|
Kay Kessler posted:Gearbox is perhaps the most unprofessional non-indie dev I've seen. They're the only one I've seen where employees publicly insult their competition, like Burch mocking Last of Us's writing or a group of their artists calling Dragon's Crown ugly. A better company would have PR people keep them from doing that poo poo. And of course, there's Pitchford himself who regularly calls critics "haters" and accused Jim Sterling of "having a boner" for him. It's not even that they publicly insult their competition. They pick fights and immediately get owned. https://twitter.com/playoverwatch/status/707010249455067137?lang=en 
|
#
¿
May 7, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
DEEP STATE PLOT posted:the problem is a lot of people unironically love his games and think they are great examples of deep storytelling and other such bullshit. heavy rain won all kinds of accolades from the gaming press. in fact quantic dream often being held up as an example of excellence in game storytelling is maybe the single biggest argument against the idea that video games can be considered art, or at least art worthy of existing. One of the biggest problems in games criticism is the myopic focus on comparing games to movies. In the worst case this results in a criticism where the game is good in the ways it is like a movie and bad in the ways it is unlike a movie. It can be useful to compare video games to film but following art forms are all as or more relevant: - literature - tabletop roleplaying - board games - theater (including improv, community theater, and wrestling) - sports - sculpture/scale modeling - theme rides and haunted houses It's telling how long there was a search for gaming's "Citizen Kane" where Citizen Kane was reduced to a featureless cube labeled "ART".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
SimonChris posted:If we are comparing video games to existing artistic mediums, I think installation art is the best fit. Video games are interactive digital installations that you explore and derive meaning from, and the subtler environmental storytelling tends to be a lot more interesting than the surface level narratives. Game designers should be studying installation artists, not movie directors. I wouldn't say that any one medium is the best comparison, or that understanding any specific other medium is necessary to understanding games. One of the things I like to use for context is the idea of gamism, narrativism, and simulationism. It's not a grand unifying theory and it's useless to police the boundaries (there's a fuzzy line somewhere between Uncharted and Indiana Jones and another that separates Dwarf Fortress from NASA climate models) but it does show how works can be wildly different but still be good video games.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2018 10:36
|
|
|
I don't have time for a big post but it's probably useful to think separately about games journalism, games reviews, and games criticism.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2018 06:42
|
|
|
Roth posted:I guess calling it an Ubisoft open world game is way too harsh, but that's just the closest thing I could think of when describing what playing that game felt like for me. Ubisoft open world games are just a modernized Rare collectathon where each game has only one level (e.g. Ancient Egypt world, tropical island world, pirate world...)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Permadeath is really important to how FE plays. Without it the games are a lot simpler and easier because you can always just brute force yourself through difficult spots by sacrificing some units. Some players treat it as a tactical RPG like XCOM, accepting losses and not resetting. In what I'll call the "traditional" approach (as it's most often associated with Fire Emblem), losing a unit is treated as a loss condition so each level becomes like a puzzle box, often with optional challenges to rescue villagers and save towns. Then there's the JRPG approach, where it's about watching numbers go up on your anime supersoldiers. So depending on the player's style Fire Emblem is actually three games and can't satisfy all three approaches at once.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 08:22
|
|
|
BotW's durability system is good because it allows for a large number of unique but small rewards that don't break the game's power curve and encourages more creative solutions for killing enemies. The problem is the power curve itself, which takes the game from interesting encounters where you go into moblin camps with a plan and deal with it collapsing into fire and chaos versus lynel fights which are a straightforward but tedious volume (weapon damage x weapon durability x number of slots) check.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Another problem ME3 had to deal with is a kind of "narrative debt". You can make a game feel interesting by adding big central plot mysteries and a choice system but eventually you need to provide answers to the plot questions and effects for the choice system. The Witcher series was smart (or responsible) by making each game mostly self-contained with respect to the main plot questions and the effects of your choices. In the Mass Effect series they kept putting things off until the last game. You then had a situation where no one knew how to answer the questions or implement effects and the game had to work for new players while still paying off the debt accrued by the previous two. It doesn't help that by ME2 as much as I liked collecting a team of weirdos for a
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2018 08:45
|
|
|
