There’s a survival game called Grounded that’s basically this but even smaller. And a coop story action/adventure called It Takes Two that does the same.
Came here to say Tinykin. Great game that nobody ever seems to talk about. Hard to recommend irl as well since the name makes it sound like a kid’s edutainment title or something.
Hunt Showdown is on offer at the moment. It’s quite a learning curve but once you get the hang of it it’s fantastic. I’ve clocked 2.4k hours and it’s still got me hooked
They did shake up the economy but it was nothing serious. There were a bunch of cry babies like this on Reddit and discord.
At the end of the day you only need Blood Bonds to buy some legendary weapons/hunter/tool skins which are purely cosmetic and have nothing to do with the main game loop.
Some skins/cosmetics can also be earned in game without using premium currency.
I bought most DLC and blood bond skins because they cool and I want to support a game I love
2400 hours of fun for the €20 I paid for Hunt is damn good value
Hunt is like a more accessible version of Tarkov, without the loot Tetris, gun modding, and crazy detailed ballistics, set in a cool Lovecraftian late 19th century iteration of Louisiana’s swamps. Strongly recommend! (To anyone concerned about monetisation, outside buying the game, everything else is entirely cosmetic.)
Monaco: What’s Yours is Mine is a really fun stealthy top-down 2D story game. It support 4P coop. There are several characters with very different abilities allowing for unique ways to tackle the map’s challenges. There is also a scenario editor to create custom challenges.
So I have a lot of thoughts on this that I have repeatedly failed to word in a way that I am happy with, so I am going to sideline a lot of those to focus on some more high-level thoughts:
As many have noted, there would probably be significantly better discussion happening if the ideas in the post were framed in a less antagonistic way. While I don’t think the post should be removed, it has been reported multiple times as “obvious rage-bait”, and I have a hard time disagreeing with that view. It is hard to take criticisms of things you like when the tone of that criticism is condescending and antagonistic. This isn’t helped by all the “reasons” given are very subjective and vague, with no concrete examples given to give a reader any context for what you think falls in these categories. In my experience, this type of “conversation” (I hesitate to call it a “conversation” because I think the structure makes having an actual conversation nearly impossible) is really prevalent amongst men who studied STEM and Redditors. Rather than a discussion about preferences in games and strengths/weaknesses of different storytelling styles, it encourages “I’m right, you’re wrong” argumentation, which just won’t be as fruitful and serves mostly to build tension within the community. For me personally, while I do think the ideas in the post make for interesting discussions/conversations, I don’t believe it is possible when this is the initial framing. I hope we can avoid this discussion/argumentation style on beehaw.
As for a more general thoughts on the contents of the post: this feels like it could be condensed down to “I only like a very specific and limited type of storytelling and view anything outside of that as lesser and flawed.” It is also comes off as a very simplistic and “rationalist” analysis of storytelling. It is focused only on tropes and structure and ignores how those tropes might be used to emphasize a theme, or the emotional impact of those stories.
I agree with you fully! Only thing I did not really like is the part about this sort of communication being “really prevalent amongst men who studied STEM and Redditors”. I know you prefaced it with “in my experience”, but it still feels a bit generalizing and not really relevant to the rest of the post. I think the behaviour should be called out, but pinning it on a group always feels a bit “us vs them”. Feel free to reply and discuss further, unlike OP I am looking for connection and mutual understanding :)
I agree that video game narratives are, on average, way worse than in other media, but… This post is like a script for a CinemaSins video on an entire medium. There’s a conversation to be had about the quality and originality of storytelling in video games and why gamers are so quick to praise mediocre narratives, but I dunno if glib one-paragraph summaries of “types” of video game stories (with no examples!) do much to advance that conversation.
There’s a conversation to be had about the quality and originality of storytelling in video games and why gamers are so quick to praise mediocre narratives,
No, there’s really not. This is just a condescending way to disreguard someone else opinion on a piece of media or writing you dislike. The simple answer is just that thehly legitimately thought it was good.
I’m so tired of people acting like they’re some keepers of “good” content because they have the nonsense notion that media/writing is obectively good/bad. Want to talk about a film you just really liked online? Nope, it’s “objectively” bad writing, therefore you have terrible taste for liking it (or get called worse). I was hoping discussions like this would be better here.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne