truegaming

I dont like to be constantly showered with rewards, unlocks, achievements in video games

I dont like to be constantly showered with rewards, unlocks, achievements in video games

Showing progress bars to next level, getting 2 news skins or dances after each game, having to press GG or taunt opponent every game in Gwent and "claim" prize after each achievement.

Lately I realized I enjoy games lot less if they have tons of rewards and constantly reminding me about them.

It kinda feels like they want to make us pavlovian dogs wanting to play game for rewards, not because of gameplay/challenge.

They're also wasting time. In old UT after map ends, there's map vote and next match begins. In new UT, it shows level progression, useless dance and who had most shock combos etc. Or level progression in Quake Champion. It's waste of time, just put me straight into next map!

I also find it annoying when people say "this game dont have achievements/unlocks/trading cards, wont play it".

Not fan of daily quests too because it feels like I'm obliged to play every day even if I dont want too. It breaks flow of my day.

Anyone feel the same?

Red dead 2 rewards need to be balanced, and doing so will highly improve the game.

Red dead 2 rewards need to be balanced, and doing so will highly improve the game.

2018 is the first year where the market share of Mobile gaming was larger than PC and Home Consoles combined. Does this concern you, and what do you think the future holds if this trend continues?

2018 is the first year where the market share of Mobile gaming was larger than PC and Home Consoles combined. Does this concern you, and what do you think the future holds if this trend continues?Source for claim.

A quick graph for reference.

While I think we all expected mobile as a platform to be big, and continue to grow in popularity, this certainly caught me by surprise. I've long held that, like it or not, mobile gaming was going to be the future, but I truly did not anticipate it to happen this quickly.

I should note that I am a home console and PC player through and through; it's not because I don't respect mobile devices as a platform for potentially great game experiences, but largely due to the manufactured inconvenience, and oftentimes outright predatory monetization practices ripe within the current mobile gaming scene. With a real push for quality experiences on mobile I believe it has the capacity to be something really awesome, with a nearly unfathomable base of potential players to tap into and introduce to video games. (Shoutouts to Jagex for creating what I consider to be a fantastic mobile experience with Old School Runescape, and doing it the right way. It's just as good on mobile as it is on PC, with no frills or tricks to push microtransactions)

But, if the trend of awful mobile games designed from the ground up to separate you from your money continues, I must admit that mobile gaming dominating the market concerns me. It seems almost certain that large budget experiences will be scaled down if the mentality takes hold that long time diehard gamers are too hard to please and resistant to monetization. Why bother trying to cater to them if you can create a mobile experience for a fraction of the price, directed at a demographic that seems enthusiastic to spend outrageous amounts of money for things like 'Energy' and other forms of premium in game currency? Perhaps we're already starting to see this, with hugely expensive titles like Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 chasing the trending market and foregoing series classic features like a single player campaign?

With glimpses into the future of other big names in the industry, such as Microsoft and Project xCloud or Sony and their (albeit ill-fated) attempts to stream gameplay to other devices, it seems very possible to me that Scarlett (codename for the next Xbox console) and PlayStation 5 could potentially be the last generation of dedicated home consoles. In a surprising move it seems like Nintendo has already embraced this possibility, at least in terms of physical portability with the Switch.

What are your thoughts? Does this bode poorly for the future of gaming, a sign that hardcore home console and PC players are being left behind? Is this shift in the market going to negatively impact games and the experiences they provide as a whole, or are you more optimistic?
2018 is the first year where the market share of Mobile gaming was larger than PC and Home Consoles combined. Does this concern you, and what do you think the future holds if this trend continues?

Source for claim.

While I think we all expected mobile as a platform to be big, and continue to grow in popularity, this certainly caught me by surprise. I've long held that, like it or not, mobile gaming was going to be the future, but I truly did not anticipate it to happen this quickly.

I should note that I am a home console and PC player through and through; it's not because I don't respect mobile devices as a platform for potentially great game experiences, but largely due to the manufactured inconvenience, and oftentimes outright predatory monetization practices ripe within the current mobile gaming scene. With a real push for quality experiences on mobile I believe it has the capacity to be something really awesome, with a nearly unfathomable base of potential players to tap into and introduce to video games. (Shoutouts to Jagex for creating what I consider to be a fantastic mobile experience with Old School Runescape, and doing it the right way. It's just as good on mobile as it is on PC, with no frills or tricks to push microtransactions)

But, if the trend of awful mobile games designed from the ground up to separate you from your money continues, I must admit that mobile gaming dominating the market concerns me. It seems almost certain that large budget experiences will be scaled down if the mentality takes hold that long time diehard gamers are too hard to please and resistant to monetization. Why bother trying to cater to them if you can create a mobile experience for a fraction of the price, directed at a demographic that seems enthusiastic to spend outrageous amounts of money for things like 'Energy' and other forms of premium in game currency? Perhaps we're already starting to see this, with hugely expensive titles like Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 chasing the trending market and foregoing series classic features like a single player campaign?