Augus posted:undertale is a great anti-violence game but mcintosh would probably hate it because part of how it makes its point is by letting you make the wrong decision Undertale is interesting because it's very much a videogame about videogames. Pacifism only makes sense in context of the acknowledged immortality of the player character. I'd say it's like most children's entertainment (this isn't a bad thing) in that it's more about communicating individual values than a comprehensive, coherent worldview. That said MacIntosh's problem isn't that he hasn't found the right game but that in addition to confusing anime appraisal with activism he's incapable of analyzing anything more complicated than My Little Pony.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2018 05:26
|
|
|
The problem is that "centrism" refers to supporting the ideology of the current ruling class without explicitly identifying it. It's always something vile because otherwise they could say it outright. We have a term for supporting what the average person on the street supports and it's populism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2016072...eate-new-games/quote:“Everyone in the gaming industry is already making video games, so why should we follow this trend that’s inevitably going to crash?” questioned the employee, “Making video games themselves is the least profitable thing you could possibly do. Video games are simply a conduit to more profitable ventures like microtransactions. We wouldn’t make video games if we didn’t have to. We’re just looking for people who want to make something for the sole purpose of selling virtual items. This is why games like Portal 2 failed in our eyes.” It's hard to believe that just three years ago this was considered a joke. It was also back when the line was "Valve doesn't make games anymore, they just make hats". Now it's "Valve doesn't even make hats anymore, they just squat on the PC market and take a cut of everything that's sold".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:Well, now I've got to recalibrate my HBombermeter, cause he broke the old maximum reading of "smug contrarian" within a minute. I don't really like hbomerguy for the reasons you stated, but at the same time I appreciate what he did here. He took a series of bad films and through the application of sophistry created something interesting. It's not entirely un-self-aware either given that before they start the host remarks that the cheapest way for a fan to do a remake/recut is to plant the idea of a better film in your mind.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2018 12:30
|
|
|
Calaveron posted:Castlevania is a fantastic adaptation marred only by some lovely 2edgy dialogue at times and not enough castlevania music It's an okay action anime but it doesn't get what Castlevania is going for it. I haven't put this into any kind of cohesive argument but some of the things I noticed were - The Netflix series is gorier but far less macabre - It's more rooted in modern ideas of grimdark/cynicism (where everyone is an rear end in a top hat) than in gothic horror (which focuses on the madness lurking beneath the polite surface) - The Netflix series is about vampires while the video games are about monsters - The castle is pretty much just Dracula's house, while in the games it's a force in its own right that's possibly more important than Dracula himself Pretty much everything is explained away and in a way that doesn't hint at anything greater, which makes it all feel mundane.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
SatansBestBuddy posted:206 and 207 should have been the entire season While I complain about it not fitting Castlevania in many ways, there are things I like. While I wish the castle were larger and more varied, I like that they concentrated most of the action into a terrifying implacable speedrun. I like Dracula's suicidal melancholy, as it's fitting with the themes of gothic horror and not entirely inconsistent with his portrayal in Symphony. I think the lack of Dracula/Alucard flashbacks lends more emotional weight to the ending, because it's something both characters have deliberately suppressed and that makes us feel their pain. I even like some of what they were doing with the monster politics (specifically the weird broken relationship between Isaac, Hector, and Dracula), although most of it was a waste. Warren Ellis isn't a bad writer he just needs to be willing to reach out of his comfort zone if he doesn't want to be the guy who just repackages The Authority/Transmetropolitan over and over again.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:I don't know poo poo about game-engines but surely someone in Bethesda would know how to streamline and futureproof the Creation engine, and fix complaints as old as Morrowind. Get rid of poo poo like tying animations to framerate, rendering shadows with the CPU instead of the GPU, cell-loading instead of dynamic-loading, and the limitation that prevents caves in the open world and being able to scale ladders. It's sort of the opposite in that the larger a game engine has been around the harder it is to streamline and futureproof (to the extent that futureproofing is even possible). Modern videogames are some of the most complicated software ever produced, and are produced on much shorter timeframes with much smaller teams than things like operating systems and databases. There are ways this complexity can be mitigated like good documentation and retaining key developers but the timeframes and staff turnover make this impossible. In addition, while other software is often compartmentalized and parts can be tested in isolation and after every change, this is very hard to do in something like a videogame where every part is interacting at once. One of the key developments enabling modern game development is the use of "engines" where maintenance of key game systems (e.g. how animations and framerate work) is offloaded to a third party that can maintain some semblance of order. The Creation Engine's story dates back to 1997, when it was called NetImmerse (this is the iteration that was used for Morrowind). In 2003 it was updated to Gamebryo (used for Oblivion). Fallout 3 is where things get weird because Bethesda forks (copies) the Gamebryo codebase to create the Creation Engine. So no one developing the Creation Engine truly understands how Gamebryo works, and complexity just keeps building from there. Skryim and Fallout can be thought of as extraordinarily competent Oblivion hacks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
Late oughts hyperbolic critics is a weird thing to tilt at divorced from cultural context. If your choices in media are and someone who's willing to admit that what you're consuming has flaws, there's going to be an audience for the latter. You can make up for a lot of nuance and presentation by being the only person who sounds like a human. People want (and are better served by) a subjective reaction rather than a number between 7 and 10 determined by the size of the marketing budget and a Keynesian beauty contest. People like Yahtzee aren't very funny or very insightful now that they're no longer big fish in a small pond. But thinking of them as some kind of cultural rot is weird as hell.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
A Gnarlacious Bro posted:I mean that has already happened, the Youtube personalities (even the yelling nerd ones) described in this thread really are really chump change compared to the sponsored streams that dominate twitch and and much of the real "mainstream" gamer culture. Self employed people making one-off videos of criticism was never going to replace the enthusiast press jobs, and the economic pressure is for content creators to either take on direct corporate sponsorship or struggle running a small business 100% tied to several websites inscrutable algorithms. I'm not sure there is a "mainstream" gamer culture anymore. Is it mobile gamers? Madden/FIFA players? People who just play one MMO/competitive multiplayer game at a time for two or three years? Steam 1%-ers (and their console equivalents)? Teenagers? Do they or do they not interact with gaming-specific media? Part of the improvement I think is that there's no longer a pursuit for consensus. Metacritic and the old 7-10 review sites are dying. The closest replacement is Steam reviews, but subjectivity is baked in there as in most cases it's a measurement of "if you're the kind of person who would buy this game, what's the probability that you'll like it?" The move from sites to individuals who can be held accountable for fuckups is a huge change, as is how Patreon changes the game. Not only are there uncompromised individuals, but compromised individuals have to tone down the shilling to stay competitive. To an extent the changing medium makes hype machine tactics more difficult. It's very easy to lie with words (Todd Howard has probably told three lies in the time it took to write this sentence). It's pretty easy to cherry-pick or doctor screenshots. You can edit video to make a game look better, but it takes effort and skill, and misleading in a livestream is even more difficult.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:Problem with Steam Reviews is that the Chinese have also discovered review bombing and oh boy if you thought western gamers flew off the handle fast. Yeah that's why I said most, in that probably 99% are accurate but the remaining 1% can be pretty goofy. To be honest I'm not entirely clear how review bombing works on Steam. Do you buy the game, leave a negative review, and then request a refund?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
On the other hand they also make stuff like Devilman which despite (because of?) being a pervert's gore and tiddy filled Jesus/Lucifer slashfic is more true to the teachings of Christ than 99% of what's produced in America
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2018 08:32
|
|
|
I only got half way through but it did help me realize what I don't like about hbomerguy. It's the combination of surface level takes with fast cutting that's supposed to show the presenter as intelligent and witty but falls flat because there's nothing insightful or funny about the commentary.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
The funny thing about the whole trading card/loot box thing is that apart from Magic most card games these days are either a Living Card Game (LCG)-like format where every pack contains a specific set of cards or a straight-up board game where every player has access to the same cards.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2018 09:54
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Which games are you talking about? Netrunner, Domion, and L5R represent a large enough portion of card games, but hardly qualify as most. Pokemon, Force of Will, and Yu-gi-oh are all still TCGs, and represent a larger portion of the market than any of the LCGs. I should probably have said "most new card games" or included Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh with Magic. That said I'd guess that the non-viability of new collectable card games comes more from competition from online games than the growth of less exploitative alternatives.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2018 12:34
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Good news: they're rebooting it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM70TROZQsI
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
IBO has great concepts, world building, and mech design but is held back by its three conflicting authorial voices. One is trying to write about their super cool space mobster OC and his harem of totally consensual sex slaves, one is screaming "IMPERIAL JAPAN DID NOTHING WRONG" at the top of their lungs, and one is trying to do the standard Gundam child-soldier-war-is-bad rigmarole but was tragically born with ham-hocks instead of hands. (reposted from the Gundam thread)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
bessantj posted:Has Georg Rockall-Schmidt ever been posted? Here did a decent video on the latest Robin Hood film, which was pure garbage. (Evergreen saying but don't read the comments.) I don't doubt that it's a bad movie, but this video doesn't make a case about why being deliberately anachronistic makes it a bad movie. Alexander Nevsky is ostensibly about a historical event in the middle ages but involves the Russian peasantry being united against the wishes of a traitorous bourgeoisie to fight off an invasion of Teutonic knights who wear stahlhelms and worship a bishop with a swastika hat. Why is Robin Hood not allowed to talk about revolution, or pull off a heist, or shoot his bow in physics-defying ways?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:I don't think it would ever have matured into a healthy franchise, but taking forever to have more sequels/lore come up and the whole Tea Party phenomenon making it clear that the Obama Change was mostly cosmetic. If Pandora existed Trump and his base would be going on about how it'd be dumb not to take the Unobtainium and that he was a hero for stopping the Na'vi caravan threatening the borders, while the media pondered that maybe just sanctions and surgical bombing of the World Tree might do the job. Avatar is fascinating because it's a franchise that made billions of dollars without being accepted by existing fan ecosystems or resulting in the creation of a fan ecosystem. While a niche community can support an obscure product, it's possible the niche communities surrounding mass products are more of a side effect than a cause.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2018 06:37
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:It did get protestors in Gaza and China dressing as Na'vi, so it did hit a chord outside the US and Canada. I think it struck a chord in the US as well. But fandom as we seem to have collectively defined it is less about feeling that an artistic expression applies to your life and more about feeling that you should relate your life to an artistic expression (i.e. ensure Navipedia has properly cited entries for blue milk and jizz)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
Arguments for copyright law ignore that the majority of artists work for salary or commission and either don't own the works they produce or will never have an economically feasible way of legally enforcing their rights. It's asking "but what if I write the next Harry Potter" while ignoring that 1. statistically speaking, you won't and 2. no one's life (author included) is improved by Rowling being a billionaire instead of just a multi-millionaire, especially not enough to justify the billions of dollars of economic waste created by the system
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
Bakeneko posted:So people in this thread are saying that, once I’ve finished my novel and have begun showing it to agents in the hopes of getting it published, any of those agents should be able to just turn around and publish it under their own name without me ever seeing a dime? gently caress that. There is certainly a lot of room for improvement in copyright law but the core of it is fundamentally necessary for the livelihood of any creative person. For every J.K. Rowling who ends up swimming in money, there are thousands of authors just scraping by, and the loss of any means to protect their work basically means they can’t work at all. The first problem is that this makes decisions about an industry based on a small, heavily mythologized fragment of that industry. It's like legislating Conagra based on the ideal of the yeoman farmer or Walmart based on the ideal of the mom-and-pop general store. It would be better to make an exception allowing a small retention of copyright for the small market of old-school novel authors than to tailor the entire system around them. (and this ignores that under the existing system only a small number of authors make a living from their work) The second problem is that it assumes nothing changes about how art is paid for in response to the abolition of copyright. Distributing money through systems like patronage or fees (e.g. I'll release my next novel when I get $100,000 in donations) would likely result in the same amount of money being spent on artistic works just without the losses caused by artificial monopolies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
