the style and gameplay of the Zero series but the early game was a deliberate throwback to the X series. Leading to the fusion of both protagonists in a form that ultimately just felt like Zero. So they decided to one up X by allowing you to take on a hybrid form as well as abilities of your enemies. The sequel threw in a throwback to Axl, the tritagonist of the later X games. The story also advanced to match the new gameplay mechanics and blurred the lines between human and machine, something that had been a theme since classic. Then we get to the spin offs. Rather than just slap a character into a spin off so it will sell like Mario or Sonic, Capcom decided to build entire stories around alternate versions of the character. For a company that doesn't care much about plot I have to commend how much world building went into every Megaman series. The classic to ZX line built on each other while Legends and Battle Network took a different route, both of which had much more fleshed out characters and worlds. Both would eventually be turned into full series of their own, with Battle Network leading into Star Force similar to the transition from Classic to X. While Legends unfortunately died after its second entry, in spite of attempts to bring it back for 3. Rather than drive the series into the ground the continually tried to reinvent it, with the story being reinvented to match. We never got all the answers but speculation is often more satisfying than the real answers once revealed. Another series was reinvented even further. Resident Evil and its children Onimusha and Devil May Cry. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 26 Jun 2018 06:15 PM PDT (The core questions are at the end of this post in bold) Game Freak's tendency to throw away well-loved features between Pokémon games is an infamous source of exasperation to their fans, me included. Whether it is a solid, almost infinitely playable postgame like the Battle Frontier, a competent online battling system like the PSS, deep side activities like Contests, core battling styles like Triple and Rotation Battles, or minor additions for flavor like your lead following you, you can almost bet that if you really like a nice feature in a Pokémon beyond single battles, trading, and breeding, it will be gone the next game. I've been trying to look for reasons as to why Game Freak does this, and the first thing I looked at is development history. As you may know, the time between main series installments#Summary_of_main_series_titles) alternates between biennial and annual. Because of this relatively short time between releases, I really had to wonder: is the reason behind Game Freak's seeming lack of foresight in regards to features due to the inability to implement them because of the short amount of time? Surely, a lot of that time has to be spent designing, coding, and implementing new Pokémon and moves alike, with little time left for keeping features in. So, I decided to compare Pokémon's release schedule to that of another popular Nintendo series: Mario Kart. Mario Kart releases at a fairly constant three years between each installment with a strict limit of one per console (we'll have to see if the Switch gets its own true installment after the 8 Deluxe port). But the amount of well-loved features that the series has accumulated over the years is quite impressive. In Mario Kart 8 alone we have:
8 Deluxe later adds a few more on top of that:
Needless to say, Mario Kart in its current form is quite robust. So while Pokémon has a major problem keeping things that fans love with its space of 1-2 years between each major installment, Mario Kart just keeps growing its array of features with its consistent 3 year space between each installment. The contrast between these two series has made me curious about how different series can accumulate features. So I have to ask several questions:
(EDIT: Had to correct due to new Reddit's glitchiness) [link] [comments]  |
| Looking for a recommendation with excellent fusion of story and gameplay Posted: 27 Jun 2018 08:30 AM PDT I've found myself coming to realise the main reason I play games is for their story, but of course the gameplay is what makes it stand out from a film or a book. With less time on my hands, I'm looking for some more story-rich games to play that aren't simply interactive films (a la Telltale), but also don't sacrifice story for the gameplay (unless the gameplay is absolutely phenomenal, a la Dark Souls). The chief example of a game I believe fits this mold (and that I've thoroughly enjoyed) is Bioshock Infinite. The story is intriguing, excellently paced, and the gameplay is a hoot. The Last of Us and SOMA are other examples that spring to mind. But any recommendation needn't necessarily be restricted to this kind of story-rich first-person-shooter-esque game style. For example, Transistor is a game I think fits this balance of story and gameplay very well, and is quite stylistically distinct from my previous mentions. Opinions of these aforementioned games aside, I'm simply looking for a game with an excellent story coupled alongside engaging gameplay. Any and all recommendations will be welcomed! (Any fantasy recommendations get extra points; I find it very difficult to find an engaging fantasy game that isn't the classic 30+ hour lore-intensive RPG) [link] [comments]  |
| Controversial opinion : Negativity help gaming and benefit players. Posted: 27 Jun 2018 09:53 AM PDT I just read a thread about what people thought of the gaming community on reddit. The top answers were mostly that the negativity was insufferable, even calling it hate (toward publishers/games). I tend to think the opposite, I think negativity is great for gaming and benefit gamers vastly. Let me explain. What you call hate, I call heated criticism. What you call negativity, I call extreme criticism. Extreme criticism is always healthy and unless someone could provide meaningfull exemples to me, it has never hurt gaming in any way. - When people are extremly critic or overly negative toward Sony practices regarding cross-play, it makes them notice. It's an important subject and generalized cross-play might become a thing because of the vast "outrage" and what some of you call "hate". - When people voice their opinons in the loudest way because of EA pay-to-win practices, it makes them notice and look at what happened during the E3, they had to tweak their strategy. It wasn't because some cool lad sent them a fine letter with perfum about his fair criticism, it was because people on social medias reacted really bad to their practices and their marketing departments were literally on fire (I know someone who works there). Sure, it's EA, they'll find other ways to screw you, but it's still something. - When Microsoft thought they could force you to have a kinect looking at your private space all the time in order to play their Xbox, the backlash was immediate and they're still paying for it. I follow gaming trends for a while now and each time something did change - for the better - in the industry, it was because players were extremely critic and did voiced their opinion in the most loudest way. If you're not critic enough **and** if you're not loud enough, this industry will mostly never listen to you, unless you can organize a vast boycott and hurt their wallet, which rarely happen. People often just suck it up and big publishers knows it perfectly. Being vocal is important because those companies throw billions to perfect their image. It doesn't matter if it's just a "vocal minority", it's a stupid argument. It's not because you're a minority to say it loudly than the vast majority doesn't agree with you. There is one publishers immune to that and it's Nintendo. Because of a mix of nostalgia, an overly defensive fanbase and their - fake - children-friendly image, it's almost impossible to criticize them on internet. Just try to do it on reddit, you'll get dogpilled, downvoted to hell and your criticism will fall in irrevelancy. It's hard to criticize Nintendo and we could go on and on about their awful practices and how slow they are to change. People tend to point at the fact that their a japanese company (which is kind of racist I guess ?), but I tend to believe it's because you can't really criticize them like you can criticize Sony/Microsoft/EA/etc. **I think the problem isn't criticism or negativity in themselves, I think it has more to do with the fact that players just hate when the negativity or criticism hit their favourite company/game.** While negativity and extreme criticism have never hurt gaming, I think over-praising games and being defensive toward your favourite publishers is a big problem. Over-praising make people buy games blindly because of hype, it prevents healthy discussions around release because people are vastly defensive toward the 60$ they spend on a game, it favors circle-jerking because people like to buy the "us vs them" narrative, it helps publishers to milk their fanbase because they're not critic enough, etc. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 26 Jun 2018 07:31 PM PDT My depression has come back a bit lately, nothing too bad, but still annoying. I realized that FPS games and other violent games really don't give me any reason to play them, and yet it's still what I find myself playing the majority of the time. Has anyone who used to play a lot of violent games (think Halo, Day of Infamy, Fallout 4, Etc.) had their mood improve drastically after switching to games like Planet Coaster (a fantastic game I recommend to anyone), Stardew Valley (the Steam review page vouches for this game more than I ever could), The Sims, and tycoon/simulation type games? [link] [comments]  |
| Tell me, what do you love in video games? What makes you play them? Posted: 26 Jun 2018 05:33 PM PDT For me, well, this may seem a tad of an overexagerration, but I've always seen us as modern-day gladiators. It's why I, personally, never cared much for racism or sexism, as these are arenas where it is those who truly deserve the victory win, but here, loss is not the end, it is merely the beginning, a chance for us to see where we must improve, every victory a chance to reflect on what we have accomplished, on how far we have come. It's a battleground where anyone and everyone can compete, and skill becomes easily apparent the moment you enter that arena. For 14 years, a mere four years from it being my entire lifetime as of yet, I have also gleamed many lessons from gaming. Don't let anyone tell you gaming can't teach you much, as almost any game can help you learn so many things; to never give up, to keep trying and trying, to stand in the face adversity, even in the hardest challenge. Games that employ co-op mechanics teach you about teamwork, that, in the face of challenges that must be defeated by cooperation, the best way you can endure them is by finding that middle ground, the place where you and the other can cover eachothers' weaknesses, and compliment eachothers' strengths. Hell, even video games all about numbers can teach you a helluva lot about math, and some games based on history can teach you a portion of actual history (though I obviously recommend ensuring that you still learn at least partially from tried and true sources, or in other words, stay in school, kids). So, tell me, what is it that games offer that make you play them? Are there any deep reasons you enjoy them? Do they bring any fond memories to you? Feel free to add your reason. [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