Cethin
- 0 Posts
- 533 Comments
You aren’t someone when playing a video game besides yourself. A third person view doesn’t suddenly make people unable to feel as if they’re playing as that character any more than a first person view does. For example, people can have a similar feeling even from books, with no agency.
You’re making a weird argument based on some purity metric. Either way, you’re playing a video game and controlling a character in the game. Neither view let’s you be that character. Both let you be immersed and inhabit their role in the world.
I was largely being sarcastic. Yeah, Outer Wilds might be the only game that pretty much does it’s own thing I’ve played in many years.
I’ve been playing The Finals a lot for quite a while now. I would say it’s incredibly innovative and unique. However, it’s still a first person shooter based on capturing an objective point. At its core, it’s derivative. The way everything fits together is unlike anything else though. Just listing features that are shared by other games does not mean it isn’t doing something different.
For the PvE aspect, the third person is great. The AI are an actual threat, and having the camera to look around corners or see around the player really helps.
For PvP I think it’s a negative. It promotes safe play and gives an unfair advantage to certain situations.
Overall, I think it’s a wash. Personally, I’d slightly prefer first person, but they’ve made third feel very good. I think you need to try it before making a judgement, and try it with an open mind without an opinion already formed. I thought I’d be more annoyed with it than I am.
Solo? Try talking to people. I’ve found that almost everyone in solo matches are likely to be friendly if you talk. (There’s also a communication wheel if you don’t want to or can’t use a mic.)
Groups tend to fight 95% of the time though. At extract it’s often OK, but before then not really.
Regardless, it sounds like you just might not be used to the genre. You can rat, and play really safe, avoiding high loot areas where players are likely to be. Alternatively, just pay attention. There’s almost always signs players are around. If you see ARC with yellow or red lights, there are players there. If you see open containers or doors, or destroyed ARC then players have been there. You can also hear footsteps and looting pretty well. Just pay attention and you usually won’t be jumped.
I don’t feel like campers are an issue in the game though. I haven’t experienced it. There are people who will spot you with the third person camera who it may feel like are camping, but they’re almost always just being observant while looting and spotted you first. It’s not like they’re waiting at extract for you. I haven’t seen that once yet and I’ve played a lot of matches.
Yep. I played solo for the first few hours before friends picked it up. I had a 100% extraction rate over like 10 runs because it seems like 100% of people are not there to fight. They’re just trying to loot and get out. It isn’t worth the risk of dying, especially near the end of a run when you can’t carry anything else anyway.
Playing as a group, it’s probably a 95% chance people won’t talk and just fight. Everyone is in a Discord chat and not using in-game voice and are just anti-social. Occasionally you can extract with other people, but during the raid I don’t think I’ve ever had people be friendly. We even had a team down to one person before and told them they could leave and they still decided to try to kill our three man.
Someone said not Hunt. I disagree. I would say it is.
There is Zero Sievert, which is single player, Gray Zone Warfare, Arena Breakout Infinite (it’s an Asian game with Kernel level AC, so I can’t play it on Linux), Escape from Duckov recently, The Cycle (which I think is dead), and I’m certain I’m missing some.
It’s not a huge genre, but there’s still quite a few.
I’ll agree with the other comment; ARC does not shove then in your face. The only time you see that stuff can be purchased is when you go to the customization menu. That’s it. You also get some of the premium currency for free.
I’m pretty confident theyll handle it well because in The Finals I’ve been playing for about ~2 years and have purchased most of the battle passes and some outfit stuff, all with putting no money into the game. This is a $40 game. I suspect it will be handled well.
You can purchase extra stuff, but you can’t say it’s shoved in your face. It definitely is not. It’s just a way to get extra money from whales. I think it’s probably not smart for a game to ship without some MTX at this point. You can make the game cheaper for most people by having the whales fund it. It’s practical.
ARC has the exact same system by the way. It’s the battle pass thing where you choose the things you want each tier, and that includes the credits (Raider Tokens I think is what they’re called here). You can also buy them. They’re used to unlock other battle passes (no others available at the moment besides the one free one) and also cosmetics.
