I love game mechanics that reward thinking or tactical decisions rather than rewarding how much time you spend grinding this or that. I do like having some kind of character progression - and that usually comes with grinding. But I hate it when the only challenge of a game is just how many hours you can sink into it. I much prefer when there are hard skill walls that you can’t pass until you really got genuinely better at the game.
I hate generic boring quests that feel like they came straight out of a story generator. It’s ok to have a few of them. But a hundred of them… You play one, you played them all… No incentive to do them. I much prefer a game that has only 10 hours of content but very solid content with well- designed narrative and places ; rather than 2 hours of human-made content and 48 hours of generated maps and quests.
One of the best games I have ever played is Dark Messiah of Might & Magic. That game has such an insane combat and a great narrative - I just couldn’t put it down, I finished it in just one or two weeks because it was so good! And at the end I felt an emptiness, like when you’ve just finished watching an excellent serie and wonder what to do next.
(hard coded behaviors) Like when you think that you are supposed to died but you can’t, or some character seems like it could die but it can’t. It feels like the devs are playing with you
-Real Time Timers: Think FF13 Lightning Returns. It doesn’t matter how many mechanics there are to alleviate the pressure, they make me so stressed out that I don’t enjoy playing the actual game.
-Unrepairable Durability Mechanics: I mean things like Breath of the Wild where you can use a weapon X times before it breaks with no way to repair it. I end up never wanting to use “my good weapon” and tryto beat entire games with a 2x4. If I can go to a vendor and repair my gear, I don’t mind as much.
-Superhard Games without difficulty options. Looking at you Soulsborne games; I appreciate that some people like a challenge, but I really think that whole genre would only benefit from giving the player options. I have noticed that seems to be getting more common though.
Love:
-Meaningful Choices: Not two dialogue options with the same end result, but things that shape either story or gameplay. This could be a major branching story choice OR something like a talent tree.
-Base Building: I like build base. It doesn’t have to be a city builder or strategy game (Though I absolutely love those), but I am a sucker for games including any degree of base building. It’s my favourite part of the XCom games as an example. Bonus if I have to make choices about my base, see previous point.
Superhard Games without difficulty options. Looking at you Soulsborne games; I appreciate that some people like a challenge, but I really think that whole genre would only benefit from giving the player options. I have noticed that seems to be getting more common though.
careful, you might alert the horde with a take like that. (i do agree tho)
I am kind of used to sometimes poking the bear on this one in particular. It’s what I personally dislike though, I don’t necessarily think they are badly designed. I totally get some people absolutely love that kind of thing in games, and I am glad they have games that scratch that itch. It’s just an instant turn-off for me though.
That said, I have never quite understood the people vehemently opposed to having a difficulty slider though; just keep it on hard and it’s literally no different.
Yeah I get why people like hard games too! It’s just baffling that so many are so opposed to others wanting to play on easy. I think maybe for these people they like to be “different” and be fans of something that’s “different,” in that it doesn’t have “medium” or “easy” difficulties. They want to feel like they’re part of a special club.
There are online modes in most of those games, besides Sekiro, that difficulty options would have an effect on, particularly invasions. Fortunately, invasions have been getting scaled back as time goes on, and the games have gotten easier in general, so we might converge on a game with difficulty options.
I am not the expert on the genre by any means, but would limiting invasions to “only other people on the same difficulty” just segregate the player base too much?
I think adding difficulty options is fine but the accessibility of difficulty is risky because lowering difficulty is so enticing to the average person. I love souls games but I admittedly, in games where I can change difficulty on the fly, swap the difficulty to quickly move forward if I hit a wall. On the other hand, I spent 8 hours fighting the Guardian Ape in Sekiro and beating them is my favorite gaming experience of the last 5 years. I am pro accessibility but there should be some disadvantages to doing so (ironic, less accessible accessibility options). The easy one is making them a one-chance option. For example, moving your difficulty down from hard to normal, forces you to play the rest of the game at normal (Dragon Quest XI does this). There are other considerations that can be done, hidden difficulty that gives concessions (Crash Bandicoot, RE4) or attempt to estimate a flexible difficulty.
I think with difficulty there’s always going to be a question of “can we make this easier”.
