Hello, I hope you all had a nice christmas and whatever else you celebrate. I wanted to talk about this for mainly 2 reasons. 1: I feel that graphics are starting to become more important than gameplay (again), and 2: I feel that gameplay is taking a backseat to presentation now. Feel free to disagree with me and explain why in the replies. Recently I tried the new Indiana Jones game and I just got so... bored with it before I even got a full hour in. The graphics are great and the voice acting and presentation is phenomenal, but when I got to play it, I was just met with cutscene after cutscene with little specs of gameplay, which makes me ask the question; if all the story is told in the cutscenes with little interesting gameplay in the middle, why isn't this just a movie? I got the same feeling in the last of us, which had a great story, probably one of the best, but the moments in between the cutscenes, where I was actually playing the game just felt like an absolute slog to get through. I still finished the game because I liked the story enough but again I asked the same question why isn't this just a movie? It wasn't taking advantage of the fact that it's in an interactive medium, it was just a show where you press buttons sometimes to me, and that speaks to the success of the last of us streaming series, it couldn't only be told in a game, it could also be told in a book or a movie or a show, It wasn't unique to its medium. Metal Gear Solid 4 also does this, but it takes advantage of the fact that it's a game by letting you interact with the cutscenes with the flashbacks and first person view moments. Now on the contrary half life 2 just feels so seamless in its design, by not having any cutscenes and having you experience the story by itself through the eyes of gordon as he's rushing along to complete his mission, that story is something that I feel can only be told by a game. It may not be the best out there but it takes advantage of and is unique to its medium. Thanks for reading me ramble on and please give me your perspectives on this. Obviously there's more I could mention here but I didn't want to make this post too much longer.

It’s not unusual for gamers to complain about journalists that aren’t very good at the games they play. But a common and recurring theme of the discourse revolves around this assumption that game reviewers should only review games from series/genres that they are either familiar with or already fans of.

Not sure if this is a good take. Isn’t there value in hearing an outsider’s opinion? Shouldn’t we appreciate the lower risk of personal bias? Or should we expect reviewers to be veterans of every game they play?

It sounds contradictory but indeed, most popular shooters have this intention in mind to implement both Twitch mechanics and some of strategy.

For example, COD is the most obvious example of being a Twitch shooter since the idea of teamwork, communication and so on are not strong elements of the franchise. Some COD games implement some form of strategy here and there that not everyone might use.

Things such as leaning to get better angles, the new omni-movement mechanic in BO6, or even the hardcore mode for more "immersion".

Battlefield, Counter-Strike, Valorant and Rainbow Six Siege have the same element.

They are more focused on communication and class-based teamwork but they have Twitch mechanics too because some of them like Battlefield, you start by sprinting left and right and some players try to get ace for limiting a lot of players or the entire enemy team by themselves.

Yet these games are recognised as the more "tactical" field, even there are indeed shooters that are really meant to be played with tactics in mind such as the ARMA series, Squad or Insurgency.

(Doom is sort of the same. It has fast-paced shooting mechanics but it also has strategy because the different require different methods and different blends of enemies require the implementation of different strategies)

So how can games, particularly shooters, have this balance between Twitch shooting and tactical shooting?

Something that appears to be not mentioned a lot whenever we look at reviews or in-depth analysis of video games is the UI (or even sometimes the lack thereof if it is meant to be that way).

We tend to take the UI as something that we take for granted yet in the art of video games, it is a crucial part of video game design and even has an impact on the immersion of video games and the art and design of the UI can have an impact on the quality of life like.

So much so that there are those tiny instances where the UI is complained about for reasons where

• -the design behind it is either improved such as with mods (like most Fallout 4 mods have UI redesigns since one of the main complaints was that the UI was too complicated and/or did not display all the necessary information at a glance);
• or because the design behind the UI is too complex or too detailed compared to the rest of everything else (for example, a complaint that can be mentioned is the use of the UI when it comes to all the items that you can pick in an RPG where each item is designed with a complex amount of colours that can make the details too much in a highly detailed game. Games such as Rust or PUBG fall under this criteria

One can probably mention several examples where the UI had an impact on how the game subconsciously communicated intricate amounts of information not just in a direct way but also in a clever manner as well:

• - the most obvious example is that of the Dead Space series where not only the UI is integrated with the game
  • instead of it displaying like you have a camera, but the elements of the game that need to be communicated are done in-game
  • as well like the health is on the spine of the character,
  • the ammo counter is a holographic HUD on the weapon, making it look like an improvement of the weapons' designs to appear futuristic;
  • and the "ammo" count for the stasis ability
• - one element that one can instantly see where the UI makes a difference is how long amounts of information are displayed in RTS games. Not only do these games need to convey the information for the long list of buildings and characters that the players can spawn, but they also have to do in ways where the UI can communicate this information in an instant.
  • For example, Starcraft uses a mixture of concept art to separate a list of basic building opportunities as opposed to the more advanced ones, but also tiny pieces of art for the units that make the art detailed enough to convey the information necessary to separate each one from one another to instantly display with is needed for the money when the decisions quickly.
  • On top of that (and this goes for a lot of other RTS games), the HUD is designed separately per race, as if each race has its own feel
• - some games design the UI as if the HUD is a part of the game itself.
  • For example, the Halo games design the UI as if the player is wearing the Spartan helmet, adding to the immersion.
  • Other games do the same such as Metroid Prime, Borderlands
• - sometimes, the design behind the UI makes a difference as this adds to the immersion of the art style behind the games in general.
  • For example, the UI in Darksiders is designed with a tiny bit of added detail as of the images are stamped behind what appear to be ancient stones or displays of magic. This adds to the games' art styles because the characters are meant to be as old as time but as magical and ancient as these are part of divine races separate from humanity.
  • Some games do the same thing to add to the immersion of the game like Alien Isolation where the text and display look like the 80's aesthetic, making the UI similar to the art style behind the 80's aesthetic of the Alien franchise
• - certain concept arts are not only immersive enough to convey what they mean to the player but also artistic enough to have their flair behind them, as this concept art is like products are meant to look distinct or cool.
  • Things like the different themes of the perks in Call of Duty or the Zombies mode, or the designs behind the different plasmids/vigours in the Bioshock games

Interestingly, the UI is a part of the game's overall design that is important to convey information to the players in an instant yet we tend to take the UI for granted because these are expected elements that we are meant to see in video games but it is interesting to note that UI can make an impact in not what information is given to be player but also how the information is given

Interestingly as well, there are possibilities that the UI can be implemented incorrectly, whether it is bad UI design artistically or even mechanically. For example:

• while the UI in the Witcher series is great, for an unfamiliar player it can look overwhelming.
  • you have the health and adrenaline meter, the map, the items that you have, the controls, and when the information of a lot of characters that you will find on the map displayed as text
• sometimes multiplayer games fall victim to this too
  • COD games have the ammo counter, the mini map, objectives, the kill count and points, the health (in Warzone), pop-up information like medals or points or even the ongoing information of the game mode
  • Battlefield games have the same problem
• Assassin's Creed games, especially the maps when you pause the game display tons and tons of icons all at once. Not only terms into decision burnout but it can make decisions to go from A to B to C and so on feel like a chore
• MOBA or MMORPG games like League of Legends or World of Warcraft have a problem of having to display so much information in one go that make focusing on such information in the blink of an confusing and a chore.
  • You have text, the map, your enormous amount of abilities, numbers that display whilst fighting, the distance characters with their own list of information like who they are what attacks or abilities that they are using, the chat, and so much more

Something that a lot of games nowadays, especially open-world games (as most games nowadays are designed in an open-world format) are designed to have the mini-map displayed as part of the HUD so that they can convey the information for the player where they need to go and to not get lost.

However, there is a paradox here - most open-world games are made with a deliberate attempt to encourage players to explore the maps.

This could be to immerse themselves in the world and its details but also to collect secrets or other items that the players may need along the way.

Yet more often than not, most games have these mini-maps, quite literally, displaying all the information that they need as if they are pointing the players exactly where to go which minimises the need to explore or travel in paths that are not part of the main roads or the paths chosen by the game.

These are mostly path-finders and while they make sense in case the players need to go from one place to another on a very large map, this minimises the need to explore and look at whatever secrets or other information there are within the world because it makes the pathfinding too easy for the players if the games themselves directly point to the player exactly where to go.

The regard to challenge this design is to make a compass instead of a mini-map and some games to implement this feature.

