We chat about videogames and videogame accessories.

I'm not disagreeing that a lot of games handle help and teaching and other things in a very lazy and poorly-done manner. The part I do disagree with, though, is this:

You may well complain that they should make golf easier so everyone can score under par.

That's not at all where I'm going at. The analogy would work if once you scored under par they kicked you off the golf course (and also you didn't get in the way of other patrons but analogy), but otherwise it's going in a completely different way. I don't think someone should ever be locked out of significant portions of a game's content just because they can't figure out a puzzle or concept or can't get the timing of a maneuver down or anything along those lines. I'm all for putting in the option to ensure people still have to earn their way through it if they want, but what if I can't earn it but still want to get further into the game? Should I just suck it up and have only 40% of the game experience or should there be ways to help with it?

@Superfrequency
I really do not believe that we disagree here. The type of teaching that you are extolling is exactly what I want to see. A switch that's obviously a switch which informs you that it needs plasma energy to activate, and doesn't bother to point out that you don't currently have this (due to it being obvious) is the right kind of teaching and I wish it were more common.
Most games definitely handhold too much, but going the other way is problematic as well. "Exploration" as a philosophy leads some game developers (mostly those who are trying to be "indie" or "retro") to give you, for example, a switch that does not look like a switch and has no indication of how to interact with it. This gets really bad in realistic 3D games or games with layered background elements, because there's no way to tell what is actually an interactable and what is just an interesting background element. Stuff like, for example, the glow around items in Bioshock is pretty heavy-handed, but I think it's better than the alternative of having no clue what my character is allowed to pick up and what he isn't.

What I said about telling the player controls in-game does not mean I'm in favor of obnoxious scripted tutorials (e.g. Metroid: Other M) or of windows that pop up, pause gameplay, and tell you how to do a move. I just really hate having to open settings and go into the keyconfig to figure out what my character is allowed to do because the game never bothered to tell me that "u" does a jump kick or something *glares at Dark Souls*. Admittedly this is much more of a problem on PC than console.
But anyway I believe that teaching a player button controls can be done elegantly and unobtrusively. An example I appreciated is They Bleed Pixels (which does also have an obnoxious tutorial, but you are allowed to simply never play it). Within the first few seconds of the first level, you learn basically all of the character's moves from signs on the background wall that never interrupt gameplay, and it indirectly shows you the combo system by covertly instructing you to combo an enemy. Tutorials definitely have a place in video games, it's just about doing it right.

I do think people should be locked out of significant portions of a game's content if they cannot complete it. It's a game. That's the point. It's supposed to be a challenge. If you can't complete the game, then you can't complete the game. You don't succeed at everything in life. You're not entitled to see everything in a game just because you paid for it. Games are interactive experiences that are dependent on player input to function. If all you want to do is be told a story, there are other art forms that cater to that, and plenty of footage online of other people playing through a game. The purpose of a game is not to ensure every player sees everything in it, and it never has been.

I'm not talking about having 100% of the content be freely available (although I think it should be an option through means like codes or whatnot since sometimes people just want to see the stuff and don't want to troll youtube in hopes they haven't been taken down by copyright violation but this is another story). But does it actually make the game better if you can't get to most of it if you aren't skilled or experienced enough or aren't in the right mindset? I mean, maybe for you you want that risk always there, but that's why you could play the game with all that stuff turned off (which I agree should definitely be an option). But by not having that option there, the games are definitively much worse for many people who can't get by those walls. And if it's worse for them and not better for people like you, what's the point? How is this a better outcome?

Maybe it's mysterious to grandma. It is not mysterious to an 8 year old.

Hey now, I chose my words very carefully here. I never said it is or isn’t, only that it can be. I’ve personally witnessed people of all sorts of ages trying these things out (sometimes I do volunteer work); there are both people who catch on to it right away and people who need loads of guidance to get started (naturally, we are all better at some things than others). And the Internet is full of anecdotes of kids not intuitively understanding controllers in this day and age.

Heck, the peculiar combination of ideas that you have a limited number of things you can do, and that you should exhaust these as if they’re options, and that you should look beyond for another one if none of them works... isn’t particularly natural—that’s the kind of X-factor that sets Sherlock Holmes apart from Scotland Yard. I’m sure that to the designers, the Barrel of Doom seemed quite scrutable at the time. “You just have to use abilities they won’t discuss and techniques they haven’t entirely taught you via controls they never quite explain,” as one sarcastic ass put it once.

besides, don't they just lock the room you get an item in, so that the only way forward is to immediately use the thing that you have just gotten to escape

if disney's aladdin can do it, so can you

the thing i was stupid about for a year was being able to distinguish video game death from actual death

i wish somebody could have explained that to me instead of wondering why i was overreacting

Drifting off the conversation because i pretty much agree with Supe, the first time i connected death with videogames was when my brother was playing Star Fox and he died with Andross, he said "Fox just died" and for some reason i never connected actual death with videogame death, maybe because that particular one was kind of gruesome, i felt pretty upset that night.

It's frustrating to see the market for the sort of well-designed games I enjoy steadily shrink because there is more money in pandering to ignorant new gamers than teaching them. I want to say it's just bad design and that they don't know any better, but the more I see of it the more cynical it feels. If anyone is frustrated in playtesting there must be something wrong. Unless they are frustrated by handholding, then they must be crazy get them outta here.

Pretty much; if there were some happy medium between handholding and just stranding somebody that could be easily found, it’d be in like every game. Instead we have lots of failures to find it, when they’re even trying. A lot of people I know think Portal 2 (single player) went down a little too smooth, you know? It’s as if any time anyone got stuck on a playtest, they made some things too obvious where the next step was. And then you have plenty of difficulty setting things that sound good on paper but don’t really make a difference in practice (I hear that on max difficulty, the Norks in Crysis speak Korean instead of Engrish, and that it’s completely pointless—I’m not that big on shooters, I wouldn’t know).

On the subject of controls, I think one of the more brilliant moments from Halo CE’s gameplay is when they ask you to look in directions with the camera near the beginning—first to just move it, writing it off as “disorientation” from doing freezer time, but then you get to test between normal and inverted vertical controls. Not only does it signal that you’ve finally escaped cutscene mode, but you also don’t have to actually know what “inverted” controls means or read the fadey text indicators on the HUD to set your preference; you just confirm which one you think works, and that’s what they’ll use. I mean, too bad that there is a cutscene and all that, but it’s a good moment that follows from that rather nicely.

While I have not found a conclusive answer to the Mystery of Where the Right Stick Camera Convention Came From, Halo CE does seem to be an influential game in that regard (despite not originating the idea)—after all, it’s influential on all sorts of games inferior to it; that’s why I ever bothered looking at it in the first place.

didn't games before halo use the "we're totally not breaking the fourth wall" sequence, or was that introduced with halo?

“We are merely sprites that dance at the beck and call of our button-pressing overlord!”

Big thanks to everyone that recommended Card Hunter to the thread! I tried it out and am very much enjoying it so far. It's just the right combination of cute, hokey, and lots of fun to play to keep me hooked. I'm Slorange on there (someone already took SleepingOrange, that almost never happens), and we'll have to multiplayer at some point I'm not a bunch of level three weenies.

Well, people have dug up other strange things, like Goldeneye let you use two controllers for two sticks. Yeah. Now you can have the 1880sest 1990s 1960s fight, right in your living room.

(Halo CE has regenerating shields, but not health. I think making health also regenerate was a mistaaaaaake.)

does anybody have advice to kill the goblin boss that doesn't result in getting the crap beaten out of you

i'm guessing it has something to do with continuously running away in order to run down his supply of movement cards, since he is loaded with penalty cards that are guaranteed to show his hand

also, should probably kill that priest before he tries anything funny

edit: okay, beat him...but i think there's probably a better way than potshotting him and then having two 10 damage cards waiting for when he gets in melee range

probably not at that level, though

I am aware. I think it's an arbitrary distinction. It popularized regenerating points that prevent you from dying.

Well, if you don’t mind my saying so, I think the distinction matters quite a bit.

With fully regenerating health, the player can shrug off all sorts of mistakes given somewhere to hunker down. Depending on balance, this can encourage too much reliance on cover, or not enough, but I think this is a very tricky thing to balance because there isn’t much nuance between “alive” and “dead” with such a system. That is, there’s probably either enough dakka to kill you or there isn’t. Yet it’s part in between that you want to be able to tune as a designer. Plus, without a need for health packs, that’s one less thing to encourage players to scavenge for.

With strictly static health, challenge often becomes too centered around making it alive to the next health pack (and where you place things is how it will be for all players regardless of their skill; a one size fits all solution...). A lot of players who find a segment too hard don’t have the willpower to avoid quicksaving through the game, and that eventually gets about as exciting and challenging as godmoding. Still, there is the reward of finding a health pack right when you’ve needed it for the last fifteen minutes.

