In just about every RPG with WoW-style "exclamation mark above head" quests it always happens that you reach a town and then boom, a million people to talk to and a ton of quests to take on.

So of course you take as many as you can. Players always lean towards efficiency and if you give them a ton of quests to take on they will take on all of them at once and fill their quest log to the brim. Nobody does one quest at a time before accepting the next, that's not how most people are wired.

But then that becomes so overwhelming. When you're introduced to dozens of characters who all tell you their life story and then ask you a favor it's harder to keep the details straight in your head and being invested in their story when there's so many stories going on at once. And seeing a wall of quests on your journal while the game usually also bugs you to hurry up with the main quest can be really discouraging.

Is there any way to "fix" this? I mean it makes complete sense that there's a lot of people in towns so you'll get lots of quests there, but it always feels wrong from a gameplay perspective to pack everything together so much in certain hubs.

Recently, I've been playing a lot of Dying Light, but within the first quarter of the game I'd downloaded a mod to mess with the durability system so that each weapon can be repaired an infinite number of times. I prefer this over simply having weapons not break because I think, in this game, the chance of your weapon breaking adds some suspense to combat. Overall, though, I don't think weapon degradation is a good thing in games. Using Dying Light as an example, it seems that the whole point of the system is to keep me from settling on one weapon I like and using it forever. Each weapon can only be repaired a fixed amount of times, so once you've used up those repairs, if it breaks again it's broken. The item used for repairs in Dying Light, Metal Parts, is so incredibly common that after beating the game and running around for a bit, I'm sitting on more than 300 of them. Metal Parts can be obtained through scavenging, or by breaking down (presumably old) weapons. So right before your weapon breaks for a final time, you change it into a Metal Parts to repair whichever one you pick up next the first time it breaks.

However, the whole point of Dying Light's weapon system is that weapons are randomly generated. So the random stats cause me to switch from weapon to weapon as I find one with better stats anyway, and they're so easy to find that even before I added the mod onto my game I always had serviceable weapons and was constantly discarding my old ones before the durability system even mattered. So as a way to keep the player from sitting on one weapon the entire game, it's wholly unnecessary. All the system really did was keep me using my weakest weapon all the time, forcing me to play suboptimally in order to protect whatever my best weapon was at the time, only for it to be outclassed by the time I'd ever get to using it.

Another problem, besides the fact that it's wholly unnecessary for its main purpose, is that the repairs system is heavily weighted against the player. At the beginning of the game, I was both picking up and dropping weapons like hotcakes because they broke (and used up all of the 2-3 repairs they were allotted) lightning quick. By the end of the game, I would've been hoarding powerful weapons that I would never use for fear of breaking the things. Even after all the upgrades I can get to make the system easier on me, weapons still break much more quickly that I would expect them to. A solid steel wrench is not going to fall apart from being bashed into a zombie skull 5 or 10 times, and a metal baseball bat certainly won't. Very often, it served to kill my immersion rather than aid it.

Even in other games, my experience with durability systems has been that they do nothing except keep the player from using the actual cool weapons. What do you guys think? Those of you who enjoy the durability systems, why?

Recently, I came across an interesting story(here) that discussed AI in games like StarCraft, and it got me thinking: What benchmarks have modern AI reached, and how do they compare to the futuristic /super advanced standard we often see in popular science fiction/games like Mass Effect?.

Sorry, you can tell I don't post here often, but I'd like to hear what people think/know about this :)

Edit: Also, I'd appreciate any suggestions to any good stories/articles that go into this subject further; I find AI fascinating.

TL;DR: Read questions in bold.

I can't help but wonder if additional monetization methods have:

• Significantly impacted the social dynamics or standing of gamers within their communities, and

• more strongly highlights economic differences between gamers

...given that there are a lot more economic barriers to various game content: Pre-release access, pre-order editions, DLCs, subscriptions, season passes, in-game purchases (aka MTX), loot boxes, etc.

When these monetization methods exist in games, do they significantly change how gamers interact with one another? Does this have more or less of an social impact than differences in hardware (e.g. older vs newer rig)? In otherwords, do monetization methods make the socioeconomic differences more prevalent between gamers?

This could look like a number of social dynamics, wherein X is a form of paid content:

• Elitism ("I have X and you don't")

• Social friction (lack of acceptance when player doesn't have X)

• Social exclusion/barriers (lack of X prevents interaction with certain gamers or micro communities).

I think the topic is important to discuss now that these monetization methods are permeating console, mainstream, and AAA games regardless of any initial game purchase cost. As implied by a discussion on this sub yesterday, gamers need to be able to voice the difference between games that are monetized differently (like "Live Services") and how they're treated differently by game publishers. Also, I am curious about this topic since I am a PC gamer who rarely plays AAA, F2P, or online games who isn't socially active in gaming communities aside from Reddit. To facilitate this discussion, I will put questions in bold, provide some examples in gaming to consider, and define some terms I'm using.

Terms I'll Use

Gamer Socioeconomic Status (SES): A total measure of a person's economic and social position in relation to others gamers.

Micro Community: Any community formed around a game, part of a game, or even a specific piece of gaming hardware/software that is peripheral to a platform.

Macro Community: Any community formed around a group of games, whether by genre or platform.

MTX: Microtransactions

Publisher: Whoever markets and monetizes the game, AAA or not. May or may not be the same company as the game's developers.

Monetization Examples & Additional Questions

• Traditional game monetization: In order to consider how non-traditional game monetization can make Gamer SES more notable, let's review traditional game monetization. The economic ability of a gamer to buy into platform(s) increases their social reach (and possibly social status) with macro communities, whereas as buying into a game was a binary choice that allows for joining micro communities - You owned & played it, or you didn't. This made the socioeconomic differences between players relatively simple and flat, aside from measuring it based on the number of sheer consoles & games owned or perhaps whether players had the newest games or not. Aside from its basic economic gates that I explained, what are ways that traditional monetization contributes more positively or negatively to player social dynamics vs non-traditional if all else is constant? (e.g. comparing monetization methods between games with the same core mechanics)

• DLC: Whether for an offline or online game, how often does DLC tend to fragment micro communities? Best case scenario here is if DLC adds content without significantly changing the existing story or gameplay. If DLC makes any notable changes to story or gameplay, it could indirectly become socially exclusionary when it comes to discussing the game on forums, on voice chat, or with friends. Worst case scenario is if DLC adds new game areas/modes that are considerably different from the base game and directly fragment the micro communities.

• Pre-release access: When a game does this, the game's micro communities and social structure are created before it even exists. How often does elitism or social exclusion occur with pre vs post-release gamers? How often do publishers enable this behavior? If a game provides certain exclusive benefits to purchasing certain pre-release packages (i.e. founders pack), these can come with certain perks that differentiate these players from others, and may even provide exclusive social channels until or beyond release. Just one example: The highest tier of Warframe's founders pack included access to an exclusive forum and the privilege of voting on certain new things being considered for the game, and perhaps even more chat with the devs.

• F2P/Games with MTX: One common dynamic of games with MTX, F2P or not, is that they often present the player the choice of working toward achieving characters/items vs directly/indirectly purchase via MTX. This could create several different Gamer SESs: Gamers who have less items because they are less willing to grind or pay, gamers who are more willing to grind, gamers who are more willing to pay than grind. How often does the nature of F2P/MTX games cause more social division between players, if at all? I can imagine some degree of elitism from gamers who buy many of the popular items as they get released vs gamers who buy little to nothing & are only willing to grind for select things.

• Extreme online game monetization: Consider an AAA game with notable online experience, upfront AAA-like price, and all monetization methods listed earlier (perhaps except subscription). Are the social dynamics of extremely monetized games much different than games with fewer monetization methods? Considering all the different ways individual monetization methods create Gamer SESs, such a game would create a lot more chances for social divides, but I can't say I've played such a game for me personally to know the answer to this.

I love video games. I feel that way even if my actions don't often reflect that notion. I know this to be true because I want other people to play them, and it brings me joy to discuss the medium with other people who are discovering it for the first time.

However, what intrigues me is the question: how do we introduce people to games?

At work, I was talking to one of my coworkers, a non-gamer, about a podcast I want to make in the future; a game focused series about non-gamers about their experiences and perceptions with and of games. As the conversation carried on I gave her a recommendation of Va-11 Hall-A: Cyberpunk Bartender Action. It's a simple experience, being a visual novel, but a very well designed one none the less, and I anticipate her playing it in the future.

I often wonder if that was the right approach to the situation, trying to get someone playing a new game,

Are certain genres easier to get into than others?

Is there a more complex game you can think of to recommend to newcomers?

What are some of your favorite games to recommend to newcomers of you favorite genres?

Hey everyone this has been a topic that's been bouncing around for a while and I was hoping to get a discussion going on what the fuck is going on/has happened to Bioware and where they're at now. For me personally Bioware around when Dragon Age: Origins came out was one of the formative companies that helped me get into WRPGS and helped shaped my taste to years to come. That's not to say it didn't have a huge pedegree with Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, NWN etc beforehand and I think it would be safe to say they were one of the premiere WRPG developers but I feel they truly hit mainstream acclaim around this era imo

Fast forward to now and they've become somewhat of a joke in the gaming community. What lead to this happening? Was it EA's fault? Was it the fame or several prolific writers leaving? How would they be able to redeem themselves in your eyes if they're able to at all? Or are you of the opposite opinion that they're fine/better then they've ever been?

Maybe it's just me but I don't feel like open-world fantasy RPGs should have classes. I know that most fantasy RPGs come from a premise of D&D where the game does have classes but I don't like classes, because I'd rather feel like I'm in an actual fantasy world where you can be anything you want to be rather then automatically be a mage just because "Yeah you know that's the kind of playthrough I'm going for."

I know when Skyrim was released a lot of people bashed it for the fact it didn't have classes but personally I'd praise any game developer who creates a open-world fantasy RPG that doesn't have classes, because if I want to become a mage I feel like I should work to become a mage, not pick a class and have every skill in that class boosted up by 5.

Edit: By fantasy RPGs I mean open world fantasy RPGs, post has been edited to reflect that.

I find it really ridiculous when people say games like PUBG etc are going to replace CS GO, CS GO is dead and PUBG is future etc. Well, to start, PUBG is already loosing that appeal already and it's not even a full year. And it was sure to happen because of inherent nature of the games of this genre.

You will probably relate to my theory as well. PUBG/Fortnite hook you initially because you play a game or two and get a particular rank. You get hooked because you have hope that trying again will get you a better rank next time. You are playing again and again not because you really like the game(some people may) but because you develop a kind of ego that you can do better than this next time. I have experienced it when i start playing score based game. Initially i may play it for fun but then i play because getting a higher score gives a sense of satisfaction though game itself may not be that much fun now.

But soon you realize it is not worth keep playing because you mind had become tired and you start thinking what i am achieving by spending all the time into it, just a score or a good rank. Moreover suppose you topped enough times you loose interest because there is nothing else left to achieve and getting top rank doesn't excites you anymore.