I think the obvious query is “why should I be punished because you can’t hold back your urge to decrease the difficulty” but the reply could easily be “why should Devs do more work so you can play a game not aimed at you?”
Tl;dr: Shits complicated, cheat engine is always an option for the time being. People who mock you are losers.
If Dark Souls had easier difficulties, they wouldn't have the reputation they do. People would turn down the difficulty instead of learning the bosses and how to beat them.
The games aren't as hard as people make them out to be. They just force you to adjust and learn to play in control. There's a reason people can play them with all kinds of goofy input options, though. If you pay attention to what enemies do and don't blindly spam attack every second, they're all beatable
I have definitely heard that argument, and I understand it, but at the same time there are a good number of us who would just simply not play the game then.
I realise it is up to the devs who they want to make their game for, and I am probably not their target audience, but banging my head against a wall until I get through something doesn’t give me any kind of feeling of triumph when I manage it. I just feel frustrated. Whereas the soulslike games I have played where I could turn the difficulty down, I enjoyed way more.
If Dark Souls had easier difficulties, they wouldn't have the reputation they do. People would turn down the difficulty instead of learning the bosses and how to beat them.
Which is hilarious because people 'turn down the difficulty' constantly by using summons or 'jolly cooperation' all the time in the games and don't seem to differentiate that from a difficulty option.
But some people play them with just a Dance pad. Doesn’t that, by your logic, mean they are too easy? Shouldn’t they be even harder? Maybe they’d be even more famous. The point is that difficulty is relative, therefore there OBJECTIVELY isn’t a correct difficulty. You’re just lucky enough to fit into their “difficulty demographic”.
But it’s moot anyway. Games with easy modes will still get played with high difficulty by people that actually enjoy it. Your own enjoyment of a game should not depend on other peoples difficulty levels.
There’s pros and cons to having a single standard difficulty. But anyway, you can use mods/editors to make the souls games (or any game for that matter) much easier.
I'll be one of the "horde" (albeit more tame) but personally I don't think developers should make their games easier or change their vision in order to broaden its audience. It kinda reminds me of the "rated R" debate. Certain people want movies like Oppenheimer to be rated PG-13 over being rated R so it can reach a bigger audience. But I don't think Nolan should be changing his vision of the movie just so it sells better
Your comparison doesn’t make a whole lot of sense though? Movies can’t be rated PG-13 and R at the same time, but games can have easy and hard difficulty levels at the same time. The developers don’t have to “change the vision,” they can just put a little tooltip that says hard is “as it was intended to be played” or something like that. I’ve played plenty of other games that did that.
I’m not out here wanting the game to “sell better,” I’m here wanting to enjoy the handcrafted and detailed story and setting without having to worry too much about it being difficult. I’m sorry for not being interested in the challenge?
Superhard Games without difficulty options. Looking at you Soulsborne games; I appreciate that some people like a challenge, but I really think that whole genre would only benefit from giving the player options. I have noticed that seems to be getting more common though.
I'm torn on this... I love playing Dark Souls 1/2/3/etc for the world and the enemies and exploring and overcoming the difficulties and finding cool gear and weapons and trying out new builds.
But I also absolutely hate pretty much every single boss fight in the games.
One of my favorite examples of this was playing The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventure on the Gamecube back in they day. Me and a friend were really into it, but had trouble rounding up extra players. We got his little sister and an unwilling third friend to join. After about 30 minutes the unwilling friend, Marcus, gets bored with the game and starts sabotaging the rest of us. He’d run around smacking us with his sword making us drop rupees or refuse to stand where we needed him. That’s honestly when it became fun for all of us, though.
The other three of us would plan out the room and then we’d figure out how to wrangle Marcus back into place. Someone would hold him so he couldn’t go rogue and hit us while the others got in place to pull some levers before the wrangler would toss Marcus onto a pressure plate or something. He got to continue being a little bastard while we (slowly) made progress through the game. He eventually came around and helped us when it was absolutely necessary, but it was always clear it was just so he could keep being a bastard again. I really enjoy that asymmetrical style of gameplay and wish more things capitalized on it.
Also on the Gamecube of notable mention was Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles. Always fun when someone would get the personal mission of “take the most damage” and become a suicidal maniac in every encounter, much to everyone else’s detriment. Ah the good old days.
I’d love for something like a watchmaker simulator to exist. You’d get broken watches, and you’d be tasked to take them apart, clean them and fix them up. Basically, something very similar to those almost ASMR videos on youtube where someone restores those completely broken things into a pristine state.
One limitation that games like Civ suffer from is that diplomacy is ultimately pretty shallow because there can only be one winner, so even when you’re building alliances or trading relationships it is generally to gain some temporary benefit until you are in a position to defeat your partner later on (whether militarily, scientifically, etc).
What I would love to see is a multiplayer game like Civ but where each player has independent win conditions (so that a game could have multiple winners, or no winners). The condition could even just be to attain a certain level of happiness or wealth. And if you achieve that then you win even if other nations are bigger or stronger, and conversely if you don’t achieve it you lose even if you are the last nation standing. So decisions to go to war, or focus on technological development, or build alliances or trading relationships, etc, are driven by the wants and needs of your own people and not just a need to dominate others.
I think I’d like that if there was a single winner as well. Something like to win you need to complete two objectives, one public and one secret. So other players can still work against you but they dont know what you’re trying to do.
even when you’re building alliances or trading relationships it is generally to gain some temporary benefit until you are in a position to defeat your partner later on (whether militarily, scientifically, etc).
This is exactly what made me gravitate away from Civ games and more towards Paradox strategy, where the AI actually behaves more like a real country would do instead of a player trying to win a game.
All the mainline games are not interconnected at all, they are pretty much very separate in terms of story / settings / characters. So you can jump into any one of the games. Also, their turn-based systems, aka Active Time Battle, aren’t anything interesting, compared to say Shin Megami Tensei’s Press Turn system. All FF games have very linear / streamlined experience compared to other games, i.e. choices don’t matter much, you don’t choose the stats, equipments are streamlined.
Here’s some overview:
First 6 games were 2D games, the best of those bunches are Final Fantasy 6. Great story, great villain, great music
original FF7 is the one popularized the JRPG genre, and probably broke the base between older 2D fans and newcomers. It has memorable characters, music, story about eco-terrorism. The gameplay revolves around materia system, it’s like logic system where say if you connect Fire magic with All-effect and 2x-effect, you can casts double Fire magic that hits every enemies, etc. FF7 Crisis Core is one of the best FF spinoffs out there, while FF7 Remake is a ‘remake’. It’s advised that you finished the original FF7 before playing those two.
FF8 also broke the base. The game is more romance-centric in some way, but still sci-fi. The gameplay revolves around junction / draw system, where you draw magic from enemies to junction it to your stats.
FF9 is kinda back to original game. It’s more high-fantasy setting, and was released during the end of PS1. It wasn’t as popular as FF7 or FF8, but there are definitely fans. I had hard time getting into it, because the animation is kinda slow, but maybe I should replay the HD version
FFX is very well received, it’s a sci-fi romance story that takes place in south east Asian-like tropical islands. The first FF game on PS2. FFX has a sequel, FFX-2, which is also well received
FF11 is MMO, I don’t play MMO, so I have no idea about it.
FF12 is great, it’s more political than usual FF games, because it’s written by Matsuno, who made Tactics Ogre and FF Tactics. The gameplay is bit weird, bit MMO like.
FF13 was not well received, the only mainline FF game on PS3. It spawned two other games FFX-2 and FFX Lightning Returns. The main complaint about FF13 was that the story was incomprehensible, the game is very linear, and the battle mechanics is very confusing. I think what happened is that
they used tons of opaque in-game terms (Fal’ Cie, La’ Cie), that’s barely explained until very late in the game.
the game also opens up very late, there’s a one large wide region for you to roam around and engage in enemy encounters, but they only give it to you very late in the game
the combat wasn’t explained clearly, the paradigm shift system is actually fun, and a step up from ATB
annoying characters, they focused too much on Hope and Snow. Hope is a whiny child, but he’s a child, so it’s ok. Snow on the other hand, is just an annoying character who likes to talk about himself.
FF14 is another MMO, I don’t touch MMO
FF15 is kind of a mess, it was in development hell. I like the roadtrip story, where you just drive around. The open world is bit sparse and serves mostly for enemy encounters. One of the main issue is that some of the stories are gated behind DLCs. The gameplay is bit more weirder than normal ATBs. I like this game, but not as much as others.