It’s bland? You can not like it if you want. That’s fine (if you’ve played it). Don’t make shit up though. In the realm of modern shooters, it definitely isn’t bland. It’s pretty unique. It’s got a style you don’t see anywhere else (though still based in realism), and the gameplay isn’t like many other games.
The enemies in particular are incredible though. That’s where it stands out. They’re actually physically based, and if you shoot out a leg or motor then they adjust to compensate. They used some machine learning to have them run in simulations where they learned how to move with different pieces missing. It’s really special how they feel.
Like I said, Ne Londo has the first blacksmith you can get to, so going there isn’t bad, and that’s before the ghosts. Yeah, you’re going to need to back out once you get to the ghosts. If you try to force your way through that then yeah, it’ll be bad, but that one is really obvious you shouldn’t be doing it.
I talked about the Catacombs a lot, in how it failed. I think you ignored it. It’s supposed to be approachable for new players, but it failed, mostly in the escape. The necromancers are solvable with a divine weapon. They can’t revive skeletons killed by them. You’re supposed to back out of it at the very start, but return once you get a divine weapon. Again, it failed at what it was supposed to do, but the goal was for struggling players to go there are get the Rite of Kindling. That’s why Pinwheel is such a joke. He’s supposed to be fought early.
I haven’t played it, but I’ve watched it. I think Demon’s Souls actually probably does a better job. It’s very similar, but less ambitious without a connected world. Obviously Elden Ring also does it better, but it makes it somewhat boring too. It’s almost trivial.
Counterpoint: Dark Souls is hard, because it gives a lot of options from the get go, and no information on which ones will be approachable or not. NO other major Soulslike I’ve played does this in the way DS did.
I disagree with this. I think Dark Souls does tell you which are approachable or not. It’s just not as obvious as other games. Some games will have a sign for the player that says “this path is dangerous” but DS doesn’t. It has characters talk about venturing into the catacombs. It has characters point out the aquaduct is the path to the first (and at the time the only you know of) Bell of Awakening. It tucks the elevator into New Londo behind the bonfire, where stuff will be later but you won’t see yet. It also tells you a lot about locations in item descriptions.
I’ll also say the only bad path is The Catacombs, because the climb out is so bad. I think there’s leftover stuff indicating a different start, so maybe it’s a fluke it’s this big an issue. Every path has a benefit though. New Londo is easy at the start, and has the first blacksmith you can get access to. The Catacombs has the Bonfire Ascetic. The Aquaduct has the Bell of Awakening, and is the critical path. None are that hard when entering. You just get pushed out of getting deep into most.
Most games talk to the player. FS talks to the character almost always. It’s less obvious to the player, but it makes the world feel richer. It doesn’t hold the player’s hand though.
It also relies very hard on death alone as a teaching tool even when it says nothing. Players don’t see “You died. This boss is too tough! Maybe you should go back and upgrade your weapons.” They just see “You Died.” and interpret “Should have dodged that 87th swing!”
Yeah, I don’t know how to fix this without speaking to the player. I guess they could take the typical Crestfallen Warrior character, but instead of getting depressed and dying he upgrades his kit and talks about how upgrading helped him overcome a challenge?
Worse, it has BAD lessons through the lost souls system. It makes sense as a pressure tool to make you fear death, but it teaches new players the wrong thing: For players to immediately beeline for the spot of their death without considering exploration, build changes, etc.
I agree with this. I think the need to have an infinite homeward bone item from the start. There should be a way to return to your bonfire once you recover, because yeah, sometimes people get stuck in FOMO mode and can’t give up a few souls. Once you’re used to the games it becomes obvious the souls are next to worthless and to not worry about it. You can always farm more. But for the struggling new player I agree, it re-enforces a playstyle.
I totally agree. It isn’t that hard, and honestly I think the players ruined the game for a lot of people with that idea. A lot of people will hit a boss they can’t defeat and resign themselves to trying to grind out a win, hearing the game is hard and this is just the way it is.
In reality, the game provides all the tools you need to win. You just have to pay attention and find them. If you’re struggling with a boss you aren’t supposed to grind it until you win. You’re supposed to go and get stronger. Level your player and gear, and find new items to help you. Maybe even find a path around them.