At other end games like CS GO have almost infinite skill ceiling. There is no particular high score to achieve. You are constantly being bettered by some other team or person and there is this 'skill' factor which keeps you engaged in game. That 'skill' level you achieve is a long lasting achievement. You are recognized by community, friends etc.

So that's what i think.

-TLDR: Before we go all Genghis Khan on the gaming industry. Can we make sure we do some fact checks?

This has been bugging me so I just wanted to get it off my chest. I kind of don't like the direction we are going in tackling "game gambling," specifically loot boxes. I feel people in power. Are just taking advantage of a situation of angry Star War fans because of the way EA has treated Star Wars Battlefront 2. Even though this has slowly been building up over time from the gaming industries milking tactics. The funny thing is the free market has already voted with their wallets and even made EA back track on some of their decisions.

There are several things to take into consideration when trying to resolve a problem. 1st, you need to know what the problem is. 2nd, what case study factually proves this will resolve the problem and is there any study that contradicts it? 3rd, is this the best method to resolve the problem? 4th, are we being consistent in all scenarios?

Lastly or possibly this part can be skipped, but it is very unlikely do to human nature, is the solution to resolving our problem moral? Reason why I would not include that is because we all have different moral values. Regardless it still should be worth talking about and always saving it for last. So nobody has the ability to bend the facts and narrative to fit their moral values.

So to answer step number 1. The problem people are having right now is that people are getting addicted to stuff like loot boxes and companies are taking advantage of them. Some of these people include children. So everyone wants to find a way to stop this. Before we go on, is there any actual proof that the majority of the population is getting addicted to loot boxes? For now I will assume yes so we can go onto the next steps.

Step number 2. Politicians have suggested on classifying loot boxes as gambling, increasing regulation on games, and potientially charging a extra 10% tax on violent video games. That will go to helping the "mental health and counseling resources in schools." http://gameranx.com/updates/id/140317/article/politician-proposes-a-tax-for-violent-videogames/

I don't know of any politician in the recent months giving studies showing that these methods would resolve the problem. The reason why this is important is because we could potentially make our problems worse. If there is no case study and we just need to test out to see if these things will work. Why not start small? Have a vote amongst districts of a county. The districts with the most votes gets to be the guinea pig. Then after that do it with counties, then cities, then states, and if everything works out amazing. Do it for the entire country and even talk to the united nations of our great findings.

Step number 3. Say that what has been stated in step number 2 actually resolves the problem. Is it actually the best method? Is leaving it up to the free market a better option? Such as giving consumers the option of buying the product. Even if a person buys a game they don't have to buy additional DLC for it.

Step number 4. If we were going to assume step number 2 fixes the problem. Where does this leave trading card games? How about bosses and monsters that drops different random loot when you defeat them? What about those happy meals for kids at mcdonalds that come with a random toy? What about prizes and sweepstakes that companies always do?

Step number 5. Is it moral to intervene and make companies do something through the force of government because "we say so?" IMHO it is immoral, but I rather do this one immoral thing if it means it helps our society and even said companies.

I'm open for discussion, just don't be toxic. It is actually fun to have conversations. Feel free to share this wall of text on other websites. You don't have to credit me, I just want a discussion on this. If you do post this some where else. Can you PM me so I can see how everyone took it?

PS I would also like to say Chris Lee. Is a good looking dude who also happens to be a gamer. I think people emotionally respond better to good looking humans, especially ones they can relate too. To me this negatively effects ones' rational way of thinking.

Nowadays in mainstream RPGs, main plot line quests and side story missions are usually clearly labeled as such. The developers just has this expectation that there are designated quests that players would feel free to skip through, and so mostly contained within their own mini arcs. I feel by singling out "main quests" outright to players, it makes the narrative structure of games less natural.

Take an example, The Witcher 3 is widely praised for it's writing quality for quests, either main or optional. But since the location of next main plot point is always pinned on the map, I never really felt particularly clueless in my search for Ciri (which is at dissonance to the narrative); and I would do side quests at leisure, knowing for sure they won't give me new information of Ciri's whereabouts. The game just felt... game-y.

Still taking TW3, maybe it could tie everything to the main plot better, by making some adjustments and sprinkle some red herrings: Let Geralt ask "oh by the way, have any of you seen an ashen haired girl?" when collecting a contract bounty;

Let the innkeeper comment how Geralt's footwork in fistfights resembles "the sword girl who brawled here a month ago";

Let Geralt's heart skip a bit when he saw a familiar back view when rescuing children kidnapped by a monster, who turns out to be just another Cintrian girl;

etc, these are still side quests, but less unapologetically so.

I've probably been one of the Nintendo Switches biggest detractors. It's a system I was hoping would be the next big thing for me only to have it be a handheld with controls I don't like, terrible battery life, and a library of games that seemed laughable at best...

Now my opinion has changed somewhat and I frankly love the Switch. Not for playing, I don't own one and I have no intention of picking one up... but for existing. The Switch has given me a few great things to consider as a gamer in my 30s and it makes me genuinely pleased that it exists. Here are my reasons.

1. As a PS4 gamer, the Switch has put the breaks on the need to upgrade to 4k gaming. With the Xbox One X only managing mediocre sales and having zero exclusives, the need for PS4 to catch up and also make a 4k capable device isn't as strong as I expected. As I discussed in another thread, this means; because so many developers are making multiplatform games that are PS4/Switch (often missing out the Xbox One entirely), the PS4 will be getting high quality games running at 60 frames per second at 1080p, because the Switch is acting as a limiting factor. The PS4 is the more powerful system so it'll get the better versions, and as I rarely play outside anyway (and I have my Vita for that), I'll get the best experience possible.

2. As a Vita gamer, the new Switch cases are delightfully useful. Seriously, I can fit a Vita, with a grip add on. A full charger with UK plug, and over 40 games (3x game case strips in the zip compartment containing 24 games, and 19 games in the pouches) into a single Switch case. This means my entire Vita collection can fit in a travel bag, with add ons. It's a silly thing to have come out of this system, but it's something that I've been enjoying for months now. It's genuinely useful.

3. I love Nintendo games as much as the next guy; but with all the games coming out recently, I've not really had the time to play them all. While I've criticised the Switch for having no games, in reality what it has are no new games worth picking up... I've played Mario Odyssey on a friends Switch and frankly hated it. It's a busy-work filled collect-a-thon that took all the things about collect-a-thons I hate and dialled them up to eleven. But all the other big name games on the Switch are ports. 'Breath Of The Wild', 'Mario Kart 8', 'Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze', and 'Bayonetta 2', are all Wii U ports, which I already own while 'Skyrim', 'Dark Souls', 'Doom', 'Titan Quest', 'LA Noire' and 'Legend Of Kay' are all multi-platform ports I also already own (usually on PS3 or PS4). Sure, this is a great library of games at this point, but what does this mean for me? Well it means I don't really miss out on much. I already own these games so I'm free to tackle my PS4 backlog, safe in the knowledge that the 2018 and 2019 offerings from Nintendo are pretty much the same games I played back in 2014-2015 on the Wii U and PS3. I'm not missing out on much, and as daft as it sounds I hate missing out just because I'm in my 30's and lack the free time to just play video games 8 hours a day every day now.

4. I still get to take part in the Switch discussions and now I have more people who can share my experience of Bayonetta 2, and Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze; two of my all time favourite games. (Hell, the Wii U holds more games on my top 10 all time games than any other system at this point). Being able to talk about how awesome these games are, and knowing more people will be able to experience them is cool. Here's hoping all you Switch owners get a port of Super Mario 3D World, it's genuinely one of the best games I've ever played. Made me feel like a kid again. Pure joy in gameplay.

5. Indie games are getting even more exposure now, and they're getting more physical releases. I think the fact that the Switch is portable and lacks the ability to have multiple Terabytes of hard drive space is partially the reason for this. Games like 'Steamworld Dig 2', 'Owlboy', 'Axiom Verge', 'Wonder Boy: Dragon's Trap', 'Rime', 'The Binding Of Issac: Afterbirth', 'Slain: Back From Hell', 'Cave Story+', 'Shantae: Half Genie Hero', and 'Monster Boy & The Cursed Kingdom' are all available physically on the Switch, and that's pretty damn cool; and with a limited game library people are giving these things a chance. It's bringing the 2D platformers and indie games into a second renaissance and that's no bad thing... And all these games are also physically available on PS4 too, (except 'Cave Story+' sadly), so I've got loads of short burst fun games to play, which is very fitting for my current style of play.

6. And finally, the Switch is selling well (and will hopefully continue to do so). The Wii U did not... this means my Wii U games will likely be collectable, but in 5+ years Switch games will likely be quite cheap due to simple being plentiful. So come about 2025, I can pack up my Wii U, put it's collectable games on display, and pick up a Switch with a Pro Controller so I can still play all my favourites, only this time with added portability if I want that. Which means I don't need to worry as much about the prospect of my Wii U ever breaking and losing access to some of my favourite games.

So that's how I learned to stop worrying and love the Switch...

Happy gaming guys. While I may dislike Mario Odyssey, and think Breath Of The Wild is severely overrated. I have to now admit. The Switch has over two dozen great games on it, physically released too (and as a game collector I appreciate this). It's a system well worth owning, ESPECIALLY if you don't own a PS4 or don't own a Wii U; and if you don't own either I could see it being a must-own system for many people.

Now, fundamentally we have to speak as a market and not support these products with our money. But trends like "games as service" arent simply products placed on shelves. They are cultural sales pitches - marketed and advertised in narratives which attempt to shape the very minds of everyone in the market.

I propose that consumers consciously and vocally reject the notion of "games as service" being games in the first place. As fans and consumers we must be proactive in establishing boundaries, policing terms and definitions as they are fed to us from the largest corporations in the industry.

As I admit in the title Im not sure what we should call these "games as service" either. But the important thing to remember is that we don't have to consider them games. They are shallow, transaction laden daily activity loggers. Interactive cinematic rental experiences. Etc... Hopefully a succinct term will catch on from the consumer side.

This isn't a fight unique to the gaming community. Consumers must stay vigilant as corporations will seek to control the terms and culture in every market. Even if you dont agree with me on this particular issue, I hope the sentiment is not lost.

As an example, I know there are many people who just refuse to play open world games because they feel overwhelmed. They would enjoy the game otherwise because it has a great story or looks good but the open world mechanics just aren't for them.

In my case, it's the futurism (not the art style but games with futuristic (tech) elements like the modern Call of Duty games etc. This is why I'm so sad that CD Project is focusing on Cyberpunk 2077 because it looks exactly like something I would never enjoy but I loved the Witcher and since it's the same studio I still follow the game's development.

I think the reason why I don't like this futuristic stuff is because it often looks so tasteless, unnecessarily complex, unpractical, like it was designed by a mad child.