FF16 is great. Devil May Cry combat, very streamlined and nicely paced story, those huge spectacle Asura’s Wrath-esque battles, etc. This game is my current GOTY.
There are other spinoff games, e.g. Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, World of Final Fantasy, but they are mostly spinoffs, mostly for fans who want more after playing the mainline.
But there’s one that I want to recommend, and that’s Final Fantasy Tactics. It’s a strategy RPG and it’s amazing. There’s an updated version released on PSP, called Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions, which is probably the one you should play.
There are rumor swirling around about FF9 and FF Tactics remakes, but can’t say anything until we see it.
Final Fantasy is a lot like Zelda in that a particular person’s favorite is going to be the one they played when they were 12 years old. Depending on the age of the recommender, you are most likely to get 4, 6, or 7 as an answer.
And same with consumers. We aren’t a charity throwing away money for no reason. We actively seek out discounts to get more for our money. We want discounts to be given priority.
By knowing most consumers don’t have the self control to not spend money and fall for marketing hype. Probably call those who don’t get sucked in and end up being more price sensitive and waiting or not buying karens for not being part of the initial revenue made.
I don’t complain online, I wait for a sale to bring it into my buying range, it’s entirely the business owners choice if I buy their product, that said that money represents hours of your life, why spend more than absolutely necessary when buying?
UUhhhh no? Steam doesn’t automatically change games’ visibility if it’s never on sale; it makes games on sale more visible, which encourages Devs to put their games on sale, meaning people who have never seen your game have seen it and might buy it. So in the end, MORE People have bout the game than would have otherwise, and if set at the right price, the Devs still get their cash and now have a larger market. I’m so glad I took Microeconomics in High School :)
And maybe if you studied beyond highschool level you would be aware this is a well studied thing in economics. If you sell a priority service and there is a limit to the resource in some way you are shutting out the people that don’t pay. Like its the same problem as dating apps that sell priority matching, if enough people buy I to it you either have to buy into it as well just to get a fair chance, or except you will never get seem.
Yes the Devs that buy into it get more sales. The entire point is it works for those people, if it didn’t they would have no reason to buy into it. But the people who don’t buy into it are then inherently disadvantaged.
Why would consumers want the store to not prioritize giving visibility to games on discounts during sale events?
If people want to discover games they can go to steam queue and see what is recommended that they may be interested in. But, the last thing I want a company to do is hide sales for me and pushing full retail products.
That to me would be anticonsumer. Might not be what sellers want, but visibility to discounts so my money goes further is what I want as a consumer. I go as far as using isthereanydeals to check to see if other stores sell for cheaper than Steam and alert me to targetted price drops.
That works when we’re talking about big businesses and AAA games, but the problem is when we consider indie developers, who struggle to get attention so are pressured into putting their game on sale when they don’t want to just get some attention.
And why would consumers who are trying to get the most value for their money care about that financial aspect? They aren’t a business. They are consumers looking for deals. Not to be paying full price for games as an act of charity. Many look at the store because they are looking to see what is discounted for the day. And wishlist and use deal trackers like isthereanydeals.
People who get hyped and preorder are the ones willing to pay more because they value first access. After that its mostly value based consumers left with different price thresholds. If you want the full price paying demographic you have to front load your marketing budget before the game launches.
Its like you want the store to be advertising old full priced games and suppressing sales which is the opposite of what consumers want to see.
And why would consumers who are trying to get the most value for their money care about that financial aspect? They aren’t a business. They are consumers looking for deals.
Sure if you don’t give a shit about other people, and then you can use the same logic to justify sweatshop clothes and any other shitty businesses practice you like.
You consider sales to be equivalent to sweat shops?
So do you go out of your way to avoid sales and pay full price for everything?
Anyways, pretty confused why you expect the store part of a business to not prioritize promoting sales, since that’s what consumers want in that section. The discovery queue is where titles that might be of interest is shown without regard to discounts. Its like going to the mods section and being upset there’s only mods being displayed.
Sales page prioritizing visibility to sales is coercion? Damn everything is coercion then. You must hate sites like isthereanydeals deals with them encouraging coercion. And sites like pcpartspicker encouraging coercion showing discounts. If only consumers were kept in the dark about sales. Must fill you with rage using visiting places like GOG too and seeing them showing games on sale or any site for that matter showing sales.