Bakeneko posted:Copyright law, like any aspect of the law, is an extremely complicated thing and it obviously needs to be flexible enough in order to adjust to different situations, but that doesn’t mean it should be scrapped entirely which is what some people appeared to be suggesting. I'm explicitly saying to scrap the whole thing and then make small provisions for quaint heritage industries like "the single author shopping their manuscript to publishers" if we decide we want to keep them as-is. Bakeneko posted:This example wouldn’t work because there would be no way for new people to break into the industry, and it’s hard enough to do that as it is. Nobody is going to hand that kind of money over to a first-timer with no track record, but you can’t get a track record without already having released at least one successful book. Also, publishers aren’t going to agree to print, distribute and advertise books unless they get the exclusive rights to them for at least a certain length of time. "Breaking into the industry" already requires the artist to expend a significant amount of their own labor and capital creating works to develop a track record. You're not getting an advance on your next novel unless you're Stephen King or someone else guaranteed to move pulp, and if you're working on salary/commission you already won't own the rights to what you produce. Physical copies of works in the public domain would still be printed, distributed, and advertised (as they are now), they just wouldn't have a weird system of artificial monopoly holding everything back. Bakeneko posted:How it works in novel writing is that you send out a brief summary of the book to an agent, who then replies saying whether or not they want to read the entire manuscript. At that point you need to have a manuscript to show them, and they aren’t going to bother negotiating with you much less signing anything until after they’ve read it and decided if it’s worth their time. Under the current law, a work is automatically copyrighted without the creator needing to do anything, so as long as they can prove their authorship (traditionally done by mailing a copy to yourself to preserve the date stamp on the envelope) they’re safe and any lawsuit would be an easy win. While all works grant copyright at creation, "poor man's copyright" isn't real (and won't sustain a court case). If you want to guarantee legal protections without making a work publicly available you can pay $35 to register it with the Federal Copyright Office.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
Futaba Channel ("Two-leaf channel", so 2chan.net) is the Japanese imageboard while 2channel (2ch.net) is a Japanese textboard. 2chan is known for anime and memes while 2ch is known for nationalism and racism. It's worth noting that while 2chan is what directly inspired 4chan, the founder of 2ch now owns the site after moot left to pursue his degree in Mexican studies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
One of the things that's been touched on before in the thread is that not every work provides or needs to provide a comprehensive view of how society works or should work. In general, children's literature (including Harry Potter) is more about teaching lessons for the individual, e.g. "friendship is good" or "you can't always rely on adults". The problem is that a book used for swearing in is supposed to represent your views on how you relate to the society you live in (i.e. politics). Harry Potter is a story where slavery and genocide are acceptable as long as there's a banality to the evil. While as a single-author work I don't think the politics of the original series are intentionally bad (unlike say the Transformers or Marvel movies where there's a very intentional effort, often directly from the Pentagon or arms dealers, to ensure that tales of individual heroism always have a broader pro-imperialist context), attempting to use it as a reference without transformation will always result in bad takes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2019 08:01
|
|
|
World of Warcraft has three main problems: it's big, it's long running, and the only way they know to make something meaningful is to make it a world-changing cataclysm. It's the same situation as the shared continuity of American comics.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
Max Wilco posted:I see your Black Desert Online, and raise you Scarlet Blade. He's got an interesting point about how automating the wrong parts of social features can produce an anti-social environment. Like means of effectively communicating (e.g. linking items) or help with organizing friends, groups, and public spaces are good because they make it easier to talk to people but if automation is treated as a way to avoid interaction then social interaction goes from a pillar of the game to an unpleasant obstacle between you and the loot. I think that principle can be applied to a lot of aspects of modern game design, like how the abundance of objective markers has ultimately reduced immersion.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
Max Wilco posted:There's a video I really like (which is probably pretty dated at this point and is actually a reply to another video) called Why the Elder Scrolls Isn't Dumbing Down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEI4yS7sFEw, which touches on the subject of things like objective markers. The video attempts to take down a strawman argument (presumably, I haven't seen the video it's responding to) about a secret cabal of casuals dumbing down the Elder Scrolls and somehow manages to fail at it because his points are mentioning areas where Morrowind's systems have flaws or don't go far enough to excuse areas where Oblivion/Skyrim don't make an attempt at all. I give him credit for mentioning the massive staff turnover between Morrowind and Oblivion though, which I don't think enough people mention when talking about it. If you watch or read any interviews with Todd Howard it's pretty obvious there's no conspiracy and that he's just an excruciatingly dumb man who naturally makes dumb games for dumb people and can't conceive of anything more fantastic than a knight on a horse or a viking with two axes. Max Wilco posted:Trying to hop up the mountain the mountain on horseback seems like it would take longer, though. I know there are a few instances where the marker doesn't indicate how you're suppose to reach the destination, but for the most part, I feel like you're supposed to the use the markers in conjunction with the map. I'm not opposed to in-game markers, and they could be a good way of keeping known NPCs accessible despite the radiant system. The problem is that absolutely every step of every quest in Skyrim has an objective marker. You could be asked to find an artifact that's been lost for 500 years and it'll still spawn a big glowing arrow on exactly where in exactly which of Skyrim's 150 identical intestine caves it is. What's left to engage the player? The robust combat system?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
