True Gaming Yu-Gi-Oh has "card lore" where artwork in some cards come together telling a story - what do you think of this, and what other works do this? |
- Yu-Gi-Oh has "card lore" where artwork in some cards come together telling a story - what do you think of this, and what other works do this?
- Interesting Websites About Videogames That Are Good But Less Famous
- Dropping numeric review scores is the wrong move in fixing game criticism.
- Opinion polls on fallout 3
- Opinion: Games should only ever be allowed to be re-released or remastered once, ever.
| Posted: 05 Sep 2018 12:10 PM PDT This has a list of some: http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Card_storylines Ex Mad Scientist Kozaky who experiments on the baby Gagagigo to make it into a monster, etc. Overall, I really love how a trading card game can have these hidden pieces coming together to form a cohesive whole. Are there other TCGs or videos games or something maybe that does this? For example, side characters in several coming together to form a story? Is there a name for this mechanic/name for this trope? What do you think of it? EDIT: Oh and if you could link some examples, that'd be fantastic - thanks! [link] [comments]  |
| Interesting Websites About Videogames That Are Good But Less Famous Posted: 05 Sep 2018 01:44 PM PDT So you know\knew anyone that deserved attention? A good one I found is "16-bit dad", full of interesting articles about rare games and gaming in general with a mature touch (has the writer is a full-fledged father of a young girl). Usually covers games like Koudelka, Galerians etc... (forgotten hidden gems): [link] [comments]  |
| Dropping numeric review scores is the wrong move in fixing game criticism. Posted: 05 Sep 2018 12:20 PM PDT So, after quietly doing it for months, Polygon just announced that they are officially dropping numeric review scores. Eurogamer was among the first to do so in 2015 and it seems like a general trend for more ambitious games criticism. In my opinion, this is bad for game review culture. First, about review scores in general: I believe this is the wrong approach to "fixing reviews". Maybe even a cowardly one. You bypass the problem by saying it's not yours anymore. And considering the major backlash from "angry gamers" over lower than expected review scores, I believe it might also be giving in to outrage culture. As with many things blamed on "games journalism" in general, I think the actual problem is way more specific. Yes, relevant review scores are mostly happening on a range of 7 to 10 (out of 10), which does not seem like a very good spectrum. But if that really was the whole issue, the answer would be stretching scores towards a wider range, not dropping them altogether. Also it's not uncommon, now, that only a fraction of games released actually get reviewed and unsurprisingly, those that are deemed worthy of a review were mostly promising games in the first place (which explains why there are fewer 1-4 scores than 7-10s). The numeric range is also a bit of a non-issue, since I don't believe review scores have ever seriously represented a "percentage of perfection" (even where they put a "%" at the end). Games are generally an art, not a science (the underlying technology might be a science, but that's only a fraction of a score). Review scores aren't a mathematical function, they're just a summary of a what a game feels like to the reviewer in the context of its release window. They're just a split into 10 different categories, ranging from most to least desirable, which IMO is reasonable to judge for any game. But that's just the numbers. My actual point is a different one that has more to do with the role of review scores in videogames than their precision: There is no other way to make publishers care about quality. If you look at the movie industry, there are some sources of pride and universally accepted awards that go beyond just launch-weekend ticket sales. Even the most cynical Hollywood producer wants an Oscar in his office. Part of the appeal of movie award shows might also be that actors are beautiful people with natural stage presence, thus making a good show and tabloid headlines. There's also snubs and politics involved, but that's a sub-issue. The big role these kinds of awards is that they are an alternative measure of "success" to just ticket sales. In gaming, we don't have that. We have consumer-oriented "MTV Awards" style entertainment shows that are various levels of embarrassing and mostly just watched for the trailers, we have some dry industry awards and niche indie awards but nothing... big. The only thing with an impact we have, as sad as it may be, is Metacritic. Scores are the only thing measurable in the video game industry outside copies sold and loot boxes opened. They're the only measure of success in gaming outside player count and money made. And they mostly suck. Now, in an ideal world, we would drop scores in favor of something better like... what? We can have in-depth, academic discussions but they don't have a real impact on and would mostly get ignored by publishers. We could have a more respected award but it seems like we try and try and nothing good ever comes out of it. So all we got is scores. And good publications dropping them from their reviews means they get worse not better. The real ballsy move would be starting to give 5/10s to perfectly fine AAA releases that don't really do anything interesting. TL;DR: Numeric review scores are the only measure of success not depending on sales and by taking them away, we give companies less reasons to make quality games. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 05 Sep 2018 02:25 PM PDT i figured it would be much easier to make a poll concerning this sub's view on fallout 3 than asking the same question to get diverse responses. Here is the poll thanks for any and all responses [link] [comments]  |
| Opinion: Games should only ever be allowed to be re-released or remastered once, ever. Posted: 04 Sep 2018 10:59 PM PDT If it was not originally released on a portable device, then it's allowed a second re-release or remaster, as long as one of its releases is on a portable device. (And for the sake of this argument, any releases within a given console generation count as the same release. So if a game is released on both PS4 and XboxOne, those would count as one single release, and a remaster on the PS5 and XboxNext or whatever would count as a single re-release.) I don't care how much you like Ocarina of Time. It doesn't need to be playable on every console ever. Thoughts? [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