With glimpses into the future of other big names in the industry, such as Microsoft and Project xCloud or Sony and their (albeit ill-fated) attempts to stream gameplay to other devices, it seems very possible to me that Scarlett (codename for the next Xbox console) and PlayStation 5 could potentially be the last generation of dedicated home consoles. In a surprising move it seems like Nintendo has already embraced this possibility, at least in terms of physical portability with the Switch.

What are your thoughts? Does this bode poorly for the future of gaming, a sign that hardcore home console and PC players are being left behind? Is this shift in the market going to negatively impact games and the experiences they provide as a whole, or are you more optimistic?

What is the best ACTUAL choice-based game, rather than just "illusion of choice"? IOW, in what game do your choices matter the most?

What is the best ACTUAL choice-based game, rather than just "illusion of choice"? IOW, in what game do your choices matter the most?

3D, 2D, anything... Just looking for an actual choose-your-own-adventure. (Besides Undertale)

Edit (re: mwvd): Ahem My favorite game of this type is Undertale. The game's choices matter so much that you actually feel tied to the game. I first bought Undertale simply due to the hype but quickly became disinterested in the first area, when I didn't understand how much depth was waiting underneath and beyond. I even ended up refunding it but luckily bought it again 2 years later on a whim, and goodness I should have jumped on the bandwagon sooner.

Few games get strong emotional reactions out of me, but Undertale did it by surprising me again and again with consequences to your choices that affect which stories and mechanics you encounter! I can't really say much specifics without spoiling. But your choices do matter a ton, and it's really interesting to replay-- in fact, the game feels incomplete if you don't. Plus, people are still uncovering little easter eggs hidden throughout the game that reveal more about the plot. 10/10, wish I could make a game like that.

Looking forward to hearing all of your suggestions for other great choice games!

I feel like the older I get, the more I like the idea of games, but not the games themselves.

I feel like the older I get, the more I like the idea of games, but not the games themselves.

Currently, I am on the hunt for a good 4x game. I love the thought of building my empire, exploring the world, and being immersed in it, but every game I try fails to grab me. Maybe part of it is intimidation with learning how to play, but I think more of it is that I like the Idea of the game and not the game itself.

Something like Dwarf Fortress seems like the perfect match. It simulates the entire history of the world, and you get to build and manage a fortress. Seems perfect for what I am looking for, but it could never actually grab me. Maybe it is a bad first example, since the learning curve is pretty high, but I find it the same with most other games too.

I just started up stellaris, which I've played for about 10 hours in the past, and I just could not get into it. Same thing with Civ V (which is closer to 100 hours)

It's not just 4x games either. I always start RPGs, but never get too far into them. I got out of the prison in Divinity Original Sin 2, and haven't played since. I've tried to start The Witcher 3, three different times now, and never got past the second area, even though it seemed like a really fun game. Especially the large monster fights. Megaquarium looked like so much fun. Something to build your own aquarium? Sounds perfect, since I love the sea.

Again, it all goes back to that Idea of a game. What the game actually plays as sounds amazing, and I can't wait to try it, but when I do try it, it just doesn't keep my attention. I love watching youtube videos of the games - Playthroughs, guides, tutorials - But when it comes to actually sitting down, and playing it, I just can't do it most of the time.

Choices in RPGs that relate to gameplay but not story.

Choices in RPGs that relate to gameplay but not story.

I was replaying Oblivion recently. Many have criticized this game for not having player choice and thus isnt a true RPG. This is mostly a valid criticism, mostly. Oblivion does occasionally offer player choice, and one instance of this is one of the most creative instances of player choice I've seen in a game.

Half way through the Main Quest, Sean Bean asks you to retrieve and sacrifice a daedric artifact. You are pointed to Azuras star, but any will do. These are highly unique items. Not just abnormally high statistical buffs, but items that change how you play. Depending on your playstyle some will be more useful than others, but giving one up is quite a dilemma. But none of this affects the story in the slightest, it's a gameplay dilemma, and an interesting one, and I wish this was more common in these types of things.

Why is navigation through the world/environment far and far less a part of games?

Why is navigation through the world/environment far and far less a part of games?

Yeah I know I may have an unpopular standpoint because I will "attack" an recent popular and charming game and I know gaming has come a loooong way for being where it stands now with all of its conveniences but I can't help that I'm more and more unsatisfied of exploring modern game worlds.

I'm playing Dragon Quest 11 right now and one of its biggest issues to me is its minimap at the left-down corner on the screen, which is impossible to hide.

When I'm thinking back at previous entries like dragon quest 8 (the first one with a 3D environment) there was no such map, even when it was released at a time, where minimaps where becoming standard for assisting you to navigate through game worlds.

In fact in DQ8 was a map which pops up on pressing a button, but even this map does only show your approximate location, by showing you the environment around you but not where you stand and in such a scale that no details or names of significant places are shown.

The dragon quest 11 map shows you at the start of each area the whole location and important npc's like quest givers, the next destination and every resident area where you can go next.

I would be able to ignore it, if it wasn't for the minimap where you don't have the choice to deactivate it. It may be a small detail for most of you but in my case it has a great effect.

Because it is located at bottom-left of the screen (which is by the way rarely seen in non-strategy games, because the focus of your eyes lay on the lower half of the screen) you can't get it out of your eyes, it's always a stain which distracts you (or at least me) from enjoying the beatiful scenery of the game. In more cramped locations I caught myself for laying my attention more on the minimap than of the actual screen, because by exploring it shows me asides from heights every little place I can get to, which results in another problem:

the world becomes more artificial because you can always see the borders of the map right from the start, knowing where your'e able to go and not to go and giving away potential surprises and secrets. I was really looking forward to explore these areas on my own by experiencing the borders of the game world for myself, when I look at all these great environments at first I wouldn't recognize that they are just a few inches walkable, the illusion without a minimap is just to good for that, which allows me to immerse better in the game world. The designers put a lot of effort in that regard, in early trailers it even looked like an open world game which it is not.

Unfortunelately the designers didn't put much trust on the player for navigating and finding a way for their own - even on such an more linear game - and that really huffs me because Dragon Quest 11 is not the only game, but at least it was a game which was always (and still is) labled as an old-school rpg which follows old traditions... well the newest entry does a lot of compromises with quest markers, minimaps, side-quest-logs and so on.

I really miss the sense of wonder and surprise which I can only get when games don't tell me to much about their world from the start. At least allow me to play the game without all these informations. I feel much more engaged when I'm more encouraged to give more attention to my surroundings, beeing able to get lost may sound harsh, but it's always a pro for the game, because most games don't even have that freedom that you can get lost. Maybe you feel a bit annoyed by searching the way back, but at least you feel something. It would be much more organic and significant to place clues and distinctive marks inside of the actual game world, instead of giving you an navigator for the whole game,

In any case it's always better to reduce the UI as much as possible so that the player can concentrate on the actual game.

I'm really not that much obssesed of finding everything that the game can offer me, as long it's not highlighted... like showing the exact amount of exploreable sidequests in the game right from the start. (Yakuza does this also) Do you know what I mean? What I don't know won't hurt me. I'm really sick of checklists and the teasing of hidden content. That's doing stuff just for the sake of completion. Let me have my own adventure, allow me to miss things, allow me to play a game a second times after years and be still suprised. Many old games can still accomplish that, the reason why is, because they don't share the same design paradigm than actual modern games share.

All these help should be optional extras for players who struggle to finding their way. Instead it's the other way around and players who want to get more immersed have to rely on options for disabling it, which is not always the case, like in Dragon Quest 11. And even when it is, the game is to often not designed for that, hiding away integral informations or illogical descriptions for tasks, because even the designers tend to forget that the NPC's couldn't know of things that are UI related.

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"

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.

What Mass Effect 1 Did Right

What Mass Effect 1 Did Right

In terms of shooting mechanics and visuals the 2nd and 3rd ME installments were obviously better, but they never captured the atmosphere ME1 had.

ME1 let you know it didn't care about your immediate gratification. If you wanted to get somewhere on a planet or on the citadel you had to learn its layout, you have to adapt to the world, not the other way around. You were a small part of something bigger and no one cared enough to make things convenient for you. You have to hassle with people endlessly just to get anywhere because you're a nuisance to them.

Even though ME1 wasn't a a huge open world sand box by any means, it still felt big, bigger than games like Skyrim and Just Cause just because of the way it presented itself.

In ME2 and ME3 you were a big hero and everyone loved you. Even though ME2 especially had lots of planets to visits it still felt small. Everything was just handed to you: the objectives were linear and straightforwards and the "boring" parts of the hub worlds were taken out, this is pretty obvious on planets like Omega where basically half the planet or more is a nightclub.

Honestly I thought the sheer amount of emptiness in ME1 took away from the pacing, but it was still fine. ME2 and ME3 went way too far in stripping ME1's richness.

Try one of these subthreads