Unlabelled True Gaming "Would you have still enjoyed The Witcher 3 if it didn't have a main quest?"

8/20/2018 05:48:00 am
A+ A- Print Email

True Gaming "Would you have still enjoyed The Witcher 3 if it didn't have a main quest?"

"Would you have still enjoyed The Witcher 3 if it didn't have a main quest?"

Posted: 19 Aug 2018 04:49 AM PDT

I think it goes without saying that The Witcher 3's side guests are what the gaming industry should strive for: fascinating, well-written, adding to the lore and comprehension of the world, etc.

There's a ridiculous difference between: "Oh my son is sick, can you go grab me 10 Aloe plant please?" and "So there's a beast in town, can you kill it please? Oh and by the way there's another guy trying to kill it too so you better hurry. Oh and that guy is only trying to kill it so he can get information out of me, and once you're done he's gonna kill me and if you want to know why you have to keep doing this side quest."

Which makes me think, do you guys think it would be possible to design a game without a main quest and market it adequately?

EDIT: At this point, I want to point out that the goal wouldn't be to make a game without a main quest and with only side-quests - no matter how good they are - but it would be to design a game around having several main quests and no side-quests. I'm not talking about designing a game purely with Radiant and Fetch quests, but with full-on narratives, twist, interesting characters and setting.

If you take Witcher 3, imagine if the care that went into the main quest would have been distributed to make more and longer side-quests, would you still have cared about the game?

You're a Witcher, the premise is already there: your goal is to go from cities to cities taking contracts and helping people and that's it, but it's a game where each of theses contracts are so deep and rich that they feel like actually doing a main quest - they take many hours to finish and are done by doing multiple steps.

In other words, 50 really rich and interesting main quests, without side quests - vs the 1 main quests with a 100 bullshit side quests.

What worries me about such an idea is that, I think by itself it would work: I would certainly be able to enjoy such a game given that it's done with talent - if it's a good game in and by itself, yeah sure why not? But the problem is with the playerbase, those who'd ask: "Okay but what's the point of the game? What do you do? You're a mercenary taking contracts, okay... but where's the conflict? What do you have to solve to *finish the game?"* Why do a game like No Man's Sky even need a main quest outside of the fact that it was clearly put there just to satisfy those questions?

Which to my mind... doesn't make that much sense, considering each quests would - theoretically - be designed to give you a satisfying sense of completion. Finishing Mass Effect isn't hindered by knowing there's a Mass Effect 2, for example. Mass Effect 2 doesn't suck up all the satisfaction of finishing Mass Effect 1.

If a game's quests have satisfying ending in themselves, do the game itself needs an ending?

What do you guys think? Would it be possible or do games absolutely need a main quest? How would you market such a game so that people understand it?

submitted by /u/Canvaverbalist
[link] [comments]

Bad information leak through death notices. "True fog of war" and double-blind competitive games.

Posted: 19 Aug 2018 12:27 PM PDT

I am currently developing a multiplayer subsim (submarines and stuff) and I find myself in conflict on certain gameplay aspects. To be precise, I am afraid my position is too radical and it will be of too much discomfort for a player, hence I'd like to hear a general public opinion on the subject.

Death notices reduce gameplay depth. Death notices (aka kill feed) provides the offender with 100% precise, instant, always correct intelligence that strongly affects his further actions. Typical death notice contains:

  • killer identity - factually giving away an estimate of an attacker's position in case of local games (games with no across-the-map sniping). It removes tactical space for the attacker. Asymmetric teams can no longer conceal the presence of the strongest character in the locality, nor can they fake his presence by actually fielding a weak player in his stead. In case of MMO, I'll take EvE-online as an example: your trail of blood can be followed in almost real time from the browser thanks to developer's API for killboards. Intel about your activity spreads to the whole world in the matter of minutes. Potential opponents that are hours away from you can learn about you and avoid you or hunt you down. And they are not going to hunt you if they're 99% sure they'll win. Free intel, that generally increases battle predictibility and therefore reduces battle frequency - players now fight less frequently and hate their time in the game more.
  • weapon - gives about everything you can want to know about attacker's tactical capabilities: his preferred combat range, style of battle, overall danger level. In case of CSGO or arena shooters, fallen player will recognize the weapon by the sound and looks of it, or it's firing patterns, therefore this information will leak inevitably, but in general: dead man does not talk. In MMOs this gives away attacker's build, giving the observers time to compose the counter force in case of games that fall into rock-paper-scissors-like mechanics class.
  • dead man identity - collapses tactical space for the victim side. No impersonation - identity and allegiance is revealed instantly. Mafia\TITT games suffer from this heavily.
  1. No "play dead" is possible with death notices.
  2. Sensory-obstructive mechanics (CSGO flash\smoke, chaff\jammers for simulator games) lose about half of their value because now you as an attacker are absolutely certain - if you spray in smoke and there is no death notice, I missed and should keep spraying. If there is - I can stop spraying and rush forward, ignoring the leftover half of the duration of smoke that would otherwise pin me down because of the risk of in-smoke ambush. This is very important for simulator games with developed sensor models. Uncertainty that is introduced by sensor imperfection is killed instantly in the moment of the kill, significantly altering the flow of the game in comparison to the imaginary game with no death notice.
  3. Huge information leak even for arena shooters. Typical case - delayed blind rocket launcher kill in Quake, when the attacker that has launched the rocket 3 seconds ago is now 100 meters away and has no LOS to the place the frag happens. He is granted risk-free intelligence about his opponent death and subsequent weakness, and alters hist bunny-hopping plan for the next 30 seconds to accommodate this fact. All of this for free and because of death notices.

Death notices contribute to the meta convergence speed and make the game die faster. Meta, or how I like to call it - knowledge, is accumulated by the player base with a pretty much the same method as we distill knowledge as a civilization. A scientific method. Gamers start with trial and error, then look at the stats to see what's working and what's not, build some mental or mathematical models of the game and test them, repeatedly, on and on and on, improving them to the infinity. Death notices significantly boost the initial trial-and-error phase, and statistics gathering phases. Like, exponentially. Successful attacker's build\weapon\stats\methods are instantly made public knowledge. You can't keep secrets in modern competitive\online games, and I think this is very, very bad. Online games with no secrets distill the meta too fast, and it requires considerable effort from both the developers (perpetual, constant patches and rebalances) and the community (guides, chill newbie tutorials) to keep the game alive. Reducing the speed of player's knowledge acquisition helps with reducing this strain and makes the game last longer with the same developer effort. Also, secrecy is cool.

Death notice comes hand-to-hand with other usual suspects.
* TAB screen in CS-like games gives too much info. K\D is vital intel, especially in pub match. Dead or alive is vital intel. Nickname is vital intel, although I admit it is not fun to fight nameless opponents.
* Connect\disconnect\online notifications. Dark Souls should not warn about the invasion. EvE online should not have had watch lists from the start (fixed now at last). This kills the initiative completely. So much god damn meta intel from nothing. What players do with intel? They turn it to their advantage in the most risk-averse form possible, avoiding disadvantageous situations at all costs, and then whine on the forums about it.
* Public match history with detailed statistics. MOBAs and e-sports are providing this. Now, this is complex matter. I'm not really sure that I don't like that, maybe this indeed is a good idea and provides the sense of admiration\aspiration. But it's also lies perfectly in my "meta convergence speed" point, wich is why I'm not a fan.

What can be done?
For my subsim I was thinking about a couple of things:
1. No online\offline\joined\left notifications.
2. Delayed kill notices, that are public, but are revealed in about half an hour after the event in not-ingame form. They do not contain the weapon or vessel that was used, only the killer and the victim name. Precise time is absent, only it's randomized estimation. If the player wants to consider someone dead, he needs to consult the sensors available to him and make the assumption.
3. Detailed history and statistics is available to the player himself, and he can choose to publish it, or conceal parts of it.

What are you thoughts? Have you ever played games that did something like this? Was it frustrating? What could be done about it?

Also, here is an interesting review that was a fuel for my "fog of war" fire. It's a impression of a an umpire from a double-blind strategy card boad game. Paragraph "2. Command, communication and intelligence related concepts" is of interest, extremely appealing to me concept of information handling in multiplayer games. The whole review is generally a very good read IMO. https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1813031/test-time-four-year-old-review-le-vol-de-laigle

submitted by /u/Boris-Barboris
[link] [comments]

Cheat menu or cheats in SP games have disappeared and it is sad :(

Posted: 18 Aug 2018 08:02 PM PDT

Hello there folks, do you remember cheats in gta games?

Do you remember infinite rocket launcher in Resident evil series?

Do you remember saints row games with brilliant upgrades?

I loved all the fun cheats saints row games had offered,I really liked the cheats in gta san andreas, I really liked the infinite ammo options in resident evil series.

I hope or I wish that the new Resident Evil 2 remake (2019) has the infinite ammo and the infinite rocket launcher after completing the game on the hard difficulty.

It feels like games are trying to be much more serious or something and single player games with cheats are disappearing. I want to know some of the games released in 2018 which have new game+ with cheat weapons or op weapons like resident evil series or cheats like gta games, does anyone of you know a game that is released in 2018 with such mechanics?

What do you think about single player cheats? What are your funniest moments with cheats? Do you miss cheat modes?"

What I mean by cheat codes or cheat modes (for users who do not know about cheats or cheat codes in SP games)--

I mean single player video games cheat modes or cheat codes which contain cheats like god mode,infinite ammo etc or overpowered weapons which are kind of similar to cheats. Cheats in the sense that objects or in game aspects which give the player or user an advantage or full control over some of the aspects of the game. For example god mode gives the player infinite health which means that enemies will not be able to damage the player or infinite ammo which basically means the player never runs out of ammo in shooting games etc. Cheats also encompasses big head mode, specific item spawning etc. I am trying to encourage discussion on the topic of cheats because such discussion could encourage a game developer(if he reads the thread of course or reads the comments) to make games which have cheats to make players feel overpowered. Cheats work as a bonus. They are very easy to add in any game because they do not need any balancing (other than keeping the numbers of the game in mind so that the game does not crash when activating any cheat) .

Edit: Some people have taken this thread out of context. When I say cheat codes or cheat modes, I consider cheats as a bonus or something funny or mindless. I never meant that cheats are a means of progression or anything. It is simply a cheap bonus to add in your game so that players can have some fun.

(well of course if anyone uses cheats to progress in the game,it is none of my business. Good for him/her if he enjoys using cheats or something)

submitted by /u/baymax042
[link] [comments]

Experiencing brain fog when playing online shooter games

Posted: 19 Aug 2018 02:02 PM PDT

Sometimes when I play multiplayer games like Siege and Battlefield, I experience brain fog. During this phase, I feel like my mind disconnects from the game and I'm not fully present within the game world. My reflexes completely go for a toss, and I become slow and sluggish. And then my performance in the game suffers.

And in a weird way I feel overwhelmed. So for example, if I was in the middle of map in Battlefield and there are opponents all around me, my mind gets overwhelmed because it doesn't know what focus point is should orient itself to. It's almost like its all too much for my brain to handle. Whereas in a more linear game like a racing game (even in online mode), my mind does not experience that because the goal is very simple....just overtake your opponent and go as fast as you can. The focus point is the other car that you are overtaking.

It's like online shooter games demand a high amount of concentration and my mind sometimes just wimps out and doesn't cooperate.

And I'm not always like this, deep down inside I know how to play shooter games effectively. Whenever I go into an online match with full gusto and energy, I play really well. I've been the MVP in many Siege matches.

So what causes this brain fog? Is it boredom? Anxiety?

submitted by /u/StormyTroopers
[link] [comments]

Where can I find a "Making of" documentary about video games?

Posted: 19 Aug 2018 01:34 PM PDT

I don't really care what type of video game it is.

I just recently found out that I'm very much interested in the kind of stuff that happens within the development of a video game so I'd like to see some footage and discussion of the process of a team while making one.

Does anyone know if there's a documentary that can scratch this itch of mine?

submitted by /u/mortizauge
[link] [comments]

I think games like GTA by Rockstar tend to overdo NPC to player interaction to the point of being awkward and unrealistic.

Posted: 19 Aug 2018 06:02 AM PDT

I do not know if anyone else has thought of this but I recently was playing games by Rockstar and I thought of something when it comes to NPC interaction with the player. In all Rockstars open world titles, (RDR, GTA, LA Noire), NPCs constantly comment positively on the player walking around in the world. People seem to feel this is immersive, but am I the only one that think this is a very awkward way of handling NPC interaction? The fact that every NPC seems to know who you are feels even more unrealistic to me than if they would just go about there business and not mention the player at all. Examples:

  • RDR: "Theres that John Marston who shot and killed x" or "THATS JOHN MARSTON"
  • LA Noire: "Theres that cop that solved that case, at least hes handsome"
  • GTA: The news radio constantly comments on everything you do and where you are in the story, making you feel like the center of the gameworld, even though it may be some insignificant mission. This is kind of cool, but it somehow makes me feel like I am the only thing that matters in the world, which somehow takes the immersion out of it?

Idk I may be going out on a limb here, but does anyone else think its extremely awkward that in a open world, every NPC would know who the player is just by something that happens in the story? I mean dont get me wrong, I like NPC interacting dynamically with the player, but walking around in a world and every second NPCs know who I am and what I have done and comments on me, isnt that a little awkward? What makes it more awkward is these kind of one-liners that NPCs pull in Rockstar games often come from single NPCs. Why would a single person on a street start talking to themselves saying "There is that brave detective, he is a handsome fellow". Why would every NPC know who I am and what I have done?

Maybe I am going in a weird direction with this, as I have not seen this discussed before. I somehow think Rockstar overdo NPCs reactions to the player, making it actually more unrealistic than if the NPCs would just talk about their stuff and never mention you?

submitted by /u/Fuck_Online_Gaming
[link] [comments]

PC gaming main quality isn't about power, but choice.

