Burnout Revenge was a beloved game of my childhood. You had bonuses from wrecking your foes, got bonuses for creating wrecks, and for near death experiences. And there was an awesome mode where you would launch your car into a scene to cause as much damage as possible.
Midnight Club 2 where you could customize your cars and race them on fun tracks, but could also just beep around the open world.
Maybe it’s nostalgia, but I would love a fun racing game that doesn’t have a GTA attached to it.
This is literally why people spend $500 on a switch 2; it has the only arcade racer on the market worth playing. If you don’t want a single-game console or Mark Kart isn’t whst you’re looking for, tough luck.
SuperTuxKart is alright, from what I understand. They’re also making a new version apparently. Though I’m not into karting arcades, so dunno for sure how it compares.
Try ‘Wreckfest’: it’s similar to ‘Burnout’, but with better physics. Also ‘Circuit Superstars’ for a top-down racer with decent physics, pit stops, and multiplayer.
There are also ‘The Crew 2’ and ‘The Crew Motorfest’, ‘Tokyo Xtreme Racer’, ‘Asphalt Legends’, ‘Formula Legends’, ‘iRacing Arcade’, and of course ‘Forza Horizon’ 4/5 — but I haven’t played any of these, so ymmv.
an absence of quick-time events (I hate those things in cut-scenes, parry systems, etc.)
a mode that allows the player to destroy the environment, NPCs, etc. including, when on, making the game unable to be completed potentially. I think having that be a toggle will still allow people to relive older RPGs where you could easily ruin your life without knowing for hours.
Off-the-wall weapons. I think Blood 2 had a few and even halflife 2
I bought a Retroid 3+ a while ago. It was an interesting experiment, but ultimately a pain in the ass to configure.
Ideally I just want to select a rom or game and play. I really don’t enjoy spending hours in settings and tweaking every detail to get a have to run decently. I don’t need AAA, but GameCube and PS2 would be cool.
Is that a thing? Or am I doomed to hangout in RetroArch settings?
GameCube and PS2 are a breeze to set up. I never use RetroArch for either of them, all you need to do is set the bios for PS2, change the input (AYN will automatically be set, but I find its better safe than sorry as it can make the odd error when configuring input for you!), choose your upscaling and go!
GCN was even easier, input and upscale, then play!
I’ll be writing up a thorough guide/games/settings post, I’ll find you an link you when I do if you’d like? But for PS2 and GCN its the work of 2 mins at the most on each :)
I’ve pretty much only ever used headphones when playing games. Never been much of a console gamer, always PC. At this point I almost exclusively use my HD 800s. They’re absolutely amazing headphones and the sound stage is incredible for gaming. Far better than any “gaming” headset I’ve used in the past.
There’s plenty of better deep dives on YouTube, but basically it’s a system in Shadows of Mordor (and moreso in Shadows of War) that would take a random NPC you were fighting and were joined by (or almost killed,) and elevate them thematically. If one knocked you down there’s a chance they would pick up your sword and break it, smack talk you, and walk away. That guy, of his name was Doug, became Doug the Sword Breaker. Never time you saw him, he’d get a short introduction and a quip or two to remove you of who he was.
If you died, since you were a spirit they’d just mock that they already best you before. But if you were killing them, they might get a scene where they manage to get away to amplify the story. Or maybe you’ll just kill them. It was random and happened with random NPCs, elevating them in the enemy army.
I believe in the second one you could even mind control someone, and take out the people above them, and have a spy in the upper ranks.
Imagine an action game with some Crusader Kings plot drama happening.
Honestly I think there’s probably enough prior art to get away with using whatever you wanted from it. But a) I’m no lawyer and b) I’m not risking millions of dollars making a game.
The nemesis system patents and Namco’s loading screen mini game patent are two examples of why game mechanics and features should never be granted an exclusive patent.
Of course Namco’s patents expired in 2015 at a time when seamless load screens had become the industry standard.
Who knows what the gaming landscape will look like when people are finally able to get their hands on the nemesis system again?
I’m currently enjoying a Skyrim playthrough that uses the Nemesis mod. It doesn’t have ALL of the features that the shadow series does of course, but I’m really enjoying it!
