• 19 Posts
  • 1.41K Comments
Joined 3Y ago
cake
Cake day: Jun 09, 2023

help-circle
rss

I’d even say that much as most people commenting here would ignore/hate every Ubisoft open world game made, quite often a lot of the people working on them are talented, thoughtful people, just doing their best to respond to the whim of managers that understand this audience only buys 2 games a year and needs 100 hours of content.

Once in a while, even in those open world slopfests, you do see flashes of brilliance from those designers.


Long ago when Linux was a complete underdog (0.001% of users or something) it was touted as being vastly more secure than Windows, and that was probably true. But, convenience always battles with security in adverse ways, and Steam does aim to be very convenient.

I remember for a time any Xbox-app game would prop up a UAC permissions dialog each time you’d newly installed a game. Those apps are also un-moddable due to package signing. It was very annoying, but part of me thought “…Theoretically, Steam should be doing at least something like this.”


I’ve played Hollow Knight all the way through to the end, and I don’t think I remember anything about the story; just some generic “spreading rot” vibe.

That’s fine for me because it’s not a high point of the game.


I like Soulslikes NOT made by FromSoftware. Those people don’t get The GitGud Apologist System® for any flaws, so they actually have to design well.

My favorite is Another Crab’s Treasure ; mostly because far from being a meme, it literally has the best story and character writing - both humorous and serious - of any Soulslike I’ve played. Fuck vague item description lore driven by fanfic.


I only play ZZZ but I thought I’ve seen many gooner designs in Genshin media? They do often go for fanciful outfits, but they’re pretty well designed.


I play a lot of games with parry mechanics, and E33 was much stricter than most. It even made it impossible for me to play the game over a TV network link because the tiny delay made parries unreliable.


For the ones I play, the actual gameplay is the appeal; and I accept the gacha only if it’s reasonably permissive to free players.

The genre definitely has a recurring issue with power scaling, to get people to roll for the newest gooner bait, and when that becomes too apparent, it kills my interest. That’s the other thing: You have to prepare your sanity for the inevitable day you’ll stop playing that game and sacrifice hours of “character progress” to find something else fun. Heck, could just be another gacha that’s bending over backwards to cater to new players.


This is one of the critiques I have of modern shooters, too. In Quake 1, if you run into a tough baddie, you can duck around the corner, and bank a grenade off the cement wall, and hit his giant, blocky hitbox. In Modern SciFi Shooter 27, you duck around the corner, and try to shoot a grenade at the upturned market cart that served as the corner barrier, and it bounces away with an odd angle, then misses because the creature you found has elaborate animations, thin limbs, and a thinner hitbox.

Part of why the boomer shooter genre has largely devolved in graphics.


I’d also say, there’s definitely a big media push on the idea that “men are simple, and attraction is visual”. It’s not always so true as the marketing world wants, and I think a lot of men like myself have more of a “type” we’re likely to connect more with.

There’s plenty of games out there with giant-tittied, half-naked women, that I have basically no interest in because they all blend together thoughtlessly. At the very least, having an interesting character design that portrays some personality and thought pulls me in. (In gacha terms, the former might be Snowbreak Containment Zone while the latter would be Zenless Zone Zero. The latter still falls back on generous endowment sometimes, but they also have some creative designs)


There’s so many flashing lights and feedback systems to slot machines now, it’s kind of believable.

Like, you put $15 into Slay the Spire, and you KNOW you’re getting nothing back. But you get a bunch of flashy effects in the playing of it.

With gambling, you throw in $15, you get the flashy effects, AND you might get $30 back. When you look at it that way, it can become more understandable how people fall for it and feel happy to.


Ok, at first I thought it was a typo, but is “helldesk” intentional? Like “Micro$oft”, because they’re the only company that’s bad because they seek money?


There is one case for console exclusives I can think of.

Say a great singleplayer game, like Titanfall 3, or Hi-Fi Rush 2, is pitched. There’s a question from investors: “How will you monetize it?” Because even if it has a $60 price tag or higher, those ventures carry enough risk that they often want to have a strong profit margin on them; an opportunity for growth , not just capacity to make another sequel later. Hence, all the terrible efforts to make forever live service games.

With console exclusives, the clear answer is: This sells the console, which sells the other exclusives. And it means any forever-game people play, we get the 30% cut.

