/games/ - Games

Summary: it’s not hard enough

Explanation: it’s not balanced in a way that makes progression feel as meaningful as it was in diablo 1. That’s not to say that the scaling back of power and feature creep from d3 wasn’t a massive improvement on top of the shift in aesthetics for the game but the implementation of health globes, low damage dealt from common enemies and too an extent bosses even against ranged builds that should be vulnerable for poor zoning to compensate for the range of their attacks, on top of mandatory minimaps and other accessibility features that waste the effort animators and level designers put into this don’t still make this game feel really casual like d2 does take me out of the sense of grounded-ness and genuine feelings of anxiety over how my performance would dictate wether or not I could complete an area/boss with how I was playing I felt from d1. That’s all I gotta say beyond the fact that sorcerers are completely busted

I just finished this game and holy shit the historical revisionism in here was insane. While I love the setting, the whole thing with the assassin's was so horribly done. Remember when the assassin's actually had an interesting philosophy and didn't pick any side of the christian vs muslim conflict and instead assassinated those who they perceived to be actual bringers of war only to realize that the Templars wanted something similar to the assassin's just going about it a different way. But in this game, or at least with the later games you actually are fuckin picking sides like Connor siding with the Patriots or Bayek and Aya siding with Cleopatra despite the fact that the Ptolemies were colonizers. They act like Cleo was this "true Egyptian" what the fuck? I remember this one side quest where there's this woman fighting because of Greek colonizers and you don't get any choice but to kill the Egyptians fighting to decolonize Egypt, a Medjay of all things. Also Medjay disappeared after the New Kingdom fell a thousand years before. Wouldn't it had made sense for Bayek to be an anti imperialist as well?

Which console is better if im looking into getting a gaming console?

I’m going to be genuinely surprised if they somehow manage to mess this up completely. I know that sounds weird but this time it really feels like noting bad should happen

Starting to understand why the best Metroid games have barely any dialogue. Great game but this made me lol when I saw it.

I have never played a game that felt like a bigger waste of time than Stardew Valley, and I've played my fair share of clickers and life sims in my youth.

A hilariously broken economy, that neither emulates real life agriculture nor attempts to create pros and cons for the sake of balance. Swathes of "content" for the sake of content. A plot (small business vs Amazon) I couldn't give less of a shit about, and funnily enough not because of my socialist leanings but rather because of how badly it's integrated with the game. Characters with the depth of random Elder Scrolls side NPCs. Basically I could go on but I'll spare you the suffering.

What about you?

Do corporations just hate people? Once I used to think that sure you have big bourgeoisie who act in their class interests but you still has creatives who could flex their muscles and produce something great and then it would make a shit ton of money for publishers. But it seems that publishers these days just absolutely hate developers and moreso despise the consumers and now you have what the modern gaming industry is today, record profits with absolute gutted and half made releases with microtransactions to "buy" the full game. Also physical copies aren't useful anymore and digital copies can basically be "erased" at any time. All of these problems make me think that they just hate, like actually hate their consumers.

I was playing far cry 2 again and thought a bit about the healing system and compared it to other games. I came to the conclusion it was one of the most balanced forms of healing in games to date but how it was implemented matters more to me than what it simply is.

There’s a tendency in games to make components of them at the start scarce in quantity for the player only to then be trivial in later stages as the player progresses essentially rendering that component pointless to even include in. for the player this can take the form of stamina attached to sprinting in games like blood borne and fallout 4 only to then become trivial as the player levels stamina with time. Another example could include high tier loot of diablo 3 that becomes increasingly worthless as it starts dropping in excess once the player is either high level enough or is already too strong for any of it to significantly affect their playstyle.

When sub components of a game are implemented to stay scarce or have their supply scale logarithmically not only is their impact on gameplay more meaningful, it also provides a basis for a far more consistently fair game overall. Take sekiros resurrection mechanic, unlike a simple potion healing system seen in standard rpgs how often you can save yourself in the middle of combat much like far cry 2 has an established limit that doesn’t change regardless of how much time you have ingame, when your allowed to gain the option to save yourself again depends directly on your performance as a player and in the end it allows for fights to last for reasonably long periods of time against generally tougher enemies without having those fights take ages to end. This both encourages the player to play aggressively but also rewards them for skillful play simultaneously. A highlight of such of a mechanic that directly contrasts the “run and chug after a direct hit” mechanics of estus healing of its predecessor’s that worked against such a level of consistent fairness in combat.


Theres plenty more examples I could list right off the bat about how to use elements of a game world with a level of consideration over its supply and how it could impact how people would play but this post is too long. That’s all for now, thanks for reading

I’m aware that during fallout 3s development the development of the gunplay was strangely enough not done by bethesda(the parent studio) but by ID software. The creation of the areas, story, and DLC however was done by bethesda directly. What I’m trying to understand was where was ID, experience wise that somehow led to Bethesda creating generally better developed gunplay mechanics for fallout 4 that the both the teams for new Vegas and fallout 3 failed to achieve

I’m looking for any responses due to the fact that ID has worked on FPS, titles like wolfenstien and doom, while obsidian has the outer worlds whose gunplay mirrors again fallout 4s

Are the Sabbat the good guys or the bad guys in Vampire the Masquerade? On one hand, they're a reactionary organization that values vampire supremacy, but on the other hand, they're the only ones that promote communial solidarity, want to stop the apocalypse, and they expose the corruption of the anarchs and the Camrilla. The anarchs always take a side alongside the Camrilla whenever things get serious like with the introduction of the Sabbat or the Keul Jin as threats.