Ooh, I started a new VR playthrough recently, without a concrete plan (well, beyond joining the Brotherhood, because Music of Life by Young Scrolls is amazing).
Take a look at Half-Life 2’s old Face Poser software. I feel like you don’t see that sort of action-level control much anymore.
Indie studios are evading the need for lipsync entirely, by making simple models, giving people masks, putting them on radio overlays, etc. AAA studios are overengineering it, putting a $4,000,000 actor in a motion capture suit for each of their cutscenes to capture every fine detail as they stare in wonder at the white ping-pong ball in the studio with the sign written; “LOOK HERE”.
Face Poser was a good median; it’s where the director gets control, but you don’t need a vast technical setup beyond animations, some vowel extraction, and some basic know-how. It means that if the director wants to add a criticism “No, character B should give a dubious, unsure look when character A says that”, it’s something they can apply directly rather than ask the animators to do by hand.
For some reference, old machinima like Clear Skies, or my own “AS” made use of Face Poser.
Even if some people aren’t, no one is getting psychologically damaged by the sight of some digital boobs. Puritanical attitudes toward sex do more damage than seeing boobs ever could.
“Sure, kids, all those limbs flying around and buckets of blood, as long as your parents are cool with it (or you just forget to tell them about it). All that stuff representing causing excruciating pain and ending lives. But not one tiny sliver of a nipple for you, or else your mind will be CORRUPTED!”
For fuck’s sake, autocorrect changed “nipple” to “ripple” while I was typing that.
I mean, in the same vein, just have age rating settings on games where applicable. Sometimes I want as much adult in my adult game as possible, other ones I want just good old fashioned fun. Overall I want sensorship to fucking quit it. Especially lately where they’re going back to games that were developed one way and sensoring them when they do HD remakes. Fucking stupid
Yeah that’s the issue with most of these suggestions and why they’re being tagged as ‘standardization’ make it a requirement. I fully realize my suggestion though is a bit more work and probably will never happen ha.
Since I do audio stuff, for my headphones I use a Shure SRH440A. It does a very good job from what I can tell and for my regular speakers I use a Logitech G560 but I’m thinking of changing these out for a set of studio monitors since they’re randomly disconnecting all the time.
Gameplay settings menus that allow you to turn off gameplay mechanisms you simply don’t enjoy, or tune them.
I’m talking about ones that are like one line of code being set to true instead of false etc. That type of thing.
Basically things like that and the Atomfall gameplay/difficulty settings menu
I don’t give a fuck if some pretentious asses “artistic vision” requires the player to backtrack half way across a level on every death or thinks a shitty minigame should be played no less than 153 times every play through. I want to be able to just turn off the unfun shit, and leave on the fun shit.
This is a game. I don’t care if the developer thinks X Y or Z adds to the experience. If I don’t, within reason I should just be able to turn it off.
I disagree because it solely approaches games as some sort of “electronic commodity” and outright despises a development group’s artistry.
Sure, not every game is trying to be art. But games have long gone beyond the realm of simply “entertain me”. That opinion is like saying “books should be made in a way that allows users to change the story whenever and however they want.” It is something you can do but there’s no imperative to cater to it.
I disagree because it solely approaches games as some sort of “electronic commodity” and outright despises a development group’s artistry.
This is meaningless pretentious gibberish. It’s like saying that watching movie on an unintended device is disrespecting the playwright.
Why should your desire to put entertaining past times on a pedestal restrict what I should be able to do.
If you feel that way, then play games as they intend. There is no reason to be against other people having an option just because you don’t like it.
You are in essence gatekeeping enjoying a video game as a concept. Like people must enjoy them the way you envision.
That opinion is like saying “books should be made in a way that allows users to change the story whenever and however they want.” It is something you can do but there’s no imperative to cater to it.
This makes no sense at all as an analogy. Books don’t run on game engines and don’t have recycled bits of logic that game mechanics are comprised of that can be mass changed to great effect. The feature you’re describing would require the equivalent of writing the book a million times over. The changes Im describing are often accomplished on day one by modders, or just included by the developers as a quality of life feature set.
You are in essence gatekeeping enjoying a video game as a concept. Like people must enjoy them the way you envision.
What an incredibly inaccurate statement. I love modding video games, I spend more time modding video games than I spend playing video games. I understand that the vision developers have doesn’t often align with what I want from their product.
I don’t agree that developers should be spending dev cycles making a game functional for a user that turns off any configuration of gameplay mechanics.
Saying you can just set a variable from “true to false” is so laughably misunderstanding what goes into software development much less game development that it sounds entitled. What gameplay mechanics are you even saying should be configurable? All of them? Just turn off the combat in a fighting game? At what point is a gameplay mechanic integral to the genre/experience? And who is the person or persons that decide?
Developers should be free to create what they want, and the end user is free to mod it however they want. That includes, for the devs, not purposefully obfuscating things so that modding is more diffcult.
Saying you can just set a variable from “true to false” is so laughably misunderstanding what goes into software development much less game development that it sounds entitled.
This is an attempt to sound smart that falls flat. The idea that there are no configuration settings that are simply inaccessible to users which are boolean values is laughably naive and provably wrong in many games.
What gameplay mechanics are you even saying should be configurable? All of them? Just turn off the combat in a fighting game? At what point is a gameplay mechanic integral to the genre/experience? And who is the person or persons that decide?
This isn’t an argument, its you saying that without being hyper specific, and laying out a detailed rule book for hypothetical future games, youll arbitrarily decide to assume the most irrational conclusion so that you can continue to rage and gate keep.
Developers should be free to create what they want, and the end user is free to mod it however they want. That includes, for the devs, not purposefully obfuscating things so that modding is more diffcult.
This is a strawman argument, as no one in this thread is restricting any developers ability to do anything. It is quite literally a wishlist thread. This “criticism” could literally be applied to anything in this thread. Its invalid.
don’t know how many, if any, settings matching the true/false + 1 line of code restraints even exist.
Absolutely. For example, turning off running out of stamina, removing item loss, turning off minigames is close.
There are tons. Atomfall has a ton of options that are similarly simple.
If you can change a setting, even if it’s a binary choice, someone had to think about, implement and test everything pertaining to these choices.
Nah. Some choices just arent that complicated. I think you’re over complicating it. We can especially see that this is true in many games where things are modded in. Like in Cyberpunk, just not having to play the minigames is a better experience imo. Like its slightly more than the one line hyperbole, but not much.
Depending on what kind of mechanic we’re talking about and how deeply integrated into the rest of the game this mechanic is, that could be a big task.
I feel like you’re getting away from the spirit of my comment here/getting carried away with finding exceptions and technicalities to this thread about no game in particular and hypothetical wishlists of features.
I didn’t mean to get caught up in exceptions or exaggerations. I’m no developer either, so I have zero background-knowledge about game-development or game-engines.
Though as I work in IT (again, no developer) and live within a zero-IT-knowledge friend circle, I tend to try and shine a little light on some things that, to the outside, might seem simple but maybe aren’t. I guess sometimes I’m trying to err on the side of caution a little too much.
I definitely think there are a few of those one-line, true/false settings that could just be toggled, especially things that are handled by the engine instead of the game-logic itself, though I cannot speak of experience here.
I don’t give a fuck if some pretentious asses “artistic vision” requires the player to backtrack half way across a level on every death or thinks a shitty minigame should be played no less than 153 times every play through.
Then just don’t play that game or use cheats (if its a singleplayer game)?
I don’t see why a game developer needs to intentionally provide an option to remove mechanics they designed a game around just to please someone that doesn’t want to play the game as they designed it.
Lets talk about QTEs as an example. Because for QTEs, a developer can easily add an option to entirely circumvent them, with just a single boolean and a single line of code in the QTE input method.
I think that, for accessibility reasons, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for an option to switch between tapping a button and holding a button to complete a QTE. I think it is unreasonable to ask developers for an option to completely remove QTEs from their game (such as auto-succeed/auto-complete). For many games, this would turn an interactive part of the game which is normally followed by an uninteractive cutscene into an uninteractive cutscene immediately followed by another uninteractive cutscene. Players that disable QTEs could easily be sitting through very long stretches of uninteractive parts of the game instead of interacting with the game, leading to those players complaining about long cutscenes since they usually completely forget they disabled QTEs.