Now don't get me wrong, I do enjoy a good sci-fi (I adore the Mass Effect series even though I might think the game isn't designed well) so there is still hope I might like the game. It just doesn't look interesting to me, not even a little bit.

So do you feel the same way about something else?

I've been thinking about games that are so well made, so revered, etc. that they made it impossible to play a game in that genre/series that could live up to the hype of a masterpiece game? I think, for instance, that Silent Hill 2 made it very difficult for any of the following Silent Hill games to be as well-received. What do you think?

I recently noticed that every time I start a new game that has difficulty options it's way too easy on normal, then I change to hard and it's way too hard. Like The Witcher 1 for example. I finished it on normal with a ton of potions that I didn't have to use because the game was too easy. So I decided to start a new game on hard and it took me many tries just to get past the first enemy that kills me in one hit. Then the boss that was super easy on normal beat the shit out of me. And that was just the prologue. Then the same thing happened with Nier Automata. On normal the little robot guys at the tutorial just take tiny little chips off of your health bar. You can just stand there taking damage and you'll be fine. Then I changed it to hard. Took two hits, died. And I feel like it's like this with most games that have difficulty options except for maybe Bioshock and God of War. Also in most games all that changes is that you take a shit ton more damage on hard and that's it. Metal Gear Solid 3 for example had more enemies when you crank up the difficulty, which was pretty neat. I'm not sure if this is a problem exclusive to more modern games since older games like A Link to the Past, Donkey Kong Country, Super Mario World, Crash Bandicoot have that difficulty level that feels just right. And now I feel like games are either made for the casual players that play like 4 hours a week or the hardcore players that love to rage at games like Cuphead and Getting Over It, with the inbetween just left out. Dark Souls 3 and Hollow Knight are two of the few exceptions I can think of that came out recently.

So what do you guys think? Tell me if you think I'm crazy or if you feel the same. Or maybe... somewhere inbetween ;)

I have recently experinced something very strange to me. Two weeks ago I lost pretty much all skill I had in a multiplayer pvp game(Rainbow Six Siege) from one day were it was all fine to next where I would just flat play loke garbage. Since then I am not able to play as before. My Problem is that it is not only in terms of "mechanical" skills like aiming I also lost all sense for good decision making. Eventhough I was never an outstanding Player but there were some rounds that I played really well and carried. As of now there are no such rounds. Since yesterday I'm trying to consciously think about every single move that I make and if it makes Sense to do so. I realized a very slow and slight improvement.

While doing so I also realized that I experienced this phenomenon once before with an offline strategy game(Xcom) and I did almost the exact same thing to relearn the game you could say.

Now I not only realised that a similar thing happend to me a year or so ago but also that the circumstances were similar. Back then I was very self-concious because I felt I was not living up to what I should do or what others expected me to do in school and life in generell. Right now I think that I am in a very similar situation because I'm struggeling with many task that I want and have to fulfill at the same time like passing driving test to get my license(yep, I am rather young), learning for my exams(last year of school) and keeping my circle of friends intact eventhough I barely have any time to meet them because they are relativly far away.

So my theory is that my emotional state affects my gameplay evebthough gaming was always my safe place to clear my head.

Has anyone else ever experienced anything similar to this? And do you have advice for overcoming this state in which even my normally relaxing activity stresses me?

Which games are good investments, AKA "carry over" to either real life, or to other games? How can you approach gaming so it becomes (more of) an investment?

And...what can you can do to make a game/gaming a better investment? (for example, joining a IRL community/meetup group so you gain real life friends, or analyzing the game design)

If this sounds like an attempt at making gaming productive and you think that's a flawed way of thinking/misses the point, this is not the thread for you.

I completely understand the appeal and the joy in being able to play a game like The Last of Us, finish the game neatly, tie up the story, and then move onto something else without needing anything else from the game. Or even being able to play a few games of Hearthstone during lunch break, just for plain ol' fun.

Those things are totally fine, but I want to discuss something else.

From time to time, something bothers me about gaming. And many gamers quit/reduce playtime because of it. They don't like the feeling that playing a game produces only "pixels" and positive emotions within the time spent playing that game. Whether it's an MMO like WoW where all the gear/accomplishments you make at Endgame, or the skills that you develop in a Street Fighter game, these things become useless when your friends move over to a different game.

People feel drawn, sometimes because of guilt (of unproductivity), to replacing gaming with activities like reading books or developing IRL skills that can act as investments in their future. For example, if you learn to cook, you can make food for your friends which can not only feel good because of the social rewards (approval, admiration, connecting with other human beings IRL), but also because it helps your REAL LIFE by allowing you to fuel your body with high-quality inputs.

And I acknowledge that for some people, they should simply game less/stop playing to spend their time building/improving their real life.

But again, I'm not here to discuss that - let's talk about how we can move on the sliding scale towards building gaming experiences that can COMPLEMENT and ENRICH both our real lives and future gaming experiences.

I've already read Jane McGonigal's "Reality is Broken" book, where she makes a few suggestions on how to get the most IRL benefits out of gaming (along with lots of other stuff about how games make us better - I highly recommend it), which can be summarized as: Lean towards playing with friends - ideally IRL, and no more than 21 hours a week.

That's a good start, but let's take it further.

Which games, if you develop skill in them… A) lend themselves to improving your real life (and/or) B) carry over to the future of your gaming experiences?