Again you’re only listen to a part of what I’m saying to make it more convenient to argue against.
Pc part picker is not a distributer with a functional monopoly on the pc hardware market, nor are AMD Nvidia and Intel small indie teams. That’s the key here.
Steam use their position as THE retailer of PC games as leverage to make small indie Devs put their games on ridiculous sales even when they don’t want to, just to get featured, in order to benefit themselves by being the place that has the crazy sales.
If you want a more apt example think of companies that use unpaid or underpaid inters for work in return for “the exposure” it’s very similar and widely considered exploitative.
Damn GOG is evil too for leveraging their platform to show sales? I didn’t know sales were so evil. Maybe consoles…oh no sales are everywhere being promoted. The horror. Can’t escape it. Where is the sanctuary where everything stays at retail price.
Honestly this sounds like some logic EA or Ubisoft CEO would make up to try to push the idea of sales as evil so games stay at retail prices longer or go up in price.
There are plenty of examples to the contrary of this. In particular, I know that factorio has literally never gone on sale on principle, and has only ever gone up in price upon leaving early access. Despite this, it shows up with some regularity in the store.
It’s certainly the case that Steam can be a rat race for developers to get attention, but I don’t believe your framing is accurate.
I thought about mentioning factorio in the original comment, but yeah as you say there is some exception, factorio. Being wildly popular and the game that more or less birthed an entire genre helps and even if you don’t play the same game it’s still entirely possible to succeed through word of nouth. But for less popular indie games it’s still true.
I never buy games at retail price anyways, so I do kind of get it past launch. I don’t care about buying a game until it is on sale and its a big part of why I wish list games to keep track of when they go on sale to see if its hit the price point I want.
I have been in the business 10 years, steam insider program is not how steam store works… it is mostly manual and if you know someone there, you have a chance. It’s some people’s work to curate, for good and bad… I prefer it to the inevitable short sighted collapse that a publicly traded company would
You mean the game will only show up in the list of games that are available on sale if the games are actually in the sale? Because that’s just literally how that works
Wow, it’s like people want the games that are part of the big sale going on! How are you twisting the ability to sort by what’s on discount into being evil?
Because the big sale only happens because steam presses Devs into it in order to get promoted. So Devs that don’t buy into the sale, get sent to the back of line.
Then explain better, because at the moment all you are doing is pearl clutching about people wanting a good deal on a product they want, what would your solution be?
I have explained plenty well. You are just refusing to listen because you have already set your opinion in stone and have either ignored or twisted everything I have said to fit that opinion.
If you have any desire to engage in good faith I suggest you go back and re read my comments.
You haven’t explained shit, you just keep saying Valve is abusing devs with sales, you never give a solution and your logic is spotty at best. How would you solve this issue?
That doesn’t look like a gaming laptop, either. $20 says it has integrated graphics.
Reminds me of the “gaming laptops” at Walmart. The other day I saw a RoG laptop being sold with an AMD 740M, a integrated GPU from 2023 with performance from 2010. They dressed it up all pretty with RGB and a 144hz display to make it look like it could actually run games, and then had the nerve to charge $699 for it.
I hate shit like this so much cause people who don’t know any better will buy this thing, get 15 FPS in modern titles and think that PC gaming sucks, when it’s just their computer that sucks.
Except I’m pretty sure thats shopped on there. It has a weird border around it and the entire steam app has a different pixel density than the rest of the photo.
Friend of mine in high school was super into Star Wars Galaxy. Was pretty much all he did after school at the time. One day he got into an argument with his guild leader or some other member with thw power to remove him, and they kicked him from the guild. This pissed him off enough that he recruited another friend of ours to infiltrate the guild and then spent the next month or so getting to a position of power within it so they could re-add the original friend and kick everyone else out while also draining the guild coffers. Effectively destroying the entire guild.
Just about anything that is turn based. Board games ports, Roguelike games like Balatro, Slay the Spire, 9 Kings. Civilization games and Civ-likes. You can even play ttrpg ports like Baldur’s Gate and Divinity but it might be a little annoying without an RPG mouse. I played a lot of Civ when my left arm was paralyzed then weirdly Wii tennis after surgery.
bin.pol.social
Ważne