Shenmue has Quick Time Events. A lot of them. If someone hates QTEs, it would be better for them not to play the game at all than to play without them. It is a core part of the intended experience that enhances the player’s time with the game. You get to interact with the cutscene instead of dropping the controller and turning off your brain. As a player, you pay more attention and keep your controller ready because at any moment you could be hit with a QTE and you want to be ready for that. You as a player have anticipation, excitement, nervousness, fear, etc that the developer makes you feel using mechanics like QTEs. You are more engaged with the game than someone that wants those deleted from the game, and in the end that means you will get more enjoyment out of the game. Someone that wants that turned off wants to play a different game.
Not every game is made for every person. And thats okay, thats good even.
For many games, this would turn an interactive part of the game which is normally followed by an uninteractive cutscene into an uninteractive cutscene immediately followed by another uninteractive cutscene. Players that disable QTEs could easily be sitting through very long stretches of uninteractive parts of the game instead of interacting with the game, leading to those players complaining about long cutscenes since they usually completely forget they disabled QTEs.
This is such a bizzare and contrived example.
Firstly, because the idea that QTE’s are anything but fill in the situation you’ve described is ridiculous. Secondly, because it is literally preference based (for instance, I would have loved to just eliminated QTEs completely from Dispatch), and lastly, because your made up result could easily instead just be that they recieve rave reviews for how accessible their game is and how freeing it is to have the ability to play how you want to play.
If someone hates QTEs, it would be better for them not to play the game at all than to play without them.
This is only true to someone who is pretentious and gatekeepy about what they feel other people should enjoy. Why do you have such strong opinions about how other people should live their lives?
As a player, you pay more attention and keep your controller ready because at any moment you could be hit with a QTE and you want to be ready for that.
Not everyone likes or wants that. I can personally say I can’t recall a time where QTEs added to a game experience, and in games where I’ve modded out similar, they played much better to me. Thats the big important thing; to me. You obviously have tremendous trouble imagining anyone else having a different felt experience than you do.
Not every game is made for every person. And thats okay, thats good even.
This is a bullshit shield from criticism. A game having a feature I don’t like doesn’t mean I’m not the audience for said game, it just means the game is less enjoyable for me.
The idea that no game should be criticized or offer options, and instead people should just never play any game that isn’t perfectly suited to them is obviously absurd but the clear logical conclusion from your nonsensical advice here.
I was with you at first, thinking you meant in a sandbox game, like turning off hunger/on hardcore in Minecraft, etc. but you’re just whining because every moment isn’t custom built to keep up with your personal ADHD/hedonic treadmill. The point of a game isn’t to just give you a blowjob from launch to credits. If that’s what you’re looking for, you’re looking in the wrong place.
but you’re just whining because every moment isn’t custom built to keep up with your personal ADHD/hedonic treadmill.
This is such a weirdly hostile, assumptive and gatekeepy sentiment.
The point of a game isn’t to just give you a blowjob from launch to credits. If that’s what you’re looking for, you’re looking in the wrong place.
Your mentality of “this is not what the point of a game is” is especially ridiculous because if a game was that, what I’m advocating for would give you the ability to make it what you want instead.
You really like the word ‘gatekeep,’ as though it were a bad thing. When you walk into a museum, start complaining about the lack of teleporters and strippers, and then get told to leave, yeah, they’re gatekeeping you, but it’s because you’re complaining about the lack of teleporters and strippers in a museum. That’s not what it’s there for. They have curated a collection of experiences focused on creating an overarching experience, and you have wandered in, said ‘I don’t want to have to walk to each exhibit, teleport me,’ and ‘This exhibit is booooooring. Teleport me to the one with strippers.’ If that’s what you’re looking for, you’re looking in the wrong place.
It’s actually one of the cleanest, most direct analogies I’ve ever used. Both are curated experiences with controlled visual, auditory, and interactive elements. The differences lie only in the physical/resource limitations each has for the kinds of experiences they can include.
The differences lie only in the physical/resource limitations each has for the kinds of experiences they can include.
Not only is this wrong, but it’s also nonsensical. It is nonsensical because these are massive elements of each experience and why accommodating preferences in one is far easier than the other. Its also wrong because most museum experiences with interaction absolutely have the option to skip parts of said interactions.