On both points A and B, one game that comes to mind for me is Super Smash Brothers Melee. That game has had incredible lasting power (released in 2001), and has a lot of IRL communities built around it for tournaments and even just general fun because it's so popular. As such, putting in serious time into that game does not feel to me like a waste of time because it has allowed me to compete and connect with plenty of people throughout my life. Also, I feel that because I put in the time to learn that game, I will be more familiar with future Smash games (which are likely to be around for a while, and many of us have your fingers crossed for some form of Smash on the Switch). These 2 things add up to make me feel that getting good at Smash was an investment, or at the very least, a BETTER one than many other games.

I don't play them, but I imagine getting good at an FPS like CS:GO or a MOBA like LoL would carry over to future iterations of those genres through developing your aim/ reflexes/mental representations of how to play, not to mention that those games have large followings that lend themselves to IRL tournaments and clubs. More examples: Guitar Hero to learn some basic music skills (I don't play, so I don't know to what extent this is true) or DDR leading to better footwork for IRL dancing.

Any thoughts/recommendations on other games like this? Or how you can approach gaming so it becomes (more of) an investment into your real life/gaming life?

And...what can you can do to make a game/gaming a better investment? For example, joining a IRL community/meetup group so you gain real life friends.

(For those of you interested in the backstory behind me pondering this, the reason this question came up for me was because I just read Peak - a book where psychologist Anders Ericsson proposes that anyone can become really good at anything, if you put in enough deliberate practice to develop that skill. I also happened to be thinking a lot about games, so I connected the 2 and wondered "maybe I could get really good at gaming." But then the question comes up: which game? All of them require different skills. I could get good at X game, but then it becomes useless the second people move on to a different game.)

TLDR: Which games, if you develop skill in them, lend themselves to improving your real life (and/or) carry over to the future of your gaming experiences? What can you do to make gaming (more of) an investment into your real life/gaming life?

So my laptop is now approaching the 5 year mark for age and it's time to recycle the girl. Does anyone have any info they could give me or recommend me for cheap maybe 600-1000 USD laptop max. That might run games I'm not looking for maxed specs or anything just something that would run games like. Dota2 on maybe low video options I'm not looking for the best badass option just something that will run the games. I'm hoping to buy this puppy soon since my laptop as is feels like it's giving out.

The processor: Intel(r) core (tm) I7-4710HQ cpu 2.50 ghz the memory (RAM) is 8 GB system type: 64 bit operating system, x64 based processor Nividia 840M whatever that means

This is all on a windows 8.1 laptop MSI if I left any details out let me know I know I'm not exactly intelligent when it comes to buying new hardware I just like my games so any and all help will be greatly appreciated.

So obviously single player games are art; any single player game can tell a story and convey emotion just as well as a film or a book. That debate is played out as far as I'm concerned. What interests me is that, in contrast to most other media, games seem to have two distinct aspects: the story, themes and basically anything that conveys meaning, and the gameplay itself, which can be completely separate from any artistic concerns. By gameplay I mean the visceral experience of interacting with the game. For example, in single player first person shooter, the actual experience of shooting your weapons could feel fun and rewarding, or awkward and unresponsive. While that may have an effect on the overall quality of the game, it will in most situations have no effect on the way the game creates meaning (besides perhaps getting in the way of it). Mechanics are certainly used to affect meaning, especially in more experimental titles, but my point is that they aren't fundamentally connected. The traditional corridor shooter, for example, is pure, shooting gallery gameplay interspersed with a story told through cut-scenes.

So how does this relate to multiplayer games? Well, in most cases multiplayer games are pure gameplay with very little concern for story or meaning. In counter strike, for example, all decisions pertaining to the game are subordinate to creating fun, fair gameplay. This extends to the visual design and believability of maps, the weapon design and the character design. It is essentially only gameplay and makes no effort to express anything. Most multiplayer games are basically sports before anything else, which makes it difficult to classify them as art. Sure, you could call sports an art form just as you might refer to 'the art of cooking' but in my opinion these are unhelpful over generalizations and, as far as I am aware, not generally recognized by the academic community.

So maybe multiplayer games are not art. Perhaps that seems obvious, but it has some slightly troubling implications. For one, films and books are arguably inherently artistic, which means games are in some way quite different from other art forms. It also implies that gameplay, one of the most fundamental differences between games and other media, is not inherently 'artistic' when taken out of the context of story or atmosphere. This is especially troublesome when you consider that the difference between pure single player and pure multiplayer isn't necessarily binary. What about MMOs, where there is a story, but it seems like mechanics and human interactions are often prioritized? What about coop shooters like left for dead, where there is a linear story, but characterization is deliberately simplified so that new players can easily be transplanted onto their randomly assigned avatars?

Overall, it seems problematic that, in contrast to other media, pure gameplay does not seem to have inherent artistic value and so it is arguably not a given that games are art. In other words games can be both art and sport while that is not the case for films or books. There are some obvious counter examples to this, like non-fiction books, but it seems like the mutiplayer games and single player games are generally lumped together, while the categorisation 'novel' excludes works without artistic qualities. Perhaps it is time for the broader designations of fiction and non-fiction games? Anyway, what do you guys have to say about this?

TL;DR: Games can be art, but multiplayer games can easily lack any clear artistic properties, and this sort of muddies the water.

I love bad movies. Are there games that are such disasters that there is somehow entertainment value from playing them? With movies there are different types of "Bad". You have something like The Room which is so poorly made, it is an entertaining experience. You have movies like Sharknado that try and be ridiculous on purpose. Then you have movies that are just awful period. Obviously plenty of games fall into the last category but what about the other two?

i remember a moment like this in a few rpgs that i've played and pretty much all of the time they don't really want you to wait a few minutes or whatever but really you need to do something. something very specific. that they will not give you a hint about or hint about how to go about figuring out what you're supposed to do.

i can only think of one example but i know i have encountered a moment like this at least a couple of times. the example is the begining of chrono trigger where to get to the teleporter in the begining you need to talk to a generic person sitting at the water fountain. but the guards at the teleporter don't tell you that, they just tell you to come back in a while.

and you can say that they just expect you to play around a bit before progressing but i ran like 3 times trough the jungle and completed all the mini games but had no idea what to do so i had to look up that i was supposed to just talk to a generic guy at a water fountain. /rant

i know this is rarely seen these days but i want to know if it is as bad as i make it out to be or if there is some point that i don't see. maybe you'd think saying " you need to talk to gandalf" breaks the immersion more then "you can't come here right now, there's a fight" but i'm not sure it does since you always realize they were just lying and you just needed to talk to him, not wait. and you can go do 3 side quests and wait 3 thousand in game hours but there will still be "a fight".

what do you think

Obviously don't post anything other than vague thoughts / game names

By "shut up and play it" I'm talking about games that are IMPOSSIBLE not to spoil if you say anything about the game specific besides the name

Three examples I can think of are pony island and frog fractions

One that I would consider a "soft" shut up and play would be Stanley parable and the beginners guide

These games seem so RARE, was wondering what else was out there

TLDR: I'd rather my games don't involve real money, but if business are gonna head that way and people are gonna Pay2Win legally or not, I'd rather have auction houses than microtransactions. What I don't understand is why business prefer MTX over auction houses.

I know this is going to be a bit controversial. Officially sanctioned RMT was a topic of debate back then, and still is now. But think about it. If companies are gonna get greedy and go for that whale money anyway, why not do it in a way that is no more harmful to what it already was, in a way that more parties can be happy?

Real money auction houses sound pretty bad, but RMT is going to happen anyway, whether officially or unofficially, whether legally or illegally. Just like how we treat drugs, why not legalise and tax them? It's not the fairest but it might be the necessary evil.

On top of that, doesn't an auction house offer everything microtransactions can do while also providing incentives for non-paying players to stay with the game and help with retaining your cash cows? It doesn't wreck the balance/economy like microtransactions will because everything must be earned legitimately by a player in the first place. It still allows players to pay to "win", but you can't win without making your seller win at the same time, so by the end of the day, more people will be happy. Non-RMT players now have a potential way to profit off "rich idiots", and are also guaranteed at least in theory that anything money can buy can also be earned in game. You may end up with more people participating in such a system than loot crates, so even if only taking a cut, the company might still generate more revenue in the end. If it works, it's better off for everyone than microtransactions, why wouldn't you prefer it?

Was the early failure of Diablo III to blame? Was it introduced at a wrong time when people were still sensitive to the slightest of Pay2Win? Did the unsuccessful use (was it really?) in D3 pushed Blizzard and others to seek more direct ways to increase revenue? Why would Blizzard choose MTX over taxed trade in Hearthstone where real money trading for ab testing card game would almost certainly attract zero controversy? Is transaction tax income really minuscule compared to loot crates?

What makes permadeath games fun is the fact that each playthrough is different, and even if you die, there is some sort of progression.

This progression is mostly in the form of upgrades and unlockables:

• In Binding of Isaac, you can unlock more levels, characters and items even if you die. This makes your subsequent playthroughs more interesting, and you want to keep playing even if you finish the game.

• In Rogue Legacy, you can spend your gold on upgrades that carry on to your future playthroughs. The game gets easier as you invest in these upgrades, and it becomes easier to finish the game.

• In risk of rain, you can unlock artifacts to give you interesting powers in your future playthroughs, and you can also unlock new characters to spice things up.

• Similarly, in Dead Cells, you can unlock weapons, spells and new level progressions that let you play in different ways.

• Don't Starve and Spelunky doesn't let you get stronger by investing in permanent upgrades (other than alternate character unlocks), but the knowledge you gain from playthroughs make you a better player to overcome difficulties with ease.

What makes these games engaging even if you play them over and over again is their stochasticity. Each time you restart, the levels are generated randomly. This is why you never play the same game twice.

However, random level generation often leads to bland level designs. Some game designers mix and match hand crafted levels and random levels and are successful to some extent, but randomly generated content is hardly memorable.

I want to have permadeath and unlockables in a game I might develop someday, and I was wondering if I could get away with using fixed hand crafted levels. Here is an idea:

You start in a village, and the only path you can take is to the forest. You go to the forest, kill a boss, get a key. You use the key to unlock a dungeon in the village, and you end up dying in the dungeon.

There is permadeath, so you restart in the village with a brand new character. Since you unlocked the dungeon gate already, it remains unlocked, so you can skip the forest altogether. You might want to grab some essential loot from the forest if you wish, but you can skip it too. You rescue an unlockable character in the dungeon, you flip a switch - a secret passage permanently opens in the forest.

Next time you die, you can start with the alternate character you have rescued, whose starting equipment is better suited for the forest route, so you blaze through it. You kill the optional boss in the forest you were afraid to fight before. You go back to the village, invest in the merchant so he can sell you better items in your next playthrough. Eventually you unlock many routes, and the game becomes very non-linear. Eventually you kill the final boss and win the game. Of course, if you are extremely skilled, you can kill the final boss in your very first playthrough, but the average player has to die many times on different playthroughs.

Can this idea work with non-random levels? Thoughts?

Hi there!