I would prefer it if studios answered with “We just want to make a great game!” or “Y’know what, $60 is enough!” But since we’re not getting those answers, exclusives seem like another approach.


If it’s uncomfortable and disempowering for men, you’re probably doing it right. It’s often a power dynamic.

But to draw back from a sour take: This will also turn off some people. Both ways. For instance: I love sexualized designs, but some games genuinely went too far. Xenoblade Chronicles 2 and Nier Automata had genuine, serious stories to tell, but fell flat on some people for sexualizing their main (female) characters in such an objectifying way.

I also think for women, the pure visual isn’t quite as important as their movements and actions. That part gets tricky since tastes vary.

There’s a few gacha games out there designed for women that can give an idea of an extreme end to take it to. Again, keep in mind, there’s not one universal appeal for a whole gender (same for guys) so it will often turn out that the most universally appealing designs are the relatively safe ones you already see.


But WINGS

Seriously, so many tasks take you through/past Central Park, it got annoying having no easy way to websling through. The wingsuit is a great part of the kit.

Only question being, how the hell does broke, near-homeless Peter afford all the gadgets.


The VR headset is only one thing. The gaming PC is another (for games like HL:A) , and that doesn’t touch on the biggest expense: Owning a living space with a mid-sized empty area that can be dedicated to one person’s entertainment. For a lot of people, that’s the biggest one.


I’ll admit, some of the earliest context I had on Chinese gaming was that they had a lot of cheaters; that there was even a greedy, cultural belief that the ends justified the means, and that if you got the win screen, it didn’t matter what you did to get there. Some game publishers even went so far as to block Chinese IP addresses/VPNs to keep them out of game servers.

I’m curious if you feel that was ever true, or whether that’s changed over time.


Gonna slam people with a bit of reality here: I think it could’ve had staying power if people could afford it. And that’s not a statement on hardware companies making it too expensive - it’s a statement on people choosing to fight equality and encourage wealth hoarding.

If your market is the tiny group of wealthy consumers that can afford it, who will buy singleplayer games only, it’s not going to go far. You need. People. Able. To buy it.


A streamers I like played through Avowed, and didn’t feel it had nearly as many problems as the internet claimed.


It can be people budding into the genre. They’ve heard about how nice Steam is, and maybe play some games on a cheap laptop, but recognize a genuine desktop is the better experience.

One streamer I follow is in that situation. She streams off her PS5 and Switch, but has a donation incentive to help build her PC.


I think the exclusive model could still work, but it requires a VERY compelling group buy-in. Remember back when there was a very wide set of games for which you had to have a PlayStation to play them. Even Nintendo still succeeds at this, albeit with a current dip due to a low number of Switch 2 exclusives. No matter how much anyone here would fuss about it being anti-consumer, eventually there’d be enough compelling reasons, and some people may just bite the bullet even if they’re regularly PC gamers. From there, that’s where the real money is; getting people to keep burning money on live-service games on that given platform, since people are locked in.

No way can one or two occasional console exclusives manage that wall of compulsion on their own.


People can run their own justifications for piracy, but god this has always been a shitty one.

It’s like not considering veganism because “The cow’s already dead. It’s been chopped up in that steak on the counter. Me refusing to eat it won’t change anything.”


Feels like many times I’ve heard in my life:

“We’d like to change this law.”
“You can’t change this law. See, it’s written here: It’s the law.”
“I’m…not contesting what it is. I’m saying I want to change it. We set it in place, we can make changes to it.”
“…But that’d be…against the law…”


I guess I’m lucky this never happened to me. I tend to do a lot of research on a console before I get it, and wait until mid-generation when it’s matured with some good games. The closest thing might be the Oculus Rift, since I never did find an addictive VR game I loved. If I hadn’t bought it, I might’ve never tried out Half-Life: Alyx, and would’ve been forever curious. But…it definitely wasn’t a killer app.


If it helps, I can recommend indie games that fit the mold.

I made a Steam curator group called “Objection! AA-Likes” to help


I get a nervous inhalation each time an acquaintance asks me for advice in buying a gaming laptop.

Their computing world started with laptops, and they want to extend the idea. It’s so hard to express to them it’s generally not a good one.


I’m definitely upset that influencers are more likely to talk about bombs and high profile failures than games they have moderately positive interest in. There’s a weird incentive to celebrate failure that makes game development less appealing.