But with regenerating shield and static health, the risk of taking hits is much easier to balance against the logistics of health maintenance. It’s easier to encourage players to expose themselves to the danger of a few stray shots, and it’s easier to convince the player to stick with punishments they’ve earned, getting rid of a significant temptation towards quickload abuse. If you play your cards right, they’ll even still be encouraged to search for health.

It all comes down to balance in any case, but I think the hybrid approach is much easier to balance. And what’s easier to balance is what’s more likely to have good balance at all. Plus X-Wingness is next to godliness.

does anybody have advice to kill the goblin boss that doesn't result in getting the crap beaten out of you

i'm guessing it has something to do with continuously running away in order to run down his supply of movement cards, since he is loaded with penalty cards that are guaranteed to show his hand

also, should probably kill that priest before he tries anything funny

I run All Elves All Day Erry Day so I was able to quickly swarm and take out the priest then pummel the boss pretty quickly. In the end, though, I had to resort to kiting him with my wizard, which ended closer than I'd have liked. Pack a lot of healing and play cautiously, taking advantage of his walk-only movement, or bum rush him with lots of heavy-hitters. Righteous Frenzy and especially Unholy Frenzy are real killers; load your priest up with that shit if you're not going for caution and healing.

mighty number nine has now surpassed the stretch goal for "current gen" console versions

an additional person will be joining keiji inafune for dinner, bringing the total guests to 4

the 2 remaining people who opted for swag are perhaps reconsidering their choice

Please be fired. Summarily. You have failed to deliver an honest review.

The real problem is that they are, strictly speaking, doing their jobs well.

It's just that one of their primary job duties is "obtain payola and review copies, don't make waves or we might not get payola and review copies in the future."

considering how much money has gone into the advertising budget (as in, fullsize billboards everywhere I've been on this trip), i don't doubt there being a portion of that being set aside for greasing those wheels

that being said, if something was significantly wrong with this game, it'd be at the end of it, or else people would sound the alarms all over the internet, so if you've got the money to throw away at a release price and the mentality that accepts playing mainstream games while they are new, there are a lot larger mistakes you could make

(deus ex hr, cough)

so more like extortion, then

the other day i bought killer is dead and it is funny to think about why i did

-it is a niche japanese game, the printing is going to be limited, used copies and such later will probably cost more because of there being less and because it isnt going to sell super great
-the two best friends play guys are doing a lets play and the game looks good and they say it plays well and they seem like they are having fun
-i liked no more heroes 2 and this seems to be similar to that in terms of game play and in terms of StyleNess
-first printing has bonus shit like shit this case is big
-it is called KILLER IS DEAD

i am awful

So, on the one hand GTA's score is really dumb
I mean, it very well could be the Prophesied Ultimate Car Stealing Game but 97 is still ridiculous

On the other hand, the way metacritic works seems to, on the whole, produce very accurate predictions of game success (at least in a relative sense). They can't prevent individual reviewers from inflating their scores like crazy, but relative metacritic scores (at least if you change the range from 60-100) are pretty close to how popular the game ends up being among the "core gamer audience". You could put that down to people buying games based on review score, but if that's really the reason then I'd expect to see more people complaining about how the games they bought sucked.
It would be stupid to expect game reviewer scores to track my tastes, since I like things that aggravate a lot of people, and dislike things that are normally considered fun. No system of reviewing can actually capture "good-game-ness", because that's a matter of taste. Majority taste is pretty much the best we can hope to predict.

sega bought atlus

:(

maybe they'll just be like "hey altus you guys make good cash money and are good at stuff keep being altus cool peoples"

thats possible right?

to answer your question
it looks confusing as shit
what are they even doing for most of it

SpoilerShow

The whole review system is broken and many-problemed. I don't know that explicit bribery is all that common.

Many things I dislike about so-called "Triple-A Games" may be the result of publishers using Metacritic scores as leverage against developers, and the subsequent push for the inclusion of features or elements reviewers will respond favorably to, as opposed to just making a game a designer thought would be cool. In other words, big budget games exist to satisfy reviewers, because positive reviews translate to sales. Ostensibly.

Metacritic is a big part of the problem. Nearly everything about it has had a negative impact on gaming.

>files under "reasons Yahtzee reviews are best reviews"

I got 64 cubes in Fez. I should not have bothered. It’s just collectathons alllll over again.

There were a couple of good anti-cube puzzles in Fez. The ones that were most Riven-esque.