The problem with difficulties is that it’s much more difficult to design an AI system which you can tweak and make it smarter or dumber as opposed to just increasing damage and health values, so devs will just implement the best AI they can and leave difficulties as afterthought.
After playing a lot of games that don’t even have difficulty settings, I’ve started to believe in the idea that difficulty selection is just outdated game design and that having a single difficulty but optional areas/content that is more difficult is the way to do it. OSRS is one of my favorite examples - everyone plays the same game and going through levelling or whatever isn’t mechanically demanding. However, there are bosses and challenges (like Theatre of Blood which is an end-game raid or Inferno which is an end-game challenge) that are incredibly challenging and require weeks if not months of attempts to master and finally beat, but also are perfectly skippable and most casual players don’t even bother with them.
I’d like more games to be like FromSoft games. The difficulty is adjusted by what gear you have and what spells you use. None of that turning bosses into bullet sponges nonsense.
Yeah, Sekiro has a pretty adaptive way of making the game harder, if you start a replay and get rid of the charm item, you can’t almost parry, it has to be precise, and if you ring the demon bell everything gets higher life and damage, but drops much better loot.
Just going to ignore the hundreds of levels most players need to accumulate?
Sekiro was the only one that actually respected players time. Players bitched endlessly it was too hard.
If fromsoft actually gave a shit they’d add in adjustable parry windows and iframes and that works cover 90% of the people who weren’t good enough from sekiro. They won’t because they love to be gatekeepers.
I’ve beaten every day since 2 in addition to sekiro, the actual hard game. We’re talking about easing the game for the average population. So yeah if you are in the top .5% of players fromsoft gives a fuck about your time.
For everyone else your talking somewhere between 50 and 200. I mean for fucks sake for years the advice for hitting a wall in DS was explore and come back at a higher level.
Modern world of Warcraft has less leveling these days 🤦♂️
Yeah, but the point is that you aren’t just grinding levels. You literally said it yourself, you go explore a different area, you play more of the game (not just grind the same part of the game)
I mean for fucks sake for years the advice for hitting a wall in DS was explore and come back at a higher level.
Kind of like when you’re lower level in other games and have to level up to beat the boss? Do level 1 gnomes go straight to killing The Lich King in world of warcraft?
A lot of people say this and I don’t get it. What would be lost by having each playstyle be balanced properly and then adding difficulty scaling on top of that?
That’s not at all surprising. PvE game design is almost always about making the computer less competent in fun and/or believable ways. If you’ve got a computer that can simulate every item and skill in an enemy team’s arsenal and game out the best combination in milliseconds, the player is going to be dead by Turn 1 or stun-locked and dead by Turn 2.
I’ve been immensely impressed with DOS2 AI. If an enemy is sleeping, another enemy will use part of its turn to hit the enemy to wake it up. There were several instances where I paused and just stared awestruck
but there’s so many other ways to change difficulty.
change number of enemies and where they spawn change gear and abilities, the Witcher did that one with how the stamina system worked. it didn’t drain on the lower difficulties. horizon zero dawn made everything in the shops more expensive and made the enemies drop less money. honestly, that one also sucked. only served to make the game grindier.
I had fun with Zero Dawn but came out with a list of minor improvements that would make the game significantly better. Forbidden West had almost all the same problems, and added several more besides. The game really started to lose me when I was trying to upgrade a particular piece of equipment and just had to keep doing laps up and down a goddamn mountain with no nearby quick travel location, hoping that an elite version of an enemy would spawn, then laboriously killing it in the hopes that a particular resource would drop, only to get disappointed by the RNG and have to repeat the process, because that was the only place where that resource could be got, and that was the only place where that enemy would spawn.
The grind was appalling, and it took what was a moderately interesting fight the first couple of times and turned it into a monotonous chore.
Also the upgrade barely turned out to be worth the effort.
I finished the game more out of spite than anything else, and I did not purchase the DLC, nor do I have any plans of getting any sequels. Damn shame, because there’s an awful lot about both games to like.
Contribution is a currency used in Roots of Pacha. When the player donates food or supplies to the clan, contribution points are awarded as acknowledgement of their efforts.
Contribution points must be expended to develop ideas. Certain clan members have items for trade in exchange for points, as well.
Items are donated by placing them in the contribution bin, found just north of the bonfire. Donated items may be viewed and retrieved until the end of the day. The value of the contributions is tallied overnight and the bin is emptied for the next day.
It’s not just a rename of money, it’s more like your social renown in the village, like how much people respect you because of your contributions, and you use it mostly to choose what improvement project you want to build next in the village.
Anthem kept the servers going longer, it got some updates and EA even promised an entire rework akin to No Man’s Sky, but EA being EA they never delivered it and just cancelled everything lol.
Neither did Hello games when they continued to work on NMS, it didn’t have any monetization beyond buying the game, but they still did it in the end and it paid off.