The game is easy, but struggling players think they’re struggling because the game wants them to, because of the reputation. It doesn’t. It wants you to explore.
I saw promotional stuff to it and thought it looked interesting. Then a watched gameplay and there really isn’t gameplay. You just walk from one place to another, but you’re a cat. I’m fine if other people enjoy that, but I know it’s not for me. I’m fine with walking Sims too, but the whole point of those is they’re telling a story while you play. Stray technically has a story, but it seems very minimal and not engaging. They’re giving you so little to do so you can think ideally. It shouldn’t just be a meaningless story that doesn’t engage you if the gameplay also doesn’t engage you.
Some people are saying DS is free. I agree with them, but also there are issues.
For example, early players who are struggling should go down into the catacombs, because they can unlock The Rite of Kindling, allowing you to get even more estus at a bonfire if you’re having a hard time. However, almost every guide will say not to do this, and I agree. It’s at the bottom of a giant pit with enemies that are more annoying than you’ll have faced before. If you get a divine weapon than it’s probably fine though, but getting back out will still not be trivial.
Dark Souls is all about giving players options, and giving them the tools to deal with problems. The issue is you need to pay attention to the world and read. The problem with the example above is the necromancers revive enemies, unless they’re killed by a divine weapon. This isn’t obvious though, and it also isn’t obvious where you might find a divine weapon, or where to unlock the ability to upgrade a weapon down the divine path.
There are just too few signposts to guide new players who are getting frustrated. There’s plenty for people enjoying their time, reading, and exploring. For the people who are slamming their head into a wall on a boss trying to brute force it, like most games would require you to do, there’s not enough to guide them out of this tactic.
Like the other comment says, players build cities. A quick search says there are 81 cities with over 5m people each in the world. Most city builders we’re building at the scale of these large cities, so that means over 81 players would be over the population we have in the real world. If there are thousands of players, yeah, it’s going to get tight. If there are tens of thousands, there’s not enough space.
DC2 is still fairly similar with the dungeons (though much less grindy, and far less annoying with running out of water or whatever, from my memory). 2 adds a ton of other things to do though. If you’re tired of grinding dungeons, go fishing, breed your fish for races and events, go golfing, find things to take pictures of for inventing, progress your town for more unlocks, advance NPC quests to add them to your group, etc. 1 is fairly linear with one way to progress. 2 has probably a dozen different activities to progress in, so you can do whatever you want in the moment.
From my memory, the misable stuff isn’t the important, but it is frustrating to not be able to get. I would say if you aren’t worried about missing a few unlocks, just accept that you’ll miss stuff and don’t stress about it.
If you’re the type of person (like me) who finds out they missed something and feel compelled to restart, even if you were never planning on 100% the game, then yeah, use a guide. I wouldn’t use a guide for everything, but I’m certain there are guides that say when misable stuff is coming and how to get them.
I don’t think the comment above is talking about GamePass specifically. They’re talking about the “I’ve been an Xbox customer since…” stuff. That kind of corporate loyalty is a scam. You never should buy a product because you owned the previous one. Do what’s best for you when it’s best for you. Don’t give them any loyalty. Make them earn your purchase.
It cost $540m in just development costs! Skyrim, for example (from what I found online) cost $40-50m. That’s 10.8-13.5 Skyrims. Halo 2 was $40m, and it was big at the time. The Witcher 3 cost $81m in total, not just development. Ghost of Tsushima (which is modern, so surprisingly low, but still not small) was $60m.
Yeah, no way in hell do I think RDR2 was worth it. I’m fine with some large games being made, but this is ridiculous. It’s why the industry is in such a rough spot. They’re putting ridiculous money behind singular projects instead of spreading out risk while also making more unique games. These massive games can’t take risks, because the budgets are too massive. That’s why they’ve all become so bland.
True. That feature may have just been added randomly, though I doubt it, because it requires the artists to add things to the models, the programmers to add reactivity, and the designers to mark things as cold/hot. It’s more than just a one person job on a game this big, because it touches so many things. In an indie game, sure. There’s too much bureaucracy in a large studio to just go off and do this though.
Regardless, the point is they have way too many people working on a project. Instead we could get dozens of games for that same budget. Budgets have gotten ridiculous.
Honestly, this is just one more of the indicators that AAA development budgets have gotten way too large. I love when devs put care into their art, but it should be somewhere it matters. I can count the number of times I noticed my horses testicles retracting on my knee. It’s just a waste of money.
In Dwarf Fortress, for example, when detail is added and actually relevant, it’s great. We need more of this, where useful additions are done to create a more tactile world. When time and money are spent doing stuff like the testicles in RDR2, I just imagine how that could have been spent on a different game, instead of just inflating an already massively expensive game and adding essentially nothing, except something for people to post about online.
I played it a little after release. Yeah, no. I needed an upgrade for it, but I played it anyway, and it was blurry as shit. Worse than modern games. Their version of TAA was so much worse than the modern DLSS/FSR TAA we have today. It was purely a temporal blur, adding previous frame data to new frames. It still looked good, but it was blurry. I should try it again now that I’ve upgraded…
It’s not even just about the games being terrible. The ballooning costs is just unsustainable. It’s the reason we’ve seen so many layoffs, and it sucks. It’s just mismanagement. The executives are the ones telling the developers to make open world games, for the most part. They don’t understand how that effects the rest of the design, or how much it ends up costing. They just see a trend and tell the studios they need to follow it.
If it was just that we got some shitty games I wouldn’t care. However, it’s effecting people’s lives. We need a more sustainable industry of smaller budget games that know what they are and plays to its strengths. We’ve got too many games trying to be everything games. It’s the reason studios ramped up the price to $70, and then, quickly after, $80. Soon they’ll be Charing $90-$100 because they let costs get too high to maintain.
For sure, you can. However, every modern game is trying to be an open world game. It’s stupid. We get ballooning budgets and dev cycles for games that don’t really get anything from being open world. I’d rather get three great less open games than one open world game that is sacrificing things to make the open world work.
I dont really understand your point. Devs still curate where you meet the enemies. Its not like its procedurally generated map where everything is random.
I haven’t played it, so maybe they’ve done something to control it. I doubt it though. If you can come from any direction, that makes encounters much harder to design. Think about older Borderlands games when entering a compound. You’d come through one main gate and enemies would be set up with cover and you’d have to fight your way through. With open world you could do something like fly into the middle of the compound, and that’s has to be accounted for.
Check out Roboquest, for example. It has some really impressive movement options, but it’s choice of rooms let’s them restrict how much you can abuse them. You’ll always be fighting through the enemies from an expected direction.
I cant remember single time in my 20 hours of gameplay where i have tought that i hate fighting here, or that these enemies dont fit here.
This isn’t what I meant. There’s nuance between liking something and it being the best possible thing. It can be good and still be possible to be better. My biggest issue with open worlds is, like you mentioned at the beginning, fast travel. It takes so much time and resources to make an open world, just for players to fast travel past most of it. Is it really worth the that? Did it add that much to the experience? We could have more cheaper games with tighter designed experiences instead of games that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. (BL3 cost $140m, and for cost “more than twice” that, so minimum $280m.)
I don’t think people understand that everything is an opportunity cost. If you make an open world game, that’s at the expensive of so much more. At minimum, it’s going to be less game to play (or longer between games and more expensive). Is getting a lot of space that you hardly interact with worth it?
Anno is more city builder with some RTS elements. Definitely not Grand Strategy —arguably RTS.
I wouldn’t say they’re “incompatible” but they aren’t synonyms. I haven’t seen a grand strategy that is also an RTS, but I could see them co-existing potentially. Total War is close with its battles, except I think creating units and buildings is a requirement for the RTS genre.
Grand Strategy is generally: you control a nation and operate on a map of the world (sometimes limited to a region). You’re continuously progressing your nation, constructing permanent buildings, unlocking permanent technologies, and improving your economy.
Examples: Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings, Total War.
RTS is: you control an army and win a battle on a relatively small map, where individual people are a relevant scale. You build units during the battle, but very few to no resources come into the battle from anything before, and very little to nothing changes after the battle.
Examples: Command and Conquer, Dune II, Starcraft.