Posted: 19 Aug 2018 08:45 AM PDT

It's a bit of a rant, because I'm a PC player for years, I'm an advocate of the platform and yet, I still think most people fail to understand why gaming on PC is a great experience. I'm tired to see every PC enthousiasts sharing their beasty config or their fancy rigs and those subjects taking the highlights when it comes to PC. It reminds me a lot of the jackass who are proud to show their tuning cars. It's frankly ugly and quite cringy, in my opinion.

PC isn't about power, it's about the panel of choice it offers.

  • You don't like Xbox One controller ? You can play with - almost - every controller in existence without having to invest in a 80$ Chronus Max.
  • You don't like how Windows look by default ? You can customize it to great extent.
  • You don't like Windows ? You can ditch it for Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution.
  • You don't like Steam ? You can chose to support other platforms, like GOG, Origin, Battlenet, Discord... The situation would be even better if Steam had a real competitor.
  • You can - of course - chose your resolution, fps, anti-aliasing technique, to remove after effect like motion-blur, with or without V-Sync.
  • You can chose to support AMD, Nvidia or Intel.
  • You can even chose the API you want to run and support : Vulkan vs directx12 (or openGL vs dx11).
  • You can any component you want : buy better fans, chose water-cooling, a better looking case, going small form factor...

There's just so much you can tweak, so much choices and imo, that's the greatest thing about PC. I would still play on PC, even if I have to drop the resolution to 720p because I can't upgrade my GPU for whatever reason, as long as I can feel like I'm free to chose my OS, components, the store I buy games on etc.

Unfortunately, each time I see a discussion about PC (even from PC savvy persons), it's all about new graphics cards nobody will need or afford to buy, about how the new I7 is great for games... It's mostly about power and upgrades. I often heard about people that just want to build the best PC they can, even if it's just to play Dota 2, LOL or CSGO. Sure, everybody can do whatever he wants with his money, but it's still ridiculous.

submitted by /u/Debian47
[link] [comments]

Isn't there a difference between a top-down perspective and a three-quarter perspective?

Posted: 19 Aug 2018 10:22 AM PDT

If this (Video) is a side view and this (Video) is a top-down view then this (Video) must be something in between. I Googled and according to these two links (Link 1 and link 2.), there is a perspective called three-quarter that is sort of in between a side view and a top down one.

Now, my question is: If there's a difference between the two, why do devs and gamers always call three-quarter perspective top down? When you look up Isaac and Enter the Gungeon you'll find that they're described as top-down shooters everywhere even though they clearly aren't top-down.

It could be a marketing reason or I could be missing something. Can you help me make sense of this?

submitted by /u/Macrocrash_11
[link] [comments]

Star Wars as an IP is so perfect for gaming, it is truly a shame that there hasn't been a particularly amazing game since forever.

Posted: 19 Aug 2018 12:10 PM PDT

I've always dreamed of a Star Wars open world rpg. Instead of the typical knights, sorcerers, archer character types, it'd be amazing to chose between being a Jedi, Sith, Bounty Hunter, Clone Trooper, etc. Just give me a superior, well polished, non MMO version of SWTOR.

submitted by /u/Rylekso
[link] [comments]

Can anyone not stand "corner hiding" shooters or shooters with slow movement, easy to aim weapons, and high TTK

Posted: 18 Aug 2018 09:24 PM PDT

This is an opinion post so don't think I'm speaking for anyone. They seem to be the most popular shooter game archetype people who enjoy them seem almost masochistic to me (but you can like what you want), from the more hardcore ones (CS, Insurgency) to the more casual ones (COD, Battlefield) I can't stand them and they never appealed to me. It seems like most new FPS games from 2005~ to nowadays have slow movement, easy to aim weaponry, high TTK, basically games where you see someone first and you win. Of course this isn't the case for all new games, there is notable exceptions and possibly a resurgence of older style fps which is great but games where sight-lines are often instant death hazards never appealed to me, they seem to be going for a more "realistic" experience often but real war isn't any fun, anyone else feel this way?

submitted by /u/Mallraider-sixtyfour
[link] [comments]

I think people are just saturated of First Person games and are not realizing it.

Posted: 18 Aug 2018 04:46 PM PDT

I think many of the criticisms and backlash that First Person Shooters are getting is because people are saturated of the genre, and because they are not realizing it, they are seeing most trailers with 'negative eyes'.

And I think this applies to "First Person other genres" too. We're stuck into: Either the games are critically acclaimed, but not really that played (hey, Titanfall 2!), or widely played and critically unfavorable (hey, Deus Ex Mankind Divided!)

And my point is that these "new games", aren't that worse than the previous ones (that were loved), and the diminished attention new releases are getting (or even the pure backlash) is in part because people are just tired of the genre.

submitted by /u/The--Nameless--One
[link] [comments]

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Games26 © 2015. All Rights Reserved.
Powered By Blogger
Powered by Blogger.