True Gaming A choice between guns blazing and stealth is not "play however you want" |
- A choice between guns blazing and stealth is not "play however you want"
- let's all be honest here , do you still play minecraft/roblox/other "kids" games , and WHY ?
- Cooldowns and Energy Systems. (X-post to r/games)
- Looking for advice about a nintendo console.
- Systemic Versus Structured Boss Fights
- I am surprised with how rarely I like new games.
- Unpopular opinion: I am kinda disappointed with Red dead redemption 2
- Exclusives are the reasons your favorite console is an Xbox/Playstation/Nintendo product, and they need to exist
| A choice between guns blazing and stealth is not "play however you want" Posted: 04 Sep 2018 08:14 AM PDT Most action adventure games these days tout the line "You can play it however you want", and then provide only two examples (paraphrasing): 'Go in guns blazing', or 'take a stealth approach.' And they don't provide any other examples, because there are no other. And while these choices are fine by themselves, calling it "anyway you want" is complete nonsense. Because in many a games nowadays these two choices are ubiquoutous, so by the mere fact that the devs are mentioning them is testament to the fact that they haven't thought of any alternatives. Take MGS:V. Their gameplay video showed five ways to go about a mission where you have to eliminate (read: capture/kill) an enemy commander: Sneak in stealthily, go in guns blazing, attach a C4 to a car and blow it up from afar, have your buddy take the target out, or ride a helicopter in Apocalypse Now-style. That is variation worth mentioning. Or take something like Dishonored or Deus Ex; immersive sims can really say you can play it however you want. Stealth, action, manipulating enemies with powers, hacking, diplomacy, and any number of combinations. That is worth talking about. So what I'm getting at here is: Having a choice between stealth and guns blazing is not anyway you want, and if a game doesn't have any alternatives than those, devs shouldn't say it. My two cents. [link] [comments]  |
| let's all be honest here , do you still play minecraft/roblox/other "kids" games , and WHY ? Posted: 04 Sep 2018 03:46 PM PDT i won't take "chilling out" as answer because it's obvious , every one is doing to chill out do you have any other reasons? [link] [comments]  |
| Cooldowns and Energy Systems. (X-post to r/games) Posted: 04 Sep 2018 01:17 PM PDT This is something that has been on my mind for a while and I really want to talk about it. I remember when Anthem was being shown I tried to find gameplay of it to see what system they use for special abilities. When it became clear it utilized a cooldown system in the same style as Destiny, my interest in the game greatly diminished. This has become one thing that I have noticed in a lot of games, the use of these cooldowns to limit your abilities. Worth mentioning is that I'm mainly looking at multiplayer games here. Of course the other one already mentioned is Destiny. Regardless of the other issues of the game, the one that most limited my enjoyment was that all my abilities were on a cooldown. I have to wait a while before throwing my grenade again, and then wait a while before using my melee attack. The melee was especially notable because it wasn't a button to press but instead something that triggered automatically when a certain condition was met, meaning at times you could use it when you didn't want to. In fact the most fun I had with Destiny 2 more often than not was when I had a build that let me no longer worry about the cooldown. One that comes to mind is a specific one for Arcstrider that recharges your melee and grenades when you dodge while near an enemy, meaning you essentially got to use the melee as much as you wanted. Of course, D2 is mainly about shooting and gunplay (which it handled extremely well), so the abilities aren't as much of a focus. We then have this with MMOs. WoW heavily popularized this style of play and we see it in most MMOs today. You have an auto attack and then moves on a small quick cooldown as well as ones that are on significantly longer timers with some "ultimates" being 5+ minutes (I'm sure there are even longer ones but I am not as familiar with the game). Even fast travel is held back by cooldowns. This leaves a lot of the game more based around moving around while managing these timers to maximize how often an ability is used. Those are just a few examples. MOBAs and champion arena shooters similarly rely primarily on cooldowns, or at least the major ones do. Overwatch, League of Legends, DOTA just to name a few. Card games tend to be the exception using more of a resource mechanic that builds over time. Then there's the flipside. The games utilizing energy systems instead, where you have to just keep an eye on one gauge and find ways to keep it full. The first one that comes to mind would be Warframe. Every frame has 4 abilities and each ability drains energy to use. As you get mods you can stat out your character, affecting this energy consumption. Will you go for increasing power and range at the cost of draining energy faster, or give yourself more energy and increase how long channeled abilities are active at the cost of overall damage or effectiveness? From the MMO side there's Elder Scrolls Online. The game relies primarily on energy gauges. Magicka and Stamina are two to keep an eye on, and refill over time with potions refilling them faster. Even fast travel only has a monetary cost. The closest to a cooldown there is that using fast travel causes the cost to raise for a time and it slowly goes back down to the base price. There is a third category which seems even rarer and could be considered a subset of the energy system where everything is a consumable item that you have limited amounts of. This could be considered the guns in shooters I suppose but it's rare to see it as the spells or special abilities. The most notable is probably the Soulsborne series but those tend to be pretty rare. The point of this is one of personal preference. I find that games with the energy systems tend to keep my interest much more than those that rely on cooldowns to cap how often you can use your abilities. It could be argued that they're both just a different skin on the same thing, limiting how often you spam an ability, since you need to recharge your energy gauge same as you have to wait for the cooldown to refresh. At this point though it feels to me like cooldowns are just used because that's the standard. "The other popular games do it so this one should do." From my experience with Warframe I feel like energy systems allow for more versatility, letting you use your abilities more often and playing around with stats to decide if you want something more powerful but less frequent or vice versa. Of course, maybe I'm just missing a cooldown system that handles this same idea incredibly well. Which system do you prefer? What are some of the better uses of both cooldowns and energy systems? Is there a game that handles the consumable items side of things well? [link] [comments]  |
| Looking for advice about a nintendo console. Posted: 04 Sep 2018 12:36 PM PDT i live in mexico, and ive always been a PC gamer, when i was a kid i did play a lot of Nintendo games, but around the PS1 era, i never touched another Nintendo console ever again. but lately, ive been watching videos Of Mario Maker, and other Nintendo titles, and ive been absorbed a little into wanting a nintendo console. i see the Nintendo Switch being newer having a very small library still, besides being expensive, i am seeing if its worth to buy the Wii U, since it has a lot of games that seem good and are cheaper now. would you advice me to buy a Wii U, or wait for the N Switch to get a better library ( Mario Maker is not available on the N switch right?) [link] [comments]  |
| Systemic Versus Structured Boss Fights Posted: 04 Sep 2018 11:11 AM PDT I was thinking last night about the difference of climatic encounters in games, particularly between adventure-type like Metroid/Zelda and fighting games like Street Fighter/Tekken. What I noticed is that even though both these games have boss encounters, they could be called, the way the confrontation is handled in each is distinctly different. Everybody knows the basic formula of a Zelda boss fight. It's structured into stages in which each time the boss nears death it gains new abilities which ramp up the player's challenge. In a fighting game however, the boss characters are usually identical to how they can be played with all their movesets available from the start yet still can create the same sort of dramatic structure (this can change of course, but personally I think these games tend to suffer when they up the health or attack strength of their bosses). You may have to go through a gauntlet of difficult enemies with little breathing room, as in the later Mortal Kombat games, but the enemies aren't so distinct from the systems you've been facing already. I think one of the major differences in this is discovery. The reason a fighting game boss can be hard is because the most devious movesets, such as that of M. Bison, are saved as to make countering them on the first go difficult. This speaks to the structure of the game some, ascending a ladder which you can fall back down a notch at any time. A Mario style boss will only set you back so far as to be ready to face the boss again immediately afterwards. The familiarity you gain allows the mastery of the mechanics to come from repetition rather than expressly reaction. There are games which blend this a bit, having staged bosses that don't fundamentally change when the stages are reached. Many of Shadow of the Colossus' bosses change their patterns when damaged, but you don't have to get out a new item or something to break that stage. The Hands in Super Smash Bros have a variety of movesets that they can use in their forms and mostly just increase in speed of these attacks when a new damage threshold is reached. This hybrid approach can lead to both the base mechanics and the special mechanics (items, events, etc.) feeling less impactful, but also keep the player far more aware of the choices at their disposal rather than seeking a singular solution. Do you think that boss fights in games could do with being a bit more systemic? How would you attempt to reconcile the energy and deliberate nature of a boss like Ganon in Ocarina of Time with a more fluid approach to grand encounters? [link] [comments]  |
| I am surprised with how rarely I like new games. Posted: 04 Sep 2018 07:46 AM PDT There are many exceptions, obviously. But still they do feel like drops in sea. When there is new game in series, odds are I'm going to like it less than older installment - even if I started playing both around same time, so no nostalgia factor here. I see games go forward graphics-wise, but they often feel as if going backwards gameplay-wise. Even if trend they follow is relatively new (like Hero Shooter/Battle Royale modes in games), it already feels just bland to me. I was sure that as technology develops, we are going to have more complex games, not less complex. I find all that simplifying just sad. Not just video games - it happens with stuff like D&D 5e, too. Aside of (in my opinion) overhyped and overplayed titles, such as Overwatch and Fortnite (which I really wanted to get into, but just couldn't) we got sequels/follow-ups such as Heroes VI/VII, Civilization 4/6, Witcher 2/3, Dawn of War 2/3, Pathfinder 2, D&D 4e and before-mentioned 5e... and many more. I just can't help but to see all these as inferior to previous installments (tho, most clear example of exception is Civ V that does not appear on list). Civilization itself is saddest one to me, since I expected complexity to increasingly rise, at least with optional DLCs. What do you think? [link] [comments]  |
| Unpopular opinion: I am kinda disappointed with Red dead redemption 2 Posted: 04 Sep 2018 01:07 PM PDT It's setting killed the cowboy feel of it, The feel that's considered the best feel that specialize Red Dead series. I totally wish it never changed that "Mexico like" setting. The lack of deserts, bars, tumbleweed, cactus, elements commonly used in the wild west didn't make it feel like a cowboy game like the previous red dead games. The mountains, the grassy knolls, the prairie, etc in rdr 2 are all pretty good. but there is just something about the desert which gives vibes of cowboys or "once upon a time in the west" Maybe the gameplay and graphics will be amazing but the atmosphere might be meh for me I hope you get what I mean and sorry for bad grammar [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 03 Sep 2018 04:28 PM PDT I dont understand why in 2018 people are still touting the whole "exclusives are bad for the consumer". A consumer has the ability to purchase any console they choose. Hell, they can purchase all of them or some of them. Each console has it's own benefits to buying it. Through games, through services, or simply quality of the product. It's called competition, and it's what drives the market. You know what life would be like if Sony stopped making playstations and Nintendo stopped making consoles, and Microsoft were the only company you could buy from? -Xbox live gold would probably skyrocket in price, close to $100 or so -Things like the xbox game pass would cease to exist or otherwise quality of service would go down -Backwards compatibility wouldn't be nearly as important to Microsoft Now I agree xbox as it stands right now is "losing" to playstation and they need to start making quality exclusive AAA games. But Microsoft has held steady with game pass and they are due for a bounce back next generation. Look at the flak that Sony is getting for not allowing cross play. It all comes full circle, people. [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