I just go to YouTube, Lemmy, BSky, maybe a few others. I don’t go directly to any major gaming news sites, since they’ve had declining track records for decades.

And of course, Steam. Criticize the monoculture if you like, but when Sony and MS have killed their community features in favor of EpsteinNet, it’s not surprising people will go to platforms designed to discuss games.


Is this some Hollywood accounting, where they set the game up to fail? I’ve literally never heard of it until this post.


Anyone remember Devolver Digital? Basically, they had a bad year. That’s going to happen with publishers sometimes. The public investment in them didn’t like that.

It’s something that doesn’t jive well with public investors, who judge the company value minute to minute, when game development can take half a decade. So far as I’m concerned, public investment in companies like Nintendo should be seen as fairy money on top, prone to vanishing.


I’ve been seeing clips of it online, and it seems genuinely hard to replicate the kind of confident, bizarro humor applied with so many of its scenes. Especially helps with how many of the “concepts” players can insert to get muddled around in conversation so many ways.

I’m reminded that we often only see “shounen anime” as the main art style of Japan, but they’re very refined at a wide variety of strange, human and less-human appearances.


I mean…I’m not gonna hate them for researching possibilities (there are none). Most of my hate goes to execs that see one (puppeteered) tech demo and resolve to instantly fire all dev teams.

If a company is at least taking a slow, “let’s see what this can do” approach, my bet is they’ll come back in a year saying “…yup, it’s a dumpster fire”.


Back around the PS4, I posited theories that we’d hit the “graphical plateau”, and while it was technically possible to make a stronger console, the returns were not great. I was wrong, and we got the PS5, but I don’t think I was wrong by much. It’s nicer to have 60fps and 1080p more reliably, but there’s really nothing urgent going past that - and if I understand right, there’s still a pretty large install base of PS4 users. It even runs some of the latest - did anyone notice games like LEGO Batman: LotDK and Jedi: Survivor somehow run on there?

I think there’s still plenty of ways to pull people’s interests, but it’s not going to be by the same big E3 reveal of some graphical leap. Not like we have E3 anymore anyway.

(I will admit this is a very anti-consumer move, but honestly, the most logical long-term strategy I could see them going for is returning to making large console-exclusive games)


I mean, they do that already. You can visibly see how popular PS+ Cloud is. I don’t have exact numbers, but I can see that they don’t do much to advertise it anymore, and that the whole industry saw Stadia and Luna fail.


Oh, I can boost this list:

https://store.steampowered.com/app/2389830/__ASURA_THE_STRIKER/

https://store.steampowered.com/app/2784620/ROGUE_FLIGHT/

Granted some of what we see takes after Space Harrier a bit more. Rogue Flight has some very good VA, at least.


Gaem looks fun! But only one isue. It loks to woke. Also can you add some LGBLT rerpesention? To these bloxk puzzles?


Does this actually relate to indie development? Theres definitely shitty monetization in Asian gacha games, but I don’t think of any of them as indie.

I have actually played crummy games by budding Japanese devs and some of them are true underdog stories with fun gameplay concepts (and often poor translation)


The character design makes me think of Final Fantasy. 1-5, you’re dealing with chibi sprites and some silly situations where they’re jumping up and down, but also horrible circumstances that define the fate of the world. Even as far as 10, they improve their graphics but aim for a colorful, fantasy-driven atmosphere.

Then you get to 15, 16, and they’re pivoting to the dark and gritty, showing medieval warriors with realistic faces fighting through blood and grime to victory. And if there’s funny clips of 16, I’ve never seen them.

It speaks toward Japan really backlashing to the way the “JRPG” moniker is seen, and attempting to show they can make something “adult” and “realistic”. But it ends up doing the opposite.

Notably, take a look at Mouse, PI’s release. It’s a fully cartoony, silly aesthetic, but take two steps into the world and you’re fighting police corruption, Nazis, and coming back to a bar owned by a dour owner who can tell you dozens of stories about the way modern life hits the most vulnerable. It’s a true adult’s package, wrapped in a childish layer, rather than the opposite. Which, yeah, feels like the effort to make Starfox look “real”.

Also as someone else said, the widened fur around Fox’s neckline does somehow make him look obese.


I was at first interested in playing a shooter with hot women in it. Don’t mind admitting that. But the way so many gacha games develop this parasocial, intimate bond with the self-insert player character (and of course, the players that vote for that behavior) becomes freaking creepy.

I want to be talking with New Character XYZ casually about how flimsy her dating life is, how she’s shallow for trying to get guys to pay her checks, and how she plans to take out frustration against monster-of-the-day baddies. I don’t want to meet and find out she’s so crazy for me she murdered every office worker that frowned in my direction that day, and that the VA lists her sessions for the game on her calendar as “that porno company”


I hate that in Sky 1 and 2, Agate and Tita develop a nice, positive, younger sister and older sibling dynamic; and then in future games, the fan-standins in the world push this needlessly, uh…”mature” relationship.

She just wanted a sibling because she was an only child, dudes. Some people just cannot feel out dad/daughter or brother/sister relationships without the standard anime incest crowd.

At least the first instance of that unfortunate trend in the game had some reasonable basis for it (same age, no relation, meeting just before puberty)


Defense is tricky in fighting games. Often, if there are too many good defensive options, it punishes players for being aggressive, and can lead to high level matches where each side spends the whole time trying to goad the other into a counter attack.

For instance, I don’t play it, but I recall Invincible has some technique to break away from a combo, but you sacrifice some of your own health for it.


Is “Motivation” important to you in games?
Quite often, an indie game throws together some common gameplay, like roguelike shooter patterns, with little to explain it. eg, "You're here to explore for treasure!" Other times, even AAA games go this route, assuming most players won't care about the base story premise. But there seems to be a significant contrast to well-developed worlds; like seeing the progressive cruelty of the Nazis in Wolfenstein before you start stabbing them, or seeing the Gommage in Expedition 33 before heading out to fight nevrons. Even more eldritch action-oriented games like DOOM benefited from establishing a "mood" of the Slayer being angry at demons and anyone who ignored warnings of them using just a few quick cutscenes. This can be a bit of divergence from a game being "story-focused" or building up detailed lore. Some such games are often bad at motivation because the "story" is so confusing to players, most would just admit "I'm just going wherever bosses are to advance the story." Some very dialogue-heavy games don't necessarily captivate players on this level, since motivation can often be very simple. It goes back to the age-old strategy of arcade Donkey Kong; having 10 seconds at the beginning of the game where DK captures a princess who calls for help. The early version of the game likely didn't even have that, and the designer felt motivation was missing. (That decision spawned its own issue, the Damsel in Distress trope, but that's another topic) As more conceptual ideas, and especially more perpetual live-service games, become more popular, I see this element of gaming going missing at all ranks of game development - which is a shame, because I think when written creatively, there are ways to set up player motivation through relatively few voice lines and short cutscenes; something going beyond "You are an amnesiac! This voice is telling you where to go. Don't die to The Corporation!!" To drive discussion: What are some games you bounced off of, that you think may have been because they were missing motivation? What games found you putting up with a mediocre gameplay experience because you were invested in the given story turnout?
fedilink


What digital indie games would you like to see at libraries?
The prompt for this one might seem wildly unexpected. To start with: Yes, some libraries let people borrow video games. Generally, the easiest system for them is just to buy Switch / Playstation carts/discs for people to borrow and return. However, many great indie games have never really had the publishing resources to put out physical releases, especially with the Switch's printing expenses. Even those that have, don't always have them widely available. But, it's now common for many libraries to offer DRM-driven, digital services to account for their gaps and failings (and so people don't need to make so many trips in the dead of winter). Hoopla and Kanopy are examples of such services: Content providers can give bulk licenses for media, with an agreed price the library pays (presumably often just per item for infinite borrows) So to bring back to the original point, if the logistic hurdles were cleared so that a solo dev could take their Steam-only Unity game, and sell it to libraries as well, so that lower-income gamers could run them anywhere, what games do you think could have the best *societal impact* for people to be able to play? It'd be great to have plenty of mindless, pure-fun games on offer, but I'm also thinking about introspective, social-literacy games that most people wouldn't pay money for just looking at the thumbnail.
fedilink

The Quake community regularly performs map jams. While I haven't tracked the efforts of the previous ones, this jam results in a large, nonsequential set of maps on offer, combined with a full conversion that creates new enemy variants, and remixes Quake's known weapons into new forms (dual nailguns, a rebar cannon, a multi-missile launcher, and a gemstone that functions like Doom 3's soul cube). When you load in, you're brought to a museum-like "gallery" with portals into each of the maps created for the jam, denoting their author and difficulty level; sorted into "main offerings", "new faces", and other sections. The simplest way to set the mod up is as a mod for Quake (though ironically, you'll be replacing both the main paks, AND the engine)
fedilink

Hadn't heard much of this project until now. Apparently, Crytek, a previous holder of the IP, has at one point given their direct blessing for this project to exist, so it *should* be safe from immediate legal threats. The project aims to recreate multiplayer as well as the singleplayer. Great to have another awesome free game available, so it'll be reliant on natural social media spread.
fedilink


What games have mastered “Both emotional extremes”?
Something I've picked up on with my gaming preference is stories that don't simply focus on one "mood" for the game, but alter it to fit the situation. Players get a relaxed time exploring or diving into combat, and the world is inviting and colorful, but when the story builds, it puts brutal tests of character in front of the heroes. Some examples of generally-great games that might fail this test: - Silent Hill 2: A game well-known for plumbing the depths of the human psyche. But it's missing any real moments of levity, leading players to pretty much be on guard the whole time. - Monkey Island: Undoubtedly a funny game. But since it breaks the fourth wall so much, and revels in its own illogical deus ex machinas to fit the "hero cannot die" tropes, it's never going to make the situation feel tense or at risk even when it tries to (and Telltale did try). - Call of Duty: Though a dudebro series, one can't deny the series has occasionally had some great storyline twists. Many of us may not remember them years later though, because as cool as characters like Captain Price are in the moment, they don't form a lasting impression as someone "complete" with flaws and weaknesses, in part because the storyline is often rushing you forward with action rather than poignance. - GTA: As a crime drama, pretty much everything is falling apart all the time in GTA, whether it's the plan, the heroes' relationship, or the entire city. There's moments of humor for sure, but little in the game makes you feel "awesome" or heroic, like your violence is achieving something. Some games that prevail: - The Walking Dead: While it is a serious game like Silent Hill, it's more often going to have meaningful, positive and tender moments to settle from the horrors the characters are going through, as well as allowing players to creatively express themselves even if that means having Lee say something boisterous or silly to the other survivors. - Yakuza: Sort of the posterchild for these emotional oscillations even within individual side quests. One might start through a silly situation where a man is throwing snow cones in the air, and end with using diaper fabric to simulate a snowstorm - so that a terminal cancer patient has a perfect sendoff in her final hours. - Final Fantasy: Thinking of the one I've played the most, XIV, but plenty of the others have had the heroes cross-dress to get back their taken party member, perform in plays for children, before having to dive into hell and confront their dark past, or consider ending an entire civilization to save the world. - Ace Attorney: The passion for murder tends to run hot. But, Ace Attorney is good at introducing ridiculous characters that tend to soften the blow. They may take premises as simple as security guards or journalists, and find every way they can to exaggerate their appearance and mannerisms. On the other end, the emotions behind proving the state and prosecution wrong about your innocent defendant are always worthwhile. Even when you do your best, the game delivers some poignant and well-written sad endings as well as many good ones. - Metal Gear Solid: Though diving hard into the "Tacti-cool", strategic warfare theme, MGS has always leaned hard into silly and highly characterized moments that have made the hard-hitting ones more impactful, as a result winning it lifetime fans. - Borderlands: Thought I'd throw another Western developer on here. I haven't played many of the others, but Borderlands 2 at least mastered the idea of having characters be flippant and silly 80% of the time, but getting you to really care when the jokes drop. A certain few moments around Handsome Jack come to mind in particular. I've definitely seen that Japanese developers are often better at this form of emotional openness, but this is something that I've wanted to explore a bit more as a prompt; whether people agree this is a good goal for story/theme development, what causes some publishers to stumble in this approach, and especially what indie games people aren't aware of that pull this off particularly well.
fedilink

Apologies for YouTuber link - as some of the sources cited are in Japanese, it’s harder to get to a direct English source. The video description includes links to the Yahoo.jp article.
fedilink