The other reason this is wrong, is that these are certainly not the only areas differences lie in, as museums aim to preserve history, and are therefore locked in content wise from that perspective, what with the physical artifacts and care for that. Games are not at all that.
accommodating preferences in one is far easier than the other.
Tell me you’ve never tried to code a complex interactive experience without telling me you’ve never tried to code a complex interactive experience. If you think it’s so easy to take every element of a highly complex, performance sensitive program and make it possible to pick and choose which ones you experience without breaking the whole experience or turning a 1 year project into a 10 year project, go ahead and try. Do you also ask movie directors to make their movies so that when you hit ‘skip scene’ because you don’t like the way the scene looks, it still makes a good movie?
museums aim to preserve history
That’s just your failure to understand there are more kinds of museum than a history museum. A history museum does have special work involved, but others don’t share that element. Perhaps you’ve heard of an art museum, sometimes also known as a gallery. They can contain all sorts of elements, audio, video, scent, touch, taste, human interaction, machine interaction, ludic interaction, whatever. The artifacts can be any age, with art from hundreds of years ago or being created in the moment via performance.
The analogy is a failure, to be sure, but only because I hadn’t considered the possibility you wouldn’t have that piece of common knowledge. Now that you do have that knowledge, though, if you can’t see the analogy, that’s on you.
Tell me you’ve never tried to code a complex interactive experience without telling me you’ve never tried to code a complex interactive experience.
I actually have, and have worked on multi person teams doing such.
Its why this line of argument rings so hollow.
Even if I didn’t, I could obviously point to the many games that do have levels of granularity like this, and are completely successful at it.
If you think it’s so easy to take every element of a highly complex, performance sensitive program and make it possible to pick and choose which ones you experience without breaking the whole experience or turning a 1 year project into a 10 year project, go ahead and try.
See, this is what is called the most blatant strawman argument I have ever seen. It is so obviously so far removed from anything I’ve suggested its laughable on its face.
Do you also ask movie directors to make their movies so that when you hit ‘skip scene’ because you don’t like the way the scene looks, it still makes a good movie?
Yet another nonsensical analogy for obvious reasons. You wouldn’t need this obviously badly fitting analogies if your POV had merit.
What movies don’t let you skip past some scenes based on what you’d like? I very frequently speed up/skip parts in movies that move too slow, or even rewatch parts that I miss. Its most definitely an additive part of the experience.
That’s just your failure to understand there are more kinds of museum than a history museum.
All museums do what I am talking about. Your pedantry about it being more than history does not at all change the merit of the point made.
The analogy is a failure, to be sure, but only because I hadn’t considered the possibility you wouldn’t have that piece of common knowledge. Now that you do have that knowledge, though, if you can’t see the analogy, that’s on you.
Except that the literal only thing you could point out that was wrong with my critcism of it, was pedantic and had no effect on the effectiveness of the point.
Unless there is a serious, compelling reason and they game is about that, let me turn off micromanage shit. I want to explore the world and dungeons and not worry about whether all the loot I can pick up is worth it or to decide each and every single item whether I want it or what I need to toss to pick it up.
This is exactly it. I don’t understand why people would want to waste any time doing things they don’t want to do vs things they want to do when playing games. The point is fun, whatever that means to the individual.
Mechanics from the Mercenaries series. Destructible buildings, getting weapons and vehicles dropped to you anywhere at any time. Being able to ally with different factions. Oh, and the ability to call in airstrikes. Bunker busters, cluster bombs, artillery barrages, etc. Just Cause and Metal Gear Solid V are the closest things to that. But they just aren’t the same.
And the ability to just fly like Superman. I’d like that in more games.
I want to see more modular building for vehicles and bases and fun traversal options. So many open world walking sims, it gets old. Or fun mounts that are more than just faster walking. (Rdr horses but fantasy beasts that ride differently)
No one brings planes into sht, why don’t mmos have magic planes, idk if seeing it in random anime as a kid changed my expectations but we should have ww2 magic based planes. Bothers me so much that fantasy societies are supposedly so smart, have such advanced magic, but couldn’t come up with magic cars. Like suspension, engines, etc. are just too complicated for them.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne