Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
Log In
Found the internet!

For those who like talking about games as much as playing them.

r/truegaming

52
pinned by moderators
Posted by3 days ago
52
39 comments
103
Posted by8 hours ago

Hi everyone, this is a topic that maybe has been discussed at length without me noticing but it actually seems to be something that either only I and maybe a few other people have an issue with or something that is actually more annoying than people realize. I'm talking about "Consumables" in games.


For "consumable" I'm defining any item the game provides you in order to receive a one time bonus. This goes from your average health potion to items that change the gameplay for a brief amount of time; really it can be anything as long as the effect is temporary, one time and tied to an item.


The problem with consumables (or rather the reason why I think they are problematic) is that I think they are used mainly or entirely as a crutch. Let me explain:

In most situations the reliance on consumables really stifles and even ruins gameplay systems. It feels like even in the most well designed systems you are only as good as how much stuff you're able to carry and how much preparations you make.

The most egregious example of this is the fact that many games' combat or challenge is reliant on the fact that you can recover your health with consumables turning every encounter at max difficulty as a chugfest.

Other games give you so many different consumables that you'll be carrying them around everywhere and either hoarding them until the right moment or just trivializing things with the right consumable.

They are more often than not things that actually limit design rather than expand it. They force designers to think that every player has easy access to consumables and thus they need to consider that when making the combat and other gameplay systems.


First and foremost I'd like to see many more games simply do away with them altogether. Not every game needs a way to recover health in combat; you can make a very cool and exciting combat system this way.

Case in point my favourite way to play Yakuza 0 is without every using consumables. That game's combat system turns entirely on its head that way, especially at maximum difficulty.

Suddenly every hit matters instead of simply chugging down items to increase health and the "heat meter" which suddenly becomes an interesting mechanic since not every move is available at any "heat level" so you have to learn how to manage it instead of just hopping into the inventory.

This is basically impossible in many if not all of the "new" Yakuza, including the Judgement series, because the devs have designed the game with heavy amounts of consumables in mind making avoiding all hits an impossible feat. The over reliance on consumables makes the devs make encounters more deadly because players have access to crazy power buffs and health regeneration.

I feel that these kinds of games would benefit more from not having consumables and making the player improve by engaging with the combat mechanics.


Then in games that don't want to (or don't need to) do away with consumables I would urge developers to seriously consider what impact each and every consumable has in your game. If you just want your players to have every possible crazy scenario possible then sure go ahead but adding consumables "just because it's cool" or "because every other game in the genre has it" is not really a good reason to have them.

Also keep in mind the availability of the consumable; making a very good consumable very rare might seem like an obvious idea but it basically makes the player paranoid about using it instead of keeping it for "tough encounters". On the flipside making them too abundant trivializes most encounters.

An example would be Morrowind which made levitation potions (or magicka potions for levitation spells) so easy to find and make that you could be spending the entire game in the air if you wanted.


I think a good idea on how to make a consumables system is The Witcher 3's (I mean it's a good direction to aim for, not necessarily a good system by itself).

In the Witcher 3 (and the Witcher 2 aswell) the need for potions and oils and bombs is known in advance because once you know you have to deal with a certain monster then you make the consumable you need and the entire fight is designed around using the consumable. There's no need to hoard it in case you need it and they have very specific uses instead of being general improvements and bonuses. There's also the toxicity mechanic which limits the abuse of potions.

Still I think there was too much reliance on consumables for healing and that the ingredient hunting for consumables gets tiresome easily.


In conclusion I simply believe that too many games have consumables in them because "you gotta have'em" instead of having a good reason to have them. Make them work and design them into the systems rather than making them something that works in spite of the systems.

103
72 comments
29
Posted by6 hours ago

Recently I watched the video "Final Fantasy VII Remake (dunkview)" from videogamedunkey and at some point I pondered about the question: what is good dialogue?
He uses four examples in his video about FF7 Remake for what is good voice acting:
Uncharted 4, Firewatch, God of War and Red Dead Redemption 2. All of these games have been lauded a lot by the public and critics alike, which makes it unsurprising that their voice acting has been praised. And while they certainly share multiple attributes, the most important one is that all these games seem to be decidedly for a western audience and focus on naturalistic dialogue, a quality videogamedunkey also praised in his video about The Last of Us (by the argument of interruptions definitively being an element of naturalistic dialogue).

But I am starting to question myself, if dialogue and voice acting are getting thrown together. Especially if the intention of how dialogue needs to be presented is culturally different enough that it leads to the situation that the West directly criticizes voice acting, despite being just unfamiliar or disliking mannerisms of the actual dialogue.
I also want to formulate the definitions:
Stilted dialogue is dialogue which would not be used in everyday life.
Naturalistic dialogue is dialogue centered around the idea that it just sounds like a real conversation.

A concrete example from the Final Fantasy VII video: he criticizes the anime grunting of Cloud Strife as bad voice acting (technically it should be bad dialogue, but it gets a little unclear there as the video is more for entertainment and less for "education").
While I get the idea, and he is not exaggerating the amount of it being used within the game, it serves a purpose to characterize Cloud as emotionally distant and is quite effective at that:
At first, it functions as a barrier to any interaction he has, even if you would want to hold a conversation, at one point he will just resort to these sounds which drown any interactions.
Also, it ties directly into his self-perceived soldier image. A soldier needs to be cool, strong and always has to be above the situation. Him grunting implies that everything is beneath him.
Last but not least: He does not have much to communicate about as he is a relatively uninteresting character who has no real interests in anything beyond his next paycheck.
Him then starting to talk more and grunt less, showcases how he grows as a person.
And here is the thing:
I can not really say that it is bad dialogue as it serves a clear purpose, has a good interpretation and is technically a great version of "show me don't tell".
And FF7 does this repeatedly, another example:
"You know I can't do that."
At first these words get uttered by the turk Rude who interacts with Aerith and Cloud to explain why he needs to fight them. He is a paid gangster who does dirty jobs, if the need arises.
While this role sounds cool, the idea gets pushed to its limit as the turks are extremely confident in their abilities but play their role a little too straight that it borders on being ridiculous.
And Rude is the most severe case of that: tall, dark and handsome, trying his hardest to be mysterious and cool.
If you have played the original, this is only somewhat true. Relatively speaking, he is shy and hides behind the facade, but can back it up with actions and a good heart.
The remake continuity even implies that Rude was already a guest at Aerith's home and on a name basis with them.
When Rude loses the fight and gets pulled from the arena, he orders Aerith to stay home and safe.
Which gets mockingly answered with "You know I can't do that.". Leaving Rude puzzled and at a loss of words for the first time.
This tells a lot about their respective relationship as relatively friendly and Aerith gets to have a comedic moment that needs quick wits. Also, it makes Rude more human and less of an emotionless killing machine that he tries to present himself as.
Additionally, it references the role of Aerith over the course of the original FF7: destroying that armor of untruths Cloud tries to tell himself to create distance from others. Just like Rude does in this specific situation.

These are two examples I think are important to reference from Final Fantasy VII Remake as the dialogue itself is perfectly fit to serve a specific function. While it is stilted and overexaggerated, it is hard to call it bad, if there is so much analysis to it. And all in all FF7 Remake has been positively accepted by the JRPG community but less by some western fans. Of course there could be many reasons for this problem, and I am not knowledgeable enough on Japanese culture to give more reasoning than: They like overexaggeration to make a point.
This overexaggeration can lead to a high information density or stylized actions and reactions which then provide entertainment value.

Herein lies somewhat of an issue: I have yet to play the other games that have been listed at the beginning of this rant and this makes a comparison difficult.
But I think the core argument I am trying to make is that there is a naturalistic dialogue elitism in the western hemisphere which then leads to devaluing well written but stilted dialogue which serves its purpose. Reducing dialogue to being good, if it is naturalistic seems unhealthy.

29
41 comments
185
Posted by2 days ago
spoiler
185
7 comments
102
Posted by3 days ago

I'm referring to player power and how it's purposed into the game. In traditional RPGs you have equipment slots and as you play you earn equipment that fills those slots which make you powerful and more able to continue playing as you scale your character.

In a roguelike RPG, having different item slots can be especially important because it allows the player to tailor their character's build to the specific challenges and enemies they encounter as they progress through the game. By offering a wide range of effects and abilities, different item slots give the player the opportunity to customize their character in a way that helps them to overcome the unique challenges they face in each playthrough. This can add an additional layer of strategy and decision-making to the gameplay, as the player must consider which items to equip and how best to allocate their resources in order to maximize their chances of success.

In addition to providing a sense of identity and purpose for the player's character, the use of different item slots in a roguelike RPG can also help to give the player a sense of expectations and direction as they progress through the game. By offering a clear set of effects and abilities for each item slot. What you would expect from a ring you will not encounter with a helmet. The game can give the player a sense of what to look for and what role each item will play in their character's overall build. This can help to keep the gameplay focused and engaging, as the player is constantly seeking out new items and strategies to help them overcome the challenges they face.

Just to be clear when I think of items for a Roguelike game they are a combination of simple stats with a specific effect. Like a Path of Exile unique. A way to add build diversity and flavor to the game.

Unfortunately In most of today's roguelike RPGs there is a heavy focus on relics (passive character adjustments) as the main source of power and not so much about equipment.

I believe having both a strong equipment system and a strong relic system in a roguelike RPG can help to create a more robust and deep gaming experience for players by creating synergy between the two in turn offering a wider range of options for build progression and customization.

What are your thoughts on this?

102
41 comments
154
Posted by5 days ago

Recently, as a hobby, I was reading a book on game design (The Art of Game Design, by Jesse Schell) and at one point it discussed the "interest curve". The idea is to map the moments of the game that most attract the player's attention, whether due to gameplay, dramatic value or technical excellence. One suggestion in the book is, in the first stage, generate a peak of entertainment for the player, and then decrease in the second stage and increase again until the climax of the game.

An example of the idea is the original God of War, where the first stage, on the boat, included everything from the game: puzzles, upgrades, epic fights and everything in between. Then, with the player "hooked", the second phase slowed down and gradually increased the experience throughout the campaign.

The author goes further and dissects this idea referring to three axes that can be used and combined at this time:

1- Poetry, when that initial attention is awakened thanks to something sentimental, like the beginning of The Last of Us.

2- Projection, when it's the actions we perform that generate the initial interest, like the first phase of God of War 2005, which is mainly focused on gameplay.

3- Inherent interest, when something is shown to hold attention, such as the introduction of Bioshock when Rupture appears before the player for the first time.

There are different ways to combine these axes, as they are rarely used in isolation. And the whole concept can take different forms, such as offering all the player's weapons at the beginning and withdrawing them after the introduction (like Castlevania: Symphony of the Night) or even using the presented structure to subvert the player's expectation (Metal Gear Solid 2).

This all got me thinking and I wanted the opinion of others here: Which game makes the best use of its first level? It doesn't have to be through the lens of the interest curve, it could be a personal opinion (but it would be nice to tell what fostered this opinion).

Ah, a note: Some games include mandatory tutorials that are definitely not interesting. In these cases, I think it's worth considering the first phase with "real" gameplay, like the ship in Modern Warfare from 2007.

154
33 comments
506

About Community

/r/truegaming is a subreddit dedicated to meaningful, insightful, and high-quality discussion on all topics gaming.
Created May 1, 2011
r/truegaming topics

1.4m

Members

486

Online

r/truegaming Rules

1.
Discuss Gaming
2.
Be Civil
3.
Specificity, Clarity, and Detail
4.
No Advice
5.
No List Posts
6.
No Inflammatory Posts
7.
No Self Promotion
8.
No topics that belong in other subreddits
9.
No Retired Topics
10.
No Handouts
11.
Reviews must follow these guidelines
12.
Surveys must follow these guidelines
13.
External Links must follow these guidelines
14.
Automod Restrictions
Widget image

Alternative subreddits

r/Gaming4Gamers

107,205 members

r/Games

3,166,146 members

r/gaming

35,739,787 members

r/patientgamers

536,072 members

r/gamingsuggestions

180,395 members

r/AskGames

32,329 members

r/ShouldIbuythisgame

1,380,172 members

r/nintendo

2,174,103 members

r/GamePhysics

2,168,476 members

r/CoOpGaming

11,949 members