True Gaming What causes a game to age badly? |
- What causes a game to age badly?
- Has the desire to monopolize content in the console wars gone too far?
- Would players prefer substance over flash when it comes to game seven at the expense of flash?
- Battlefield V's historical inaccuracy is not for the sake of catering to SJWs
- Are exclusives Anti-Consumer?
- Will there be more Gaming in real life : PUBG edition
- How come some people can master a specific game such as Overwatch easily but can never become good at another game despite tons of practise? Even if the other game is just a slightly tweaked version (such as the Champion Edition of SF2)?
| What causes a game to age badly? Posted: 31 Aug 2018 08:07 PM PDT I always hear about games aging badly, or about how some games used to be a blast 20 years ago but aren't fun today. Aside from the obvious ones like graphical quality or incompatibility with modern systems, what traits cause a game to age badly? [link] [comments]  |
| Has the desire to monopolize content in the console wars gone too far? Posted: 01 Sep 2018 03:54 PM PDT I am going to just state that I am a PC gamer mainly. I hold no bias over Xbox vs. Playstation. Now we all know competition is healthy in any environment. Especially between corporations. The idea behind it is basic Capitalism. You have two or more companies/corporations that are trying to win in sales of their product. Usually it turns into who creates the better product. This is true in most cases. However I believe that the competition between Xbox and Playstation is not healthy for the gaming community as a whole. Like I stated before, I am looking at this situation as an outsider with no bias. The competition has had many GOOD impacts on the gaming community. Technological advancements, marketing, and overall growth of the gamer community has been the result of the console wars. But now things are different. It is no longer Playstation and Xbox that are the bulk of gamers. PC is beginning to dominate. The reasons are mainly technological advancements, and the gamers that started as teenagers are now holding jobs and able to pay for a decent gaming PC. The interesting thing about PC is that the limitations of a console are nonexistent. You can have FAR better performance, you can play almost any game you want. Hell, I can go from playing a game to watching Youtube, to going onto word start working on research material for school. All within a click of a button. Back to the point. PC is now beginning to flourish and is drawing in gamers from all sorts of demographics. Whether it be you are a hardcore gamer that is looking for the higher competitiveness in esports. Mass amount of available games through platforms like steam and valve. You want to play games that are exclusive to PC like the popular League of Legends. You desire more control over your own system in the fact that every couple years you can change out the graphics card or any other hardware for better hardware without having to get a whole new system. All of these are reasons to switch due to consoles not being able to do any of these. The main draw to console is price and.... exclusives. Now, I don't have a problem with price, but exclusives... they can be a problem if they get out of hand. My opinion on exclusives is that generally they aren't an issue, unless you look at the case of Destiny. Exclusive content like in COD with certain maps being Xbox exclusive for the first month is no big deal. In Destiny this is taken from one month to a WHOLE YEAR. Sometimes it gets delayed even longer, which was seen in Destiny 1. This issue goes back to when Sony struck a deal with Activision/Bungie for 500 million dollars to basically (I am dumbing this down for myself and you as the reader) have control over the schedule on releases, mandatory DLC content, micro transactions, and exclusive content for a year (Exclusive for PS4 of course). Now why is this an issue? I really struggle answering this question because I see both sides. Sony basically saved Activision/Bungie from going bankrupt through this deal. The moral gamer in me knows (or thinks) that Sony is overstepping their boundaries to monopolize gaming. I ask myself questions like "Shouldn't competition be on who makes the better product... not who has more money can monopolize and suck out more money from people from this practice?". I also ask "What would I do if I were Sony or Activision/Bungie?". I think the practice Sony is doing is wrong, but I am not sure I would have done anything different in their shoes. So I am asking y'all. Is it hurtful to the gaming community for practice like this which happens all the time in todays day and age? If so, or if not, why? Maybe you will read this and see me as a salty PC gamer which is valid, but I am doing best to be open minded about this subject since it affects all of us and our wallets. [link] [comments]  |
| Would players prefer substance over flash when it comes to game seven at the expense of flash? Posted: 01 Sep 2018 01:56 PM PDT Over the years graphics have been improving and while great it seems like higher graphics would require a lot more and tend to cost more money the more detailed is added which also tends to add to the development time by months or years IIRC. Nowadays it seems like the games that are most well known are the ones with the best graphics. While this in itself isn't bad in my opinion it does seem like a lot of the time, money and effort that goes into making the game look as nice as possible could have gone into the actual mechanics of the game along with the story and world building. While graphics are nice they are only a part of the game itself. Thing is that a game is more likely to be remembered for it's story, mechanics and gameplay far more than it's graphics. Another major issue with overly focusing on graphics is that depending on the game focusing on graphics too much can limit said game in some ways by having lower number of levels or a smaller world due to how expensive it would be to make a truly massive lets say MMO with the best graphics possible. What I'm asking is that just because game developers can give their games the best graphics possible should they? Or would players prefer a game that ended up looking less 'nice' than it could have in exhange for more in the other areas? [link] [comments]  |