That’s what killed it for me. I really enjoyed the Lawbreakers beta, but paying $30 for a game that would either die at a fixed price or quickly shift to F2P made no sense.
You know what f2p means to me? It means you can play the game for free but the experience is guaranteed to be miserable because you’re going to have relentless ads crammed down your throat for skins and other bullshit I couldn’t give a single fuck about, and no matter how much you pay it never stops.
So if it’s between that and just paying $30 for the game, I’ll take the $30 every time. I avoid f2p games like the plague.
It was originally advertised as f2p, at some point they changed their minds and decided to charge for it, clearly it didn’t go well since people already associated it with free.
I long for a moneyless, classless game in this genre where the incentives are community thriving, trust, pleasure, and all the other aspects that make life worth worth living outside of capitalism.
I think Sim Ant technically meets these conditions.
Just imagine how much worse it would have been for sony with Concord in the EU if this law were reality. Flop a game, a live service game no less and then they would have to leave it in a playable state for like a couple hundred people that ever played it in the EU. I don’t know how this law would work in this case. Would they be mandated to give out the server code that people could run their own servers?
It’s really ambiguous how it would or how it would be revised work for games that are multiplayer only.
Would they be mandated to give out the server code that people could run their own servers?
Sort of. The Idea is that people should be able to run their own servers, but developers wouldn’t need to give out their code. All you need is the server binary. After all server software is just that software, just like the client and they don’t need to give out the source code for that for you to run the game. Alternatively they could patch the game so it’s peer-to-peer. (and yes in this case that would be unreasonable as the game is not successful enough to even break even)
The initiative is so ambiguous (to the extend that it is - I’d argue that it’s a lot clearer than many people claim) because it’s not actually legal text. It’s not supposed to be. All it should do is describe the problem and explain why the problem falls under EU jurisdiction. Everything else is supposed to be handled by EU lawmakers after the initiative has met it’s signature goal.
I think the idea is more that if this were in place companies like Sony would be more incentivized to make sure they release games worth buying and playing, because if they didn’t then they would have the financial burden of keeping them alive.
Side note: it doesn’t require constant support from the developers. Just update it so players can run local servers, then it would technically still be playable. Of course I’m not a game dev so I’m sure thats more complicated than I’m making it sound, so that’s again why they should focus on making games that are good to begin with.
I think in Sony’s case a reasonable alternative is to just refund, which is what they’re doing anyways. There’s no way a full refund would not be considered a true option, so I think the Concord side is a bit irrelevant to the primary issue of server owners shutting down servers for old games and keeping the money.
Literally how would this change anything? Nobody played the game because it’s bad. Everyone who bought it got a refund. Why would you want a law forcing them to give people a game they don’t want?
Off the top of my head not really, but I just woke up
But there’s this magic way to learn about stuff called “looking it up” you can try! I recommend the people the post is talking about, you’re obviously really poorly informed on the topic
This is so important to you that the government must be petitioned to act but you don’t have a single example? Did you purchase Concord? Have you ever purchased a game that no longer works? Why do you think you have the right to tell the devs what they should be doing if you didn’t buy their game?
This is so important to you that the government must be petitioned to act but you don’t have a single example?
Yup, that’s exactly what I said, nailed it!
Did you purchase Concord?
No, irrelevant anyway
Have you ever purchased a game that no longer works?
Yes. Multiple, even!
Why do you think you have the right to tell the devs what they should be doing if you didn’t buy their game?
Because nobody should have the ability to take a paid-for product and make it no longer work after the fact. That flat-out _shouldn’t be an options for anyone
You should really inform yourself on this topic, it’s super clear you’ve got no idea what youre on about
Best we got is a new Skyrim version. What do you mean you don’t want to buy the game you already own again? We made 20 different versions, all just for you to buy!
Or kill it completely. The only reason I’ve held off signing this is that the wording is so vague that it could work in favor of gaming companies. I’d rather not see that.
It’s not supposed to be a finished law at this point. The main take from the initiative is that digital games have a massive issue with anti-consumer practices, and that consumers demand something to be done about it.
Companies can completely erase the idea of ownership. If everything is subscription-based, they can simply stop the subscription and have no further obligations.
Or Europe just gets completely locked out of functionality, as already happens in some European countries.
Of course good things can come from this, but I’ve read here several times that this just isn’t a good proposition and might just lead to the anti-consumer practices disappearing in a negative way too.
EU is way too large of a market to “lock out.” Didn’t happen with Apple, for example.
For subscription hell, we’re deeper into it than is healthy, but I don’t expect it to take over because of this. Steam, which is the biggest, most profitable platform out there doesn’t even offer a subscription and shouldn’t be hurt by this. For competitors, trying to suddenly force everyone into a subscription would lose a lot of business.
Edit: Anyway, doing nothing about it is a guaranteed bad outcome.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne