How to handle competitive graphics downgrade?
Ran into this dilemma for myself as well as some pro streamer whose game was rendered unenjoyable to watch due to this issue.
How do you handle it and how do you think game developers are to approach it?
Sidenote: There are also instances of the opposite, i.e. lower graphics settings creating disadvantage: Kej objects/enemies require closer proximity to spawn or are tougher to distinguish from the encironment.
What's the most frustratingly illogical thing you've seen in a game?
By illogical, I don't necessarily mean any of the countless unrealistic things in games, but just that thing that doesn't make sense at all, which gets frustrating.
Is PUBG dead in the water as soon as a more polished AAA competitor appears?
Before PUBG there was H1Z1 and everybody jumped ship because it worked better. But PUBG itself has no real identity, it's an extremely generic looking realistic shooter with basically no personality, and it's ugly as hell too on a technical level. Its genre is the only notable thing about it.
What is there to keep anybody playing PUBG when the inevitable AAA competitor appears? Because you just know a bunch of studios are working like mad to cash in on this at this very moment.
Fortnite is the only real competitor currently but it's different enough that a lot of people are put off with the aesthetic - but will we see a mass exodus when another realistic looking game like PUBG comes out but more polished?
Looking for a gaming chair that's not a gaming chair
The Unexpected Benefits of Pokemon Go
I've been playing Pokemon Go for a few days now, it's gotten me out of the house and has been pretty entertaining, but it never really clicked for me until today when something really special happened.
I was just on my normal walking route when I saw a few lures so I went to check it out, a few people were already there and we exchanged the usual, "Are you here for Pokemon?" More and more people began to show up, at least 30 gathering in this park by this point. I bumped into my cousin's ex-girlfriend who I haven't seen in a while and we did some catching up. A few people from work that I kind of know but never really talk to had a good conversation and I think we'll be good friends around the office now. They introduced me to their spouses and friends and I ended up meeting quite a few people. Someone even parked their car nearby and started blasted Pokemon music for the duration of the lures.
I guess why this was so meaningful for me is that I've lived my entire life with social anxiety and never really interact with people a whole lot except with a few close friends and family. But just being in this environment and being able to talk to people about something I know about and know the conversation will be well received just left me with the greatest feeling in the world. It really felt like the first time in years I had come out of my shell and just had really fun conversations with strangers.
This game may not be perfect, but the unexpected and impactful results have made it my GOTY so far already. I recommend it to anyone that can relate to issues of social anxiety and just need an extra push to get yourself into a social environment.
Paradoxically, Open Worlds *Reduce* the sense of scale in a game
This is something I've begun to notice more and more as the recent spate of open world games develop, although it's also something that has been a problem for some time in older MMOs like WoW and in Bethesda titles.
Open worlds, at least of the handcrafted, non-Daggerfall/random generation type, contain a limited surface area. Some, like Just Cause 2 and 3, are very large, but for the most part they number just a few square kilometres each.
In the case of a game like Assassin's Creed, this does not present a great problem to world immersion. Central London or Paris is a very dense urban environment and the game's territorial ambitions are relatively small. The game (eg. AC Unity) only intends to cover a few square kilometres, and does so well- the city feels big for its size.
But other games have greater geographical ambitions. The goal of Skyrim, for example, is to render an entire country of presumably over a million inhabitants. A world in which a journey over the mountains is an arduous affair that takes weeks to complete.
And yet the biggest city in Skyrim consists of six houses, a couple of shops and a pub. The 'cloud district' has become something of a meme but the fact is that none of Skyrim's "cities" would be considered more than a hamlet in the real world. Evil enemy lairs are less than 300m from major urban centres. Vast armies number less than a dozen men- the whole affair feels like walking around the overworld in a Total War game, except where that lets the player zoom in to huge battles with massive, realistically-sized armies, in Skyrim the whole world feels like a bizarre caricature, a kind of miniature Disney-World representation of a country.
And while Bethesda is the most egregious offender, other games suffer similarly. A five minute griffon flight in World of Warcraft can be a multicoloured jaunt through a cavalcade of zones. In GTA V, the game's Beverly Hills region in which Michael lives is essentially a single block, and the 'hood' is about two streets. It is possible to circle Rockstar's entire pastiche of Southern California in less than six or seven minutes by car.
