Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Retropunch]

Don't Starve is alright for a survival game, but can become quite easy later on.

I feel that CataDDA could have gone in a very good survival RL direction, it unfortunately just went a bit silly and more into an shootem-up with a survival beginning but with a good mod it could potentially get back to that stage again - it'd just be a lot of work.

I think the problem with survival games is that they often have to punish the player unfairly later on to maintain the survival bit of it and this is difficult, especially as completely unpreventable events/deaths are seldom fun.

[Sappho]

I have to say, what I want from a game has changed dramatically as I've gotten older. As a kid, there just weren't that many games around, and each one was a treasure. A new video game was a huge deal. So I wanted it to last. The more content, the better. I hadn't learned to hate grinding yet, and my young autistic mind actually enjoyed the repetitive tasks. And what were the alternatives? Going outside? There was dirt and bugs out there. I certainly spent plenty of time reading and watching TV and drawing and whatnot, but there weren't a whole lot of things demanding my attention back then.

Now I'm a full-fledged grown-up with my own apartment, two demanding jobs, a large group of friends (not one of whom is a gamer and many of whom are artists and musicians who often invite me to shows), a slew of health issues to deal with, and a constant battle with the Czech government for the right to live in their country. I'm also trying to finish writing several books, read at least a book a week, keep up with practicing drawing and painting, and the list goes on. I still love games, but I just do not have the time.

And on top of that, there are just so many games out there now. I've got 136 games in my Steam library, a couple dozen on Desura, I don't know how many DRM-free, and I don't even want to think about how many are untouched in my bundle libraries. When a game boasts 100+ hours of gameplay now, I don't even want to look at it. I don't have that many hours! And I no longer enjoy mind-numbingly tedious grind the way I did as a kid. So the loads of hours of gameplay are not even fun.

The games I play most often are the ones I can either finish fairly quickly, delete, and move on from, or ones without any sort of "end" that I can just stop playing whenever I feel like it and not feel like I'm missing out on something or wasting the game purchase. If you want to sell me a game, make it fairly short and sell it at a low price. That's what gets my attention now. Cut out all the boring crap and just give me the good stuff without filler.

The other big one that drives me crazy is any kind of "realistic" graphics. First of all, I get motion sickness from shooter-style games (I guess they call it "simulation sickness"), so I avoid 3d games almost universally. On top of that, they keep trying to make graphics look more realistic, which only results in making them less convincing. It's the "uncanny valley" thing. So I much prefer "retro" style (and I agree with whoever said that "retro" is not really the right word - it's just a different style, not an old one) and 2d graphics, and highly stylized imagery. The less they try to make it look real, the more immersive it is.

[Retropunch]

I agree with Sappho that a lot of the grinding games which were fun when younger/unemployed are a lot less so when you've actually got other things to take up your time. I think the main thing I've learnt to appreciate though is games that let you pick up and play them whenever you want. Just things like being able to read back an in game journal/diary on past events goes along way, as does giving games standard controls and general helpfulness. Even minor things like skipping talking bits and and whatever help no end if you've just got 20 minutes to play around.

It was something I never really realized was important until I had breaks of 3-4 weeks between games and had completely forgotten what had gone on. I've been playing a lot more games recently, but I still appreciate this function due to the number of games available.

Just a thought for any devs or similar who are perusing the thread!

[Toady One]

(For a pattern of fighting and ignoring warnings for that, MoLAoS has been muted for a week.  Removed a few of the shorter posts referring to the argument as well, though some were retained.)

[Vector]

.

[Retropunch]

I'm employed, but I'm using games to help convince my brain that it can solve problems (trying to reduce the effects of trauma, long story), so I play a whole lot of games right now instead of doing various other things. Hence the whole preoccupation with the challenge -> payoff thing.

Not to draw too much attention to this part (as I know it wasn't your intention) but I do think computer games are a fantastic way of challenging yourself mentally. For too long computer games have been seen as a simple, non-stimulating waste of time, but that's not the case at all anymore. If we compare the rules and strategies of Chess (which no one is going to arguing is not a mentally stimulating, 'useful' activity) to some of the more complex computer games/RLs out there, chess pales in comparison - and that's from an avid chess fanatic!

Fun fact, I once showed Aurora to someone that works in the higher end of military logistics and she claimed that if you could do Aurora, military logistics would be a breeze. 

[Glloyd]

I think for me, it's games themselves that used to excite me, but make me groan now. I've been playing games as long as I can remember, and I've sunk more hours into games than I care to think about. But lately, I've found it hard to find any game at all that captivates me like games used to. I think I own 15 or so games on steam, maybe 10 from GoG, and then a pile of older boxed games I've accumulated over almost 20 years of gaming. So, I don't own as many as some, yet whenever I go on to Steam, or GoG, or to brick and mortar stores, there is nothing that interests me at all, and any games I do play don't seem to captivate me. The last game that actually caught my attention and "captivated" me per se was Kerbal Space Program. Past that, I can't seem to think of the last game that captured my like that one did, like the Zelda games did when I was younger, like Hidden and Dangerous 1 & 2 did when I was a bit older, like Oblivion did when I was even older. Most of the games I play now just bore the heck out of me, and I don't play them that long. The only games I still play are various strategy games and Space Station 13, and even on that I spend more time coding and mapping for the game than I do playing it.

Maybe it's less about the games and more about me? I guess I've just become really jaded and cynical regarding games. It just seems that everything is derivative of something I played 2 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago.

Now I'm sad.

I agree with Sappho that a lot of the grinding games which were fun when younger/unemployed are a lot less so when you've actually got other things to take up your time.

Oh god, this times a million.

[Mindmaker]

I'm employed, but I'm using games to help convince my brain that it can solve problems (trying to reduce the effects of trauma, long story), so I play a whole lot of games right now instead of doing various other things. Hence the whole preoccupation with the challenge -> payoff thing.

Not to draw too much attention to this part (as I know it wasn't your intention) but I do think computer games are a fantastic way of challenging yourself mentally. For too long computer games have been seen as a simple, non-stimulating waste of time, but that's not the case at all anymore. If we compare the rules and strategies of Chess (which no one is going to arguing is not a mentally stimulating, 'useful' activity) to some of the more complex computer games/RLs out there, chess pales in comparison - and that's from an avid chess fanatic!

Fun fact, I once showed Aurora to someone that works in the higher end of military logistics and she claimed that if you could do Aurora, military logistics would be a breeze.

Same here. I'm really drawn to games that require me dozens of hours of trial&error, manual/guide reading and watching tutorials/let's plays to gain a basic understanding of.

[Vector]

.

[Retropunch]

I think we're kind of in a non-innovating glut right now. I mean, there's always been shitty copies of stuff, but like... right now is extra-lacking.

I feel as though we're on more of a non-completion glut right now. There are a lot of really interesting, exciting sounding indie/non-AAA games coming out, but they're always 'early access' or open beta, with the end nowhere in sight.

I really, really feel Steam should put a cap on early access duration. It just breeds overly ambitious projects which aren't ever going to reach completion, but that can sell a lot just on hope. I think it's a terrible way for the industry to be heading in really.

[Mindmaker]

I think innovation merely shifted from AAA, to mid-sized, small-sized and indie studios.
It's not obvious, but still there, even if you have to dig around a bit.

Main problem seems to be that any sort of thinking outside the box in game development just doesn't sell too well.
You can get by, if you abandon all hope of ever getting big and concentrating on your core fanbase, but that always carries the risk of pandering.

[Glloyd]

I think we're kind of in a non-innovating glut right now. I mean, there's always been shitty copies of stuff, but like... right now is extra-lacking.

Yeah, that's what it really feels like to me. Yes, there are innovative indie games, but it seems that 99% of those are in perma-beta/alpha. And as for AAA games, well one needs to look no further than the list of games shown at E3 to see the lack of innovation. Almost everything on there is a sequel, and a good number of them are the 3rd or higher entry into the series.

[Neonivek]

I still like time intensive games, but then again... I usually don't play videogames and then do a huge massive playing spurt. So it benefits my playing style.

[Darkmere]

Well, we've shifted a bit so I can contribute again.

I think there's a time for grindiness for me, but it's only when I'm doing something intensive that's non-gaming and need a break for a while. Otherwise, if I don't have something else going on that I feel a need to escape from, I'm drawn to games just to figure them out. Most of the non-twitch ones can keep me busy for a while just learning the mechanics and how to use them (I try to avoid wikis until I "win" somehow at least once). The really good ones that I keep playing are the ones that let me USE that knowledge for something once I've earned it.  Cataclysm: DDA was mentioned, I think it works great as a two-phase game. Once you've mastered survival you can move on to becoming a mutated tentacle-beast and go native in the apocalypse.... or tinker with your body until you become a cyborg badass that punches zombie hulks to death. I think survival games work best that way, in that once you *can* survive, there should be some player-determined open goal beyond just "survive more."

[Neonivek]

I like grindy things for hand-helds though. I don't like LOOONG cutscenes while I am waiting for the bus.