While it omits players from having all the necessary information at once, it provokes critical thinking skills which adds to the immersion of the game but also allows the player to traverse within the games' worlds however they please and may even stumble upon activities or secrets that the games have, sometimes without even knowing it.

This can be useful for both single-player and multi-player.

Using the worlds' designs - the maps, the pathways, the different doors or windows that the players can test to see if they can pass through; these elements can be utilised to make the players a part of the world that they are navigating in instead of making the traversability all too easy and just giving all the information to the player.

Some games already do this whenever there are hubworlds like Deus Ex or even the recent Indiana Jones game or in the recent Assassin's Creed games.

In multiplayer, this can be useful as well. There was the idea to omit the mini-map in CODMW 2019 but the fans disagreed with this (except that you can play without the mini-map in Hardcore mode) the idea was to force the players to use their skills and knowledge of the maps to traverse during matches, making the players having to use their skills to find another way to go the objective or face their enemies instead of having the mini-map (or even the map instead if it was designed with clear angles and roads) telling them exactly there to go.

Three multiplayer games that use the compass design over the mini-map design are the ARMA games, Insurgency and Rainbow Six Siege. Not only these games are heavily designed to invoke communication but this makes it a lot harder for players to find where the enemies are which invokes critical thinking.

Where they are, how to find them, what to do, why they are there and so on.

Other elements within these games are specifically designed to be utilised over the mini-map design like the sounds or even the distinct colour schemes behind characters like what kind of characters there are, friend or foe, what they are wearing, whether armour or no armour, what weapons they are using.

Instead of telling the mini-map or even the map's UI telling the players exactly what these are (like for example when you use the Eagle Vision or the literal eagle in the latest Assassin's Creed games or even the recent Far Cry games since Far Cry 3), you are instantly shown what enemies you have and where they are, the player to figure what the information themselves.

I recently played an old version of World of Warcraft and then I played the new version of Classic Wow, with some graphical improvements, and something bothered me in the new version. I messed around with the options a little and realized that what bothered me most was the current shadows. I was only satisfied when I set the shadow to low and it looked similar to the original version of the game, with vibrant and highlighted colors, and lighting that, despite being less realistic, makes the atmosphere more fantasy-like. I noticed that the modern shadows make the game lose its magic and dull the colors, and it looks like a strange middle ground between something realistic and something fantasy.

I've noticed this because no matter how hard I try, I can't seem to like almost any current game. I feel extremely bored and sleepy after just a few minutes of playing, or I get lost in so many menus and intense camera movements that I become stressed and anxious. On the other hand, old games capture my attention as always and have a relaxing and calming effect on me. This satisfying effect is the combination of low-resolution textures, subtle camera movements and epic soundtracks. This is the well-being I seek. That's the feeling I want to have.

I think this combination causes an effect on the brain that is as if the mind completes the image, as if it stimulates the brain to look at a castle with textures in low resolution and the mind is forced to use more imagination, something different from seeing something ultra realistic and full of details but it will stay on the screen for 10 seconds and you will walk and change to another scene with a lot more details. There's something different about how the mind processes old graphics compared to modern ones. It's as if the first causes relaxation, as if you were sleeping and having beautiful dreams, and the second causes exhaustion, tiredness and stress.

Dont get me wrong the games coming out now from AAA and indie are great but my question is there reason why AAA games must be big open world games with rpg elements like loot and equipment filled in the world. If big studios make smaller games then they can get great games out the door quicker while being fun and unique and not sacrificing much graphics. If they are worried about losing too much money would it not be better to get the game out in 2 to 3 years compared to big open world games that take 5 to 7 years.

Is there reason AAA devs dont make level based games like ghostrunner, prince of persia, splinter cell and the jedi games or similer to ps2/ps3 era games with but with better/prettier graphics?

With all the recent discussion in gaming after the trailers for The Witcher 4 and Intergalactic at The Game Awards, I’m curious: do you care about how attractive the main character is, or do you prefer them to look more realistic (even if that means they’re not conventionally attractive)?

I’m not here to argue - everyone has their own preferences, and that’s completely fine. I just want to share my thoughts and hear yours.

Personally, I prefer realistic looking characters. Their attractiveness doesn’t matter to me at all. Immersion is what I value most in games, and for me to feel immersed, I need believable characters. What’s most important is how well the character fits into the world and story.