I am a games design student in college and for our final project, we have to make a fully playable top-down action game in our groups. We have to collect feedback responses from others as it is vital for the pre-production section of our game. It would be amazing if you completed the short surveys! And it would be more amazing if you provided your own feedback on what could be improved/changed and added. The main story synopsis is given at the beginning of the surveys.

There are two surveys: 1. Choose the game title (https://goo.gl/forms/U9EQtWNY1Zg1lnAI2) 2. An initial survey for the game (https://goo.gl/forms/nZQBtPBFZldQOvq42)

Thank you in advance! (I have received prior moderator approval for the post)

I heard this question on a podcast and though it would make a great discussion.

My answer is the NES version of Strider. I remember playing the version of it at my best friend's house. The game has had an incredible impact on my life as a youth.

Here's a brief synopsis via Wikipedia

Set in a dystopian future during the year 2048, the game centers around a secret organization of hi-tech ninja-like operatives known as "Striders", who specializes in various kinds of wetworks such as smuggling, kidnapping, demolitions, and disruption. The player takes control of Hiryu, the youngest ever elite-class Strider in the organization. Hiryu is summoned by the organization's second-in-command, Vice Director Matic, to assassinate his friend Kain, who has been captured by hostile forces and has become a liability to the Striders.

At the time, videogames never told adult story full of intrigue, double crossing, backstabbing and secret organizations. When I was a kid I didn't understand the whole "don't trust who you work for" cliche. For a classic 8 bit game, it's incredible, to think that games could be more than saving the princess. But the best thing is how we would hangout and go crazy over all the twists and turns the story had. Watching the story unfold in the cinematic cutscenes and the then, state of the art tech was amazing to my kid brain. We would marvel at the "I didn't see that coming" and "Man that was sick!" twists. The actual bonding we did over it and other games was something that I can never replace.

Playing this game makes me feel like I'm totally out of place, like I've arrived somewhere I don't belong. Like I'm walking around desperately trying to fit in like this. Never before have I felt that way while playing a game.

I can't deal with these kid's cringy humour and pop culture references that I only half understand. The characters, their speech, their style, is all so disconnected from anything I'm familiar with that I feel like I'm observing a different species. Maybe the game is just trying way too hard? Is that it? Please tell me that's it.

I find the gameplay confusing too. There are so many different mechanics in place, and it feels overwhelming. I wish the game was so much simpler, because I just can't get to grips with anything. My confusion about the themes of the game combined with my confusion about the mechanics, makes me feel like I'm my grandmother trying to understand Twitter.

I'm only 27 by the way, but I feel at least 20 years older after trying this game. I just looked in the mirror and I'm noticing way more wrinkles on my face than before I booted it up. Is it all downhill from here? I feel the need to go and bask in something comfortable and familiar. The warm and loving embrace of a game I understand, with a world I can relate to. I'm going to go and play Vice City again. I wasn't alive for the 80s, but I definitely understand it a lot more than I understand... This.

Has anyone else here played a game that made you feel this way?

Addendum: What do games already do to accommodate older gamers?

In light of the recent "ageism" thread, the thought occurred to me, what can developers do to help accommodate older gamers with their limited time and different priorities? What features have helped older gamers really invest in a game in spite of the limited amount of play time after responsibilities are handled?

One of the most obvious answers would be games with a shorter/quicker game loop, e.g. the Fortnite vs PUBG match length as discussed in the earlier thread, but what else?

I NEED HELP.

I've been in this discussion with this newbie Steam Early Access developer for a few days now.

• His game has a great basis. Solid mechanics, decent art, with plenty of room for improvement in many areas.

• He finally "Released" his game. Fairly prematurely in my opinion, but to each their own.

• Now he goes through his Steam discussion board responding to all Bug and Feature requests with "NO." "If there was a big outcry during Early Access I would have fixed it." "This isn't a problem" or my favorite "I don't have the time or resources to fix that." (Yet while leaving their Steam Profile on Public and showing precisely how much time they actually DO have and just choose to devote to Timesink-style games rather. How you spend your time is totally your choice, but then don't turn around and blame your customer-base for it being their problem when you clearly have the time to fix the problem yourself and just choose not to. That's my opinion personally.)

• Example: You can't rebind a decent portion of the keys. Some you can. But major ones like TURN LEFT, TURN RIGHT, and FIRE are stuck as what he chose. Wtf? I mentioned it and he accused me of wanting to use "WEIRD" controls and maybe to try using "Normal People Controls" or be SOL. Wtf??

• How do I get through to him?

• How do I really properly convince him that the Open-Mindedness he claims to have exhibited during his Early-Access period shouldn't have just closed up now that his game is "released?"

• How do I convince him that FULLY-REBINDABLE keys are a historical staple of PC-Gaming and should not be sacrificed or compromised on?

• I've provided so many links of accounts to him where he can read about people complaining about Partially-Rebindable keys, as well as links regarding Early-Access developers fixing problems right off the bat with positive open mindsets, willing to improve their skillset and maybe sacrifice a weekend to improve their game and their own development skills in the process. I've shown him links of devs who give into fear and insecurity and just say "there are not enough resources in the world to fix that" or turn it around on the customer as THEIR problem and not the developers problem.

• I don't even care about the actual issue with his game anymore, I already fixed it for myself in less than an hour using AutoHotKey. It was NBD. But the principle still stands. I shouldn't have to pull out Notepad and AutoHotKey just to supplement a non-functioning or partially-functioning options/settings menu.

Please, I'm running out of ideas and I really would love to get through to him. Is there hope? Or is this little developer-ling doomed to closed-mindedness, fear, and insecurity forever??!?!?!

Help!!!