Absolutely. I hear Witcher 3 is good, and I believe that it is… but after playing it for 5 hours and feeling like I got nowhere, the next day I just genuinely didn’t feel like playing it as I’d felt very little character progress, and zero story progression.
Games are continuing to market towards younger people - especially kids - with spare time to burn. They consider their 120+ hour playtime to be a selling point, but at this point that’s the reason I avoid them. If I’m going to play for an hour or so at the end of my day, I want that game to feel like it meant something.
I prefer my games to feel dense, deliberately crafted, minimal sawdust padding. I’ve enjoyed open-world in the past but the every-increasing demand for bigger and bigger maps means that most open-world games are very empty and mostly traversal. Linear worlds aren’t bad - they can be crafted much more deliberately and with far more content because you can predict when the player will see them.
Open worlds that craft everything in it deliberately are very rare, and still rely on constraints to limit the player into somewhat-linear paths. Green Hell needs a grappling hook to leave the first basin, Fallout: New Vegas fills the map north of Tutorial Town with extreme enemies to funnel new players south-east.
And what really gets me is that with microtransactions, the number of games that make themselves so big and so slow that they’re boring on purpose, so that they can charge you to skip them! Imagine making a game so fucking awful that anybody buying a game will then buy the ability to not play it because 80% of the game is sawdust: timers, resource farming, daily rotations, exp grinding. Fucking nightmare, honestly.
I’ve never played Total Annihilation or Supreme COmmander back in the day. This game is so amazing that it makes me sad that I never did. But the good thing is, I can enjoy it right now. It’s still technically in beta, but it’s already a complete game that you can enjoy, and I strongly recommend you do.
They called it like “alpha+” or something. But yeah, I think I’ve only had a couple of bugs over the two+ years I’ve been playing. I’ve had more bugs in fully released AAA titles.
I have so many fond memories of Jurassic Park Trespasser. I remember my dad picked it up for me right around launch time. I had read the previews in PC Gamer magazine and was fully into the hype.
The game was really attempting VR before we had VR. There was no HUD. Your lifebar was a heart tattoo on your chest that emptied as you took damage. There was no ammo counter for your guns. Your character would say things like, “feels full” or “feels a little light” to give you an estimate of ammo remaining.
The biggest flaw, apart from the broken AI for dinosaurs, was just like VR, you had to aim manually. You could turn and twist your gun freely which meant you had to aim down the sights. In VR, in 2023, with motion controllers, this is amazing. But in 1998, with a mouse and keyboard, it was really awkward. It’s a game I never finished.; Probably never even got close to finishing. But I was still in awe of the world they built and freedom offered in 1998.
I think System Shock belongs here too. It was an immersive sim in 1994, was one of the first games to make use of audio logs, and had 3D models and environments before Quake. It initially released on floppys without voice acting so it didn’t sell too well, and it wasn’t until later that it started getting more widely appreciated as the groundbreaking title it is. Another thing is that the controls and graphics can make it a bit of a pain to play today - this was before WASD and mouselook were standardized.
I really loved Divinity Original Sin II, but I've never finished it. At a certain point I lost momentum and afterwards the idea of trying to pick back up where I left off is just too daunting, and the idea of starting over again is even more daunting.
If this is just for the fun of it I would try to run these services inside a virtual machine and just screen capture them. Never tried it but I don’t see a reason why it won’t work.
I constantly run out of mana, preventing me from spamming my main spells and enjoying playing as a Sorc
Couldn’t agree more. Problem is when I have mana and my CDs available, my damage output is insanely high. But once I’m out of mana and CDs are off, I just walk around like an idiot lol. My build takes out basic spell too so I literally have nothing else to do but walk around. It needs a rebalance, I don’t want to have such high burst dps but a more constant gameplay with stable dps output.
There’s absolutely no age cut off for video games. I would even go further and say that more seniors should play video games.
But, I also wouldn’t be too judgy with people who think video games are for kids. This is all thanks to decades of marketing. Atari, the first popular video game console, was sold along side TVs and other electronics and was targeted towards everyone. But then Nintendo decided to market their console as a toy, instead of a consumer electronics product. Also, they had to pick a “boy” vs “girl” aisle, and they picked “boy”, which is why video games aren’t seen as girly.
“what is the age cut off for socially acceptable fun having” is what I read. Do what you enjoy and anyone saying you shouldn’t do X, or you are too old to do Y aren’t the type of people I associate with. Just turned 30 and I never plan to stop.
41 year old woman here. I was born with gaming, I will die with gaming. Do not hide your gaming from the get go. Put it in your profile. Its a huge part of my life, so finding that in a partner is a must in my book. There are women out there that share my sentiment, and some that just like games or don't care.
I don't think there "must" be an age cutoff where people are supposed to stop playing - instead, there's an age cutoff for where people didn't grow up with or have access to computers or gaming.
I was born right on the cusp of video games moving from niche nerd shit and becoming relatively mainstream. I can see that there's a clear gap between friends who game and friends who don't that nearly directly ties to whether or not they played games as a kid. A lot of the time for my generation, that's a socioeconomic division more than anything else. Computers were expensive as a kid, so most of my friends who grew up poor found other interests in childhood and grew up to be adults who don't really play games. The kids I grew up around whose families were more well-off have continued gaming as adults. Maybe less, maybe different games; but in many ways it's like asking what age someone is supposed to outgrow "having hobbies".
The older someone is today the less likely it is they had access to games and gaming, and often the more intimidating they find learning about computers and gaming - and the more time they've had to find some other hobby that they find compelling.
There definitely is a thing in the dating market where some people can be particularly judgmental about gaming. Personally, I've found that is loudest and largest for some of the more ... "serial" daters I know, who have found themselves in relationships with lots of different people and have found that gaming, or identifying as a "gamer" tends to correlate with other bigger issues. There's also the side concern when something that's big in your life isn't something they can relate to - a little like the ultra-fan Sports Dudes where all of every game day will always be booked off for watching the games with the boys.
I think in regards to the dating market, it's less that anyone needs to "grow out of" gaming, and more that adults are more expected to have a mature relationship with their hobbies, gaming included. And given that there are negative connotations about degenerate adult gamers not really grown up, that may be something to keep in mind regarding how you present that hobby and how you talk about your relationship with it.
bin.pol.social
Ważne