True Gaming For those that have committed 200+ hours to a single game - what compelled you to play it for so long? |
- For those that have committed 200+ hours to a single game - what compelled you to play it for so long?
- La-Mulana 2, niche indies and reviews
- Paid early access for "free-to-play eventually" games. Yay or nay?
- Are microtransactions more common because it's a trend or is there some deeper reason?
- What do you think about sudden, surprising goal changes in games?
- What are some useful real world items that you would classify as video game role specific?
- Skyrim feels like the last big game
- Discussion: Are Cross Platform Purchases A Reckless Gimmick?
| Posted: 20 Aug 2018 12:25 PM PDT From what I gather, a lot of people on this subreddit are with less time to game compared to when they were younger (whether it be from a demanding job, being enrolled as a student, a significant other/children, or another reason). For this reason, I'm interested to hear what the last game was that you exceeded 200 hours in, how long ago this took place, and what captivated you to commit this much time to it. Was it last month? Last year? 5-10 years ago? Or have you never committed this much time to any single game? I picked 200 hours because I'm hopeful its enough time to make this a relatively uncommon event, which should facilitate interesting discussion. Another observation I've made in gaming in today's age is that it seems more common to play more games, with less time committed per game. Taking this approach to gaming would theoretically allow one to experience more games given less spare time, which I think is something people prioritize more these days (thus ensuring they played all the "great games" of our generation - and maybe even past generations as well). If this behavior is representative of most gamers here, I think it makes it that much more interesting to hear about what games captivated people to play them for so long. As for me: I exceeded my 200th hour in Battlefield One last month - a game that really blew away my expectations for how fun a multiplayer game can be. This is an uncommon feat for myself - the last game I exceeded 200 hours in would be Halo 3 back in 2010, which took place while I was still a teenager and had the free time to game for 20-30 hours a week. Since then, I've found it extremely hard to invest time into gaming, which is why I used to dabble in a lot of games that could be completed in less time. However, Battlefield One is the most fun I've had gaming in 8 years, and its made me realize that quantity over quality isn't always better. In the past, I felt like I had to play all the games I'd missed out on playing from being too busy - I'd even make lists that I'd work through. I used to avoid multiplayer games for this reason (and also because I felt like I'd "been there, done that" by having played 1-2 titles in most popular FPS series, such as Battlefield and Call of Duty). At some point, I recognized what I was doing felt more like a chore - I felt obligated to finish every title on my list. In contrast, I'm having so much fun playing Battlefield One, I don't think I'll stop anytime soon - I don't really mind putting my limited free time for gaming into only one game given how much fun I'm having with it. Not feeling obligated to finish as many games as I possibly can is such a nice burden to be rid of. Of course, this is just my experience: I'm hoping others will have interesting stories to share! [link] [comments]  |
| La-Mulana 2, niche indies and reviews Posted: 20 Aug 2018 10:07 AM PDT This is in parts a response to the cluster of games journalism topics we had in the last weeks. The focus of these was on how journalists review AAA games, and how graphics and price politics of the publisher interact with the journalist. However I've been seeing a completely different side of games journalism. Namely what gets ignored. So, La-Mulana 2 is out for 3 weeks now and has gotten a grand total of 6 reviews on metacritic. Which is kinda to be expected because it's as niche as you can get as a game. It was the same for Hollow Knight for example, it took almost two months until it got a few more reviews. Reviewers are people too. But the reviews it has are terrible. Four of those six aren't even in English, and one of the remaining ones has no bloody clue what the game is about. And with that I still have to be glad that the game got enough attention to be assigned a metacritic score. This is a recurring theme. Look at the metacritic page of The Cat Lady. 11 reviews, 4 Italian, 2 Greek, 2 German, 1 French, 1 Polish. The one English language review is done by a Belgian guy for gamespot. Or Ghost 1.0: 7 reviews. 3 Italian, 1 Spanish, 1 Czech, 1 Russian, 1 English. Other games can amass a cult following and still be ignored. Zachtronics, the guy who invented the Minecraft engine, is an underground hit since SpaceChem. Since then his games have been almost aggressively ignored:
And note: these are all good games with review scores higher than No Man's Sky. Even games of known publishers fall victim to this if they dare to make a game that goes against established setting conventions. In 2011 Double Fine published Costume Quest, an RPG about kids on Halloween. It has 2 metacritic reviews. A year later they published Stacking, a fine little gem about puzzle solving by playing matryoshka dolls. 9 reviews, 7 of them European. The quintessence is: Whatever problems AAA games journalism has pales in comparison to indie journalism. If you are either not American, or your game caters to a niche, or even dares to try something new, prepare to be forgotten and ignored by the US publications. I'd chalk it up to market forces not rewarding these reviews, but that doesn't explain the coverage of European publications. I personally think this is a shame. English is the lingua franca of the internet, but if you want to read about under the radar video games Italian seems to be your best choice. I invite the commenters to check this trend with their lesser known games. Also paging u/RagingDiedMe, the author of the last gaming journalism post. [link] [comments]  |
| Paid early access for "free-to-play eventually" games. Yay or nay? Posted: 20 Aug 2018 04:10 AM PDT I recently sent over some news to r/pcgaming regarding Dying Light's battle royale spinoff being out on Steam's early access next month. While the discussion was fairly tame, I did notice a couple of replies along the lines of:
Now, given that r/truegaming does have some really interesting and serious conversations, I wondered what you folks thought about the matter. Is paid early access for games that would eventually become free-to-play still okay, or is it a bad thing? For reference, I'm in my mid-30s and I own a couple of small stalls. Yay for small business enterprises! I've also been playing games for 3 decades now. And so part of me always likes it when games have freebies -- this part of me is the "gamer" or "consumer," always focusing on the freebies I'd get and less costs or the need to purchase. The other part of me is the businessman. Even though I only own a small business, I've also worked in other corporations and in the government in the past. This part of me "the business guy" also understands the need to find an influx of capital and cash. This part of me knows that plans need to be made to ensure that the business remains afloat and is profitable. And so in a particular case of early access games with a price tag (but with these games eventually becoming free-to-play later on) it's something I'm okay with. There are necessities to make those business decisions. What about you guys? [link] [comments]  |
| Are microtransactions more common because it's a trend or is there some deeper reason? Posted: 20 Aug 2018 12:13 PM PDT I was watching a video for a game that's coming out soon and the uploader mentioned that microtransactions will be available on top of the "already $60 game." This got me thinking, are microtransactions a trend that developers know portions of the userbase will buy into, or could it also be because the stagnant $60 AAA price doesn't give game devs enough money? On the latter point, I was thinking that maybe inflation would be an issue; why have games stayed at $60 since what feels like forever? Should that price have changed with the times? Are games more expensive to develop now, but pushback to a "standard price increase" encourages developers to find new ways to earn money? Just a thought, I have pretty basic knowledge of games so if someone out there is more knowledgeable I'd like to hear your points. [link] [comments]  |
| What do you think about sudden, surprising goal changes in games? Posted: 20 Aug 2018 11:40 AM PDT What do you think about games who push you to a certain destination with a specific task and for one time suddenly something surprising happens and the whole initial situation changes. Now you're facing a completely different goal. Sometimes the previous goal vanishes and sometimes it's just delayed. Here's an example: [Spoiler for the new God of War] In God of War (PS4) you're about to visit Jotunheim, the requirement is a special chisel you need to replicate the rune to Jotunheim. After that long quest you're about to create the rune in tyrs temple, where suddenly Modi one of Thors son's is ambushing you, in the end you're son is inflicted by a disease and while you were preparing for the journey to jotunheim all the time, you suddenly get completely throwed out of your course of action. For the next hours your goal is to travel to helheim the land of the dead and finding a cure for your ill son. The special thing about such scenes is that the player is getting told from the start what they will do in the next hours, what their destinations will be, such surprising events can completely subvert your expectations which is positive in my opinion so the pacing and course of the game is less predictable. At the other hand, sometimes it can really caught you off guard especially when such scenes have no point of return for a while. In case of God of War I was prepared to do sidequests next, but the sudden circumstances won't allow me that, it's fine but in such scenes i'm not longer in control of the game pace. Another more light example is the Mega Man X franchise, in later games while you are facing Mavericks at some point (to be honest always at the half) you're getting warped to a different stage and an different boss, without warning, some Intruder is attacking you or something other signifiant has happend. So now you're forced to do this "intermission" level before proceding the game. Most of the times these levels are rather short, but it leads to a slightly bit more game time and content than you initial thought. Edit: One example for games who have no (sudden) goal changes at all are mostly Bioware RPG's. For example games like Mass Effect or Dragon Age do never change or break up there structures. Their favourite progression structure is one clear goal and several arcs which you have to clear in a free to choose order to proceed further in the game (in the newer entries it's mostly the entire game, like gather all folks together and then beat the bad guys with combined forces) Are you fine with sudden goal changes? Or are they pissing you off because you have to change your mindset from one time after another. Someone could say It's like working on a project and suddenly your superior comes to you and is forcing you to work on a completetly other ongoing project. It requires some adaption and can be demotivating because you're your previous goal not one single step closer. [link] [comments]  |
| What are some useful real world items that you would classify as video game role specific? Posted: 20 Aug 2018 01:25 PM PDT Bit of a weird question, but I'm getting married soon and I'm putting together some survival kits as part of their gift boxes for my groomsmen, and my theme of the gifts are going to be based on video game classes. My best man will be my support class, second will be my tank, and third will be my dps. My best man as support class will have things like some bandaids, antihistamines, asprin, and stuff to keep me alive. As for the other two, I haven't got any ideas. Thanks heaps~ [link] [comments]  |
| Skyrim feels like the last big game Posted: 20 Aug 2018 12:35 PM PDT And I know it's been what, 7ish years since it came out, but it still feels like the most recent 'big game' that everyone still wants to talk about (other than possibly Witcher 3). There's been a whole lot of games since, of course, but none of them seem to have kept any part of the spotlight for very long afterwards. A year to a year and a half later, and there's no general sense of BotW or Mario Odyssey outside respective subreddits. Same generally for competitive games (Overwatch, Dota/League) - sure there's a minor blip of awareness from the general gaming public when a new hero is announced, but otherwise you go to said subreddit if you want that game. [link] [comments]  |
| Discussion: Are Cross Platform Purchases A Reckless Gimmick? Posted: 20 Aug 2018 07:25 AM PDT Hey All. Looking back on my recent catalog, I noticed that I've acquired a large number of Cross Platform Digital Purchases on PS4 and Vita. First and foremost, do you guys think they Are a good investment? A lot of the games I'd want to play are indie titles that are available on the PS store at this time, many of which also won't be available physically for a while. I've been considering, if I stick with PlayStation as my main gaming system over PC, that I should try getting as many physical copies of indies that I can for my PS4/ Vita, so that if I end up getting tired of them I'd have the option to resell them. However, the flip side is that I'd be limiting myself to a single platform for these games when most digital indies allow for two. With these factors In mind I can't help but think, Is there a chance my digital purchases for indie games could carry over to next gen? Or, to raise another point, Is it even a good idea for me to purchase digital copies of games if they'll be trapped to only one home console (and possibly carry over to my portable console as well)? Or am I just being reckless and should stick with AAA's for Playstation and keep my indie purchases separate for laptop gaming? What are your feelings on this? [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