Biomute posted:Why would anyone fight you? Morrowind was probably the last Bethesda game before they started level scaling everything. Pretty much everyone preferring the later games are simply too young to remember a time where that mechanic was not the norm for open world games. It's the one example of making games more casual/accessible that I think one could claim really hurt the medium. A game being casual, a game being accessible, and a game being challenging/difficult are three entirely different and often unrelated things. Most importantly level scaling doesn't necessarily have an effect on any of them. I'd say that level scaling (at least the way it's implemented post-Oblivion) is like procedural generation in that it's main purpose is to automate some of the developer's work at the expense of producing a sub-par product.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
I don't know if it's related to Fallout 4 scratching the gloss off of Skyrim for a lot of people but Oblivion seems to have had a recent critical evaluation acknowledging some clever side quests and charming characters alongside the bad gameplay and painfully generic world.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
Biomute posted:Certainly level-scaling does make some aspects of level design, mission design and balancing easier on the devs. You're probably right that this was a big motivation for the move, but level scaling is very much meant to make these games more casual and accessible. I tend to think of "accessibility" as referring to the two related questions of "how much prior videogame experience is required to play?" and "how much conscious effort does it take to learn the mechanics and develop skills?" and the slightly less related question of "is the experience negatively impacted for people with conditions or disabilities?" "Casual" can mean everything from the minimum play session length to the perceived mental exertion to a vague audience demographic, so I tend to avoid using the term. As such I don't think level scaling, even well implemented level scaling (i.e. not Oblivion's), necessarily makes the game more accessible. Morrowind was pretty good about signposting that the southern areas around Seyda Neen/Balmora/Vivec were the "starting area", things get tougher as you go north, and the endgame is the fenced-in giant doom volcano surrounded by a storm of rabies ash. In addition it's pretty clear you should steer clear of the creepy looking daedric shrines and not gently caress with anyone in ebony/glass until you're sure of yourself. Most of the inaccessibility comes from both game's unintuitive combat and character building mechanics, and in Oblivion's case the poor implementation of level scaling makes it even worse because you're screwed if you're not building in a very specific way.can the game be played by people with certain conditions or disabilities?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
Linear Zoetrope posted:That's fair. To be clear I... sorta... like The Witcher 1 more than 2. Maybe "like" is a less good word than "respect". Witcher 1 is one of those super rough around the edges RPGs which a ton of cool-but-somewhat-obnoxious touches that game series inevitably lose when they get popular and a QA budget (except in really rare cases like MGS). It's just it's a tough game to play your first time in 2019 and it's standard advice to skip it for a reason and I wanted to make sure you didn't think you had to play it if you didn't want to. I just finished the SuperBunnyhop Witcher retrospective someone posted earlier in the thread and it helped clarify why people feel this way. He goes into the ways in which The Witcher plays with fairy tales and pulls out the great line quote:What I feel like a lot of people might not notice, and the second game kinda forgot about, and what separates The Witcher from a lot of D&D Forgotten Realms kitsch is that The Witcher is really closer to Shrek than it is Game of Thrones It made me realize that while I prefer 2's overall commitment to forcing Geralt out of his comfort zone to 3's fanservice it lacks the charm or playfulness of execution that makes the scenarios in 1 and 3 engaging.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2019 08:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
Arist posted:In case you aren't aware of just what a clusterfuck DK64 is: The chart makes the game seem more mechanically complicated than it actually is. There are far too many collectibles in the game, but each of them acts as currency for one specific thing. The giant, glaring problem is that every collectible is multiplied by the five characters who can only pick up their color so you pretty much have to play every level five times. Then add in a bunch of incredibly bullshit minigames.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2019 05:02
|
|