Wait, that game is still playable online?
Many of us only view a game's release in passing, and view it as an "event". Groundhog Smasher came out, it failed, and we don't hear of it again. Additionally, many of us associate "online" games with being "live service" - expecting the developers to announce a new skin, battle pass, game mechanic, or character every other week. But some online games are just purely enjoyable, or get enough unremarkable patches, or sometimes don't even need a high playercount, to be enjoyed for years after the developers stopped emitting news. This subject also gets confusing with cross-play games; even if one game has hardly anyone in its Steam playercount, sometimes between Playstation and Xbox there's just enough left to garner a following. Which games do you play, or know about, that most people would've thought to be completely closed down, or at least had totally forgotten about?
fedilink

Survey for curiosity: How many readers are in a library network that holds video games?
Given how little libraries advertise, this is something that I found recently. Like many, I missed being able to easily/quickly rent games via Blockbuster. But, it turns out many librarians keep up with modern preferences and keep quite a few games for checkout. Even when the one closest library doesn't have something I want, it's often available in the others on the network. Especially as Nintendo lifts their prices to $80, this may be something to seriously consider for people that have felt burned just two days into playing a game that isn't as fun as it looked in trailers.
fedilink


Team Fortress 2’s storyline has concluded with a 7-year-delayed comic
lock
Storyline? What kind of lore-addled whackjobs needed a storyline to get invested in two teams of knuckleheads killing each other endlessly in the Nevadan wasteland? Back when I played video games, it was two bleeping and blorping pixels that would gladly use their own guts as a rope to strangle the other. And you were lucky if you got any blorping! Anyway, it ends on a happy note so you may as well enjoy it. Merry Smissmas!
fedilink

Name a game game: “…and then it ends with you fighting A GOD.”
Trope or not, gods just end up being a common target for games about heroes escalating in power while fighting increasingly world-destroying consequences. So, for each post, name a game and describe it, with the assumption being that every description automatically ends with the phrase: "...and then it ends with you fighting a god."
fedilink

Stories and Mechanics around punishing over-aggression
For game designers, encouraging aggression is often a good thing. Too many players of StarCraft or even regular combat games end up "turtling", dropping initiative wherever possible to make their games slow and boring while playing as safe as possible. But in other games, often of multiplayer variety, hyper-aggression can sometimes ruin pacing in the other direction. Imagine spawning into a game with dozens of mechanics to learn, but finding that the prevailing strategy of enemy players is to arrive directly into your base and overwhelm you with a large set of abilities, using either their just-large-enough HP pool, or some mitigation ability, while you were still curiously investigating mechanics and working on defenses. Some players find this approach fun, and this may even be the appropriate situation for games of a competitive variety, where the ability to react to unexpectedly aggressive plays is an exciting element for both players and spectators. Plus, this is a very necessary setup for speedrunners, who often optimize to find the best way of trivializing singleplayer encounters. But other games have something of a more casual focus, which can give a sour feeling when trying to bring people into the experience without having to reflexively react to players that are abandoning caution. Even when a game isn't casual, aggression metas can trivialize the "ebb and flow, attack and defense" mechanics that the game traditionally tries to teach. This can also lead to speedruns becoming less interesting because one mechanic allows a player to skip much of what makes a game enjoyable (which can sometimes be solved by "No XGlitch%" run categories) So, the prompt branches into a few questions: - What are fun occasions you've seen where players got *absolutely destroyed* for relying on various "rush metas" in certain kinds of games, because witty players knew just how to react? - What are some interesting game mechanics you've seen that don't ruin the fun of the game, but force players to consider other mechanics they'd otherwise just forget about in order to have a "zero HP, max-damage" build? - What are some games you know of that are currently ruined by "Aggression metas", and what ideas do you have for either players or designers to correct for them?
fedilink



Recommendation engine: Downvote any game you’ve heard of before
This might be a slightly unusual attempt at a prompt, but might draw some appealing unusual options. The way it goes: Suggest games, ideally the kind that you believe would have relatively broad appeal. Don't feel bad about downvotes, but do downvote any game that's suggested if *you have heard of it before* (Perhaps, give some special treatment if it was literally your game of the year). This rule is meant to encourage people to post the indie darlings that took some unusual attention and discovery to be aware of and appreciate. If possible, link to the Steam pages for the games in question, so that anyone interested can quickly take a look at screenshots and reviews. And, as a general tip, anything with over 1000 steam reviews probably doesn't belong here. While I'd recommend that you only suggest one game per post, at the very most limit it to three. If I am incorrect about downvotes being inconsequential account-wide, say so and it might be possible to work out a different system.
fedilink

Many players have become “patient gamers”. What are games people might miss out on by waiting for sales?
Sales follow the tradition of supply and demand. Products come out at their highest price because of expectations and hype. Then, as interest wanes, the publisher continues to make *some* sales by reducing price to tempt the less interested parties. But this isn't the formula for all games. While we might agree that games from 2000 or even 2010 are "showing their age", at this point 5 to 8-year-old games are less and less likely to be seen as 'too old' by comparison to hot releases. Some publishers have picked up on that theme, and doubled down on the commitment to the idea that their games have high longevity and appeal; making the most of their capitalistic venture for better or worse. I recently was reminded of an indie game I had put on my wishlist several years back, but never ended up buying because it simply had never gone on sale - but looking at it now, not only did it maintain extremely positive user reviews, I also saw that its lowest all-time price was barely a few dollars off of its original price. In the AAA space, the easiest place to see this happening is with Nintendo. Anyone hoping to buy an old Legend of Zelda game for cheap will often be disappointed - the company is so insistent on its quality, they pretty much never give price reductions. And, with some occasional exceptions, their claims tend to be proven right. In the indie space, the most prominent example of this practice is **Factorio**, a popular factory-building game that has continued receiving updates, and has even had its base price *increased* from its original (complete with a warning announcement, encouraging people to purchase at its lower price while it's still available). Developers deserve to make a buck, and personally I can't say I've ever seen this practice negatively. Continuing to charge $25 for a good game, years after it came out, speaks to confidence in a product (even if most of us are annoyed at AAA games now costing $70). I sort of came to this realization from doing some accounting to find that I'd likely spent over $100 a year on game "bundles" that usually contain trashy games I'm liable to spend less than a few hours in. For those without any discussion comments, what games on Steam or elsewhere have you enjoyed that you've never seen get the free advertising of a "40% off sale"?
fedilink

Game genres where “It’s just more X content” is more than enough
We get a lot of sequels in the gaming world, and a common criticism is when a series isn't really innovating enough. We're given an open world game that takes 40 hours, with DLC stretching it out 20 more, and see a sequel releasing that cut out it's late 30 hours because players were already getting bored. Meanwhile, there's some other types of games where any addition in the form of "It's just more levels in the series" is perfectly satisfying. Often, this is a hard measure to replicate since these types of series often demand the creators are very inventive and detailed with their content - this likely wouldn't be a matter of rearranging tiles in a level editor to present a very slightly different situation. What I've often seen is that such games will add incredibly small, insignificant "New Gameplay Features" just so they have something to put on the back of the box, but that tend to be easily forgotten in standard play (yet, the game as a whole still ends up being fun). The specific series that come to mind for me with "Level-driven games" are: *Hitman* - the way the levels are made naturally necessitates some creativity both from the level makers to come up with unique foibles and weaknesses to each target, and from the players to discover both the intended and unintended methods of elimination. *Ace Attorney* - While they series has come up with various magical/unusual methods for pointing out contradictions in court, the appeal is still in the mysteries themselves, and it's never needed much beyond the basic gameplay, and the incredibly detailed and well-animated characters to hook people in. *Half-Life* - For its time, anyway. While its Episodes certainly made efforts to present new features, quite often the star of Half-Life games isn't really in any core features or gameplay mechanics, but in the inventive designs of its levels, tied in with a penchant for environmental storytelling; making you feel the world was more than an arrangement of blocks and paths. For a long time, the wait for Valve-made episodes was alleviated with modder-made levels hoping to approach the inventive qualities of the original games. *Yakuza* - While the series has undergone a major overhaul moving to JRPG combat mode, for 6+ games it satisfied a simple formula: Dramatic stories driven by cutscenes, as well as a huge variety of mini quests, of boundless variety and very low logic. For many of their games, they weren't doing a whole lot to re-contextualize their core gameplay, being fisticuffs combat, and it still worked out well (plus, they're continuing to go that route for games like Kiryu's last game) To open up discussion, and put the question as simply as I can: Which games do you follow, that you wish could be eternally supported by their devs, by simply continuing to release new "level packs" or their functional equivalent, with no need to revamp gameplay formulas?
fedilink