| Battlefield V's historical inaccuracy is not for the sake of catering to SJWs Posted: 31 Aug 2018 05:07 PM PDT Titlegore-tier inanity aside, I firmly do not believe Battlefield V has included women or minorities or other historical inaccuracies in regards to aesthetics to cater to """SJWs""". This is the typical sentiment that many have had towards the game. I don't know how many people have had this thought, but I haven't seen it, so if you would, please hear me out. Battlefield V will be the first multiplayer EA game in a long time not to have a season pass, DLC map packs or lootboxes. EA have stated that their intention is to sell cosmetics through a store similar to Fortnite (or whatever other example.) In order to sell said cosmetics, they've had to open the playable characters and vehicles up to customisation... obviously. And this is where the "historical inaccuracy" part comes in. If you were only able to play as a white male in typical army garb, your customisation options are limited to an insane degree. This is why people are running around with katanas, shovels, face paint and claw arms. Not because EA wants to disrespect history, but because they want to sell you as much as possible. And the reason women in the game is quite obvious to me. The most obvious is opening the game up to a market of people that, for whatever reason, would not buy the game unless they could play as a woman, or a black man, or what have you. The second, perhaps less obvious, is that a woman may be unwilling to put money towards customising a male character, or a black person may be unwilling to put money into customising a while person. Now that EA is allowing players to change their player character's race or sex to their own, that person is now another person you can sell WW2-themed hats to. I just honestly don't believe that EA has gained a sense of morality, and has decided to quintuple down on inclusivity because they really like all the people. This is the same company that made Battlefront 2. And also literally every other game, from FIFA to Dead Space 3. This is to say that this company makes decisions solely on making more money. That's not to say that maybe someone at DICE just wanted to include women because they genuinely wanted to be inclusive, but, like I said, EA is EA, and EA bad. This is my line of thinking. I tried to keep this post succinct, so apologies if it still came of rambly. I also apologise if any of the language I used offended anyone in any way. It's sort of hard to talk about this stuff without constantly saying "women and minorities", y'know, like that meme. Has anyone else thought about this "issue" like this. I'm sure they have, I just haven't seen anyone talk about. Anyway, leave your thoughts below and we can discuss, or whatever. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 01 Sep 2018 08:21 AM PDT I was shocked to find out that people didn't like exclusives, mostly because it gave consumers a reason to buy any gaming platform outside of brand loyalty. Some say it's Anti-Consumer to make the consumer buy a console specifically for exclusives, when in my own opinion I think exclusives are great for the industry. It create needed competition for developers and thus producing more quality games on consumer end. In fact I think a lack of exclusives are more detrimental to the consumer as it forces them to leave a platform in order to get quality games on other platforms instead of the platform they specifically chosen. [link] [comments]  |
| Will there be more Gaming in real life : PUBG edition Posted: 01 Sep 2018 01:35 AM PDT Recently went to an event where 30 people played in a PUBG tournament all on their cell phones. Seeing gamers together in real life reminded me of when I played magic the gathering as a kid. It feels like there is a resurgence of gaming cafes for board games. Do you guys think that we will see more mobile or tablet games that are setup for in person gaming kinda of like how the switch is marketed? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 31 Aug 2018 04:47 PM PDT I made this post. https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/9byhmz/how_come_some_people_can_master_a_specific_game/ Now I notice the same thing seems to apply in gaming. No matter how much someone had mastered for example Ninja Gaiden they can never get as good in Halo even if they put the same amount of practise in the game. Not just games in the same genre such as as veteran Resident Evil player failing to get good at Silent Hill, but even sequels and the series and most shocking of all, slightly tweaked version of the game such as the Champion Edition of SF2! Why is this? I can understand games in different genres. sequels that expanded the mechanics heavily,and even rivals in the same genre that use vastly different gameplay styles. But having difficulty in slightly upgraded versions of the same game (such as failing to excel at say the expansion packs of Diablo 3 or struggling to surpass your old time in Resident Evil Director's Cut as in the original game)?! I can't understand it! I mean Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 didn't change much to the core game so shouldn't guys who dominated MK3 tournaments do as well in UMK3? Is there a "talent" and "intuition" some gamers have that doesn't transition to other games, even slightly upgraded rereleases such as a the Gold Edition of Planet of Death vs the original? Can anyone explain why equal amounts of hardwork won't bring the same results in a different game? What bothers me most is that some of these people have far above average reflexes by any human standards-not just gaming but even bringing their talented reflexes into martial arts, sports, and a host of other hobbies. Yet they can't transition these reflexes itno a game of the same genre or even a slightly upgraded edition and expansion packs to the game! Why is this? I mean while you might need specific training to transition from football to rugby and vice versa, pro players in both sports (especially talented ones) can smoothly transition to and fro after receiving training in the differences of the sports. Why do pro gamers have difficulty doing the smooth transition a kickboxer would have to Muay Thai and a karate blackbelt would have to boxing to and fro? [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