For example, if I’m playing a Western, I want my character to look like someone from that time period, with all its flaws (like bad teeth, dirtiness, or rough features) and advantages (such as a strong physique from manual labor). If the main character is a warrior, I expect them to have scars, muscles, an appropriate haircut (and no makeup). Of course, this also depends on the art style and tone of the game.

In a stylized or less serious game, a conventionally good-looking character might make more sense. In anime-style games, exaggerated attractiveness is often part of the design. But when a game aims for realism - both in graphics and theme - I think realistic (even "ugly") characters are often more fitting.

A character’s appearance can tell a story on its own and add depth to the narrative. Take the new Fable game as an example: my theory is that the main character might have been made deliberately unattractive to support a Shrek/Cinderella-style story. That kind of narrative wouldn’t work as well if the character looked like a Hollywood star, right?

PlayStation and Xbox consoles are extremely similar nowadays, having relatively the same online functionality/features (...and prices for online play... why can't we go back to the PS3 days, haha), having the same kind of storefronts, having pretty much the same tech specs, and even now cross-play in just about every online game nowadays.

So, the only real hook to buying a console nowadays is the exclusive games, but what about the people that don't play the exclusive games? Pretty much all of my friends play multi-platform online cross-play shooters like COD, Apex, Fortnite, Siege, etc. but they still all bought a PS5, even though they didn't buy any exclusives, and they didn't have to buy it 'just because their friends have it' because there is cross-play in every game now. I mean, hell, one of the most popular 'exclusively-played' games on PlayStation that people specifically buy a PlayStation for is not God of War, or Spider-Man, or Ghost of Tsushima, but rather Call of Duty.

So... what is the hook? What is PlayStation doing right here? Even though there is cross-play, is it still just a case of 'my friend has a PS5, so I'll get one too'?

I feel like whenever people talk about the mass effect games they talk about the characters and story. People even lament that the changes between mass effect 1 and 2 made it less of an RPG, and while that may be true it's hard to argue with the results. Mass Effect 2 and 3 are just so fun to play. I am playing an Adept class in ME2 now and I forgot how fun the biotic powers are, more games should take advantage of physics based powers to throw around your enemies. There's nuance to the abilities that make them fun to learn too, like how you can curve biotic projectiles around cover by aiming to the side of enemies. There are so many gameplay moments that are just satisfying, lifting an enemy with a pull just to yeet them off the map with a throw, biotic detonations, using your squadmate to freeze an enemy before shattering them to pieces, I could go on. The variety of abilities is awesome, and each class feels fairly different to play, though all will be doing a lot of shooting. The choices you get for each powers final upgrade are meaningfully different to better help curate your playstyle. Then there's one bonus ability that can get from a companion to further spice things up.

All in all Bioware was really firing on all cylinders in 2010. I legit cannot believe that ME2 was released 14 years ago now and is still a blast to play. If you haven't tried the Mass Effect games yet, please take this as your sign to play them, or at least 2 and 3.

First of all, and since I know that this kind of subject can quickly be considered malicious, I want to clarify that this topic is not an attempt to create chaos or conflict, but rather the opposite.

Because the more I dig into the bits of history around Yasuke or the way he is portrayed in a lot of manga, anime or video games. So in pop culture the choice is pretty much made. As for history, apart from some very vague stuff, nothing is really affirmed from what I believe I understand.

The more I have the impression that the great conflict on the internet around this subject is above all a great symptom of protest because we can protest easily. I see a lot of people debating the truth of Yasuke's rank as if it were the key point of the case (where ultimately Yasuke is often portrayed that way or at least getting close to it).Obviously this is another thing to classify as Nobunaga's eccentricities.

Yes Ubisoft made the mistake of focusing on a real character for one of its playable characters, but isn't the rest of the reactions an exaggeration? Why do people suddenly seem to consider Ubisoft games as things that must 100% respect real story.

Hey, all!

In this thread, the rules are more relaxed. The idea is that this megathread will provide a space for otherwise rule-breaking content, as well as allowing for a slightly more conversational tone rather than every post and comment needing to be an essay.