I contrast this to the other major kind of world design style used in these non-linear experiences, the so-called 'hub and spoke' model of Dishonored, Mass Effect, Deus Ex and so on. In essence a series of hub zones and mission areas, separated by a world map, overworld or cutscene transport.
The world of Mass Effect is, physically, very small. Even the Citadel in Mass Effect 1 is no more than a few corridors, and yet effective use of skyboxes, great level design and incredible music bring the worlds of Ilium, Noveria, and Omega to life. Mass Effect feels like a massive universe, just by looking out of the window.
The Souls games (and Bloodborne) are the same way. Winding pathways leading to great views and smaller open areas create an immense atmosphere, a real sense of time and place. Open worlds show the seams- between the great sights, there will always be more boring areas as well.
I think the recent open world trend makes worlds feel small. Even The Witcher 3 lacks the immense sense of scale you imagine when seeing the map of the Northern Kingdoms. Building realistically sized open worlds is impossible, so perhaps it's time to return to a smaller, but more immersive gameplay strategy for some games.
[Request] Please stop referring to games by acronyms. Take the extra couple of seconds to type the name out so everyone knows what you are talking about.
You know what bothers me is how many gamers I see out there that have seemingly turned gaming into a chore.
Over and over on this subreddit, and talking to gamers I know in life, i'm finding this to be the case more and more. I keep seeing post on here about "oh I have hundreds of games in my steam backlog, I need to make some time to beat them so I can clear my backlog". The mindset is that a game is meant to be consumed and then thrown away, and consumed in as quick a time period as possible. Like the purpose of the game is to get to the end of the game. Almost like a video game was a chore that you needed to complete in order to free up your schedule. But video games were supposed to be the opposite of a chore I thought.
Maybe i'm the crazy one, but the idea of beating a game so you can move on to another game seems foreign to me. Like, if I start playing a game, and I'm not enjoying it after a little while, I put it down and probably never play it again. And, if I'm playing a game that I enjoy, once I beat it, I usually come back to it at another time. And I usually play it at a slower pace.
I feel like this is a consequence of how easy it is to buy a lot of games for very little money now. What i'd call "the Steam Effect". People end up collecting way too many games so easily, and they start to feel guilty because a game unplayed is like a lost cost. It feels like wasted money. Which it is. But I think they feel like the money is no longer wasted if they force themselves to play through all of them. But then they are no longer in the mindset of playing to enjoy, they are in it to get to the end. And I am skeptical of how fun it is any more once that is your mindset. I feel like it is like spending your free time [when you no longer have any chores you have to do] by doing more chores.
Konami has finally and completely gone off the deep end. They are now removing fan-art from twitter. YT video inside.
First of all, i am not /u/alphaomegasin who made the video, so i am not marketing my own video.
Now then, where AOS discusses this. Honestly, i have no respect for Konami. Removing Kojima's name from MGS:V art and marketing, suddenly and without warning cancelling Silent Hills, turning their beloved IPs to shitty pachinko machines that almost no one outside Japan cares about, supposedly treating their employees rather badly (i've only seen that Jimquisition video about it, so i'm not 100% sure if it's true, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were)...
Honestly, Konami has gone off the slippery slope that Capcom went off of, except faster and with even less dignity. I wonder what they will do next...
Is there anything Konami could do to gain back the fans they once had? I highly doubt that, since they've been basically been pissing on us and telling us it's rain.
Purposefully choosing the wrong path in linear games
So I've been playing Transistor and Shadow Warrior recently, and these games reminded me of something I thought of a while ago. Whenever I play action-adventure type games, I often find myself purposely trying to go the wrong way, because I'm looking for hidden items that I know are around.
It's something that I first picked up on when I was playing the Bioshock and Metro series. I would often have a choice of two different paths, and would always try to pick the one that I thought was a dead end because I wanted to see what interesting things were hidden there. A lot of times I'll choose a path and, as it keeps going and going, I realize that it's the way the player is supposed to go to progress the story and not a sidestreet/hidden area, at which point I turn around and go back to the fork in the road to purposefully explore the wrong direction before I return to the correct path to continue the game.
I love finding hidden things in these types of games but I feel like it's becoming a tired cliche at this point when the player knows they'll be rewarded with extra ammo or items for purposefully going the wrong way. Games like Bioshock and Metro admittedly did the detour thing very well, but I can't help but feel like it breaks immersion a bit. Does anyone else find themselves doing this or am I on my own here?