Top-level comments on this post should aim to follow the rules for submitting threads. However, the following rules are relaxed:

• 3. Specificity, Clarity, and Detail
• 4. No Advice
• 5. No List Posts
• 8. No topics that belong in other subreddits
• 9. No Retired Topics
• 11. Reviews must follow these guidelines

So feel free to talk about what you've been playing lately or ask for suggestions. Feel free to discuss gaming fatigue, FOMO, backlogs, etc, from the retired topics list. Feel free to take your half-baked idea for a post to the subreddit and discuss it here (you can still post it as its own thread later on if you want). Just keep things civil!

Also, as a reminder, we have a Discord server where you can have much more casual, free-form conversations! https://discord.gg/truegaming

I grew up monstly playing PS3 and the games that i played were Batman arkham, Spider-Man, Black Ops 1 and 2, DMC, Uncharted, Infamous and movie tie ins such as Avatar and Tron etc.

It's not until the PS4 gen i started playing games Skyrim, god of war 2018, darksiders 2, Horizon and Dragons dogma etc. God of war kind of brainwashed me into liking it at first for some time and platinum it because of the story and loot grind but i could not enjoy it playing it again because i found gameplay to be just ok. My personal view is that these games have so much loot, weapons and bloat because they dont have well designed mechanics that could engage the players for a long time and give you these lazy implemented elements. Plus even playing these games the first time it's tedius to constantly open chest full of loot and do customization in menu instead of playing a solid game.

I have played short games that i mentioned before as well as many more that have great gameplay designs and story multiple times because they aren't bloated and dont waste your time with these loot crap. Almost all single player games have these elements now and it's getting really annoying!

It is interesting to see a lot of video games, even before the time when high-definition graphics or even high-quality games (in terms of gameplay, story and so on) , have these details in them that many developers and players alike appreciate.

It is an element that is how video games can portray messages to the players as an art form.

For example,

- many people revere the tiny details in the story of the original Deus Ex game where your actions can affect the story outcomes whilst playing like skipping story elements if you do certain objectives or get extra bits of dialogue if you do something different

- in the 2019 Modern Warfare reboot, gamers love to point out the tiny details that are added in the reload animations in order to make them realistic and authentic, even with the Sleight of Hand perk where the reloads are not just reloading the weapons in fast forward format

- certain UI elements implemented as part of the video game experience like Dead Space having a HUD that is literally a part of the game, or the Halo series having a HUD that is similar to that of protagonists' helmet details and information processing (even Metroid Prime does this too)

- some experts of HEMA revere the stances seen from Geralt that mimic authentic sword fighting (aside from the dance-like feature which experts think it is unnecessary or too random)

- some people appreciate the level of detail that is done on many video game mods like the graphics-based mods in Skyrim or the Fallout series

- the iconic ways in how sounds and music convey certain messages to the players like the shield rebooting sound in Halo or the item recovered sound in the Legend of Zelda series

- the effects on the environment that certain players can make with their actions like the environmental details in the Last of Us or Uncharted or even Breath of the Wild that can impact gameplay mechanics

And there are probably many more things to mention.

Yet, say that you have a player who is limited on time and does not have the luxury to take note of these details. Perhaps the gamer just wants to play multiplayer or the story for a short period.

So how can developers make these details in their games to make them noticeable and worthwhile for the players to appreciate them and show their respect to the developers for implementing such details in their video games?

We have all seen the discourse about how AAA gaming (not indie) is "dead". While I'm critical of the over-the-top negativity, I do get some of the obvious complaints about unfinished releases and other issues.

Instead of seeking more takes and complaints, I thought it'd be interesting to flip this around. To those that can relate somewhat to this feeling: Can you close your eyes and imagine an opening sequence that would truly captivate you? What would the first 10 minutes of a modern AAA game look like if it completely hooked you? How would it feel to play? What would make you think "Oh shit, this feels different, I want to keep playing"?

What would grab you? What would make you lean forward in your chair? Would it be the way it introduces gameplay, how it sets up its world, or something entirely different?

I'm curious to hear what you all imagine, especially those that are most negative about gaming. Not some rose-tinted memories of old games, not a list of things it shouldn't do (like microtransactions). Instead, what would a modern innovative AAA game actually do in its opening to capture that magic? It's a lot to ask, but I think those who feel gaming has lost its way often have a strong image of what they're missing.

Edit: I see some people in the comment section emphasizing the opening sequence aspect of the thought experiment. The reason I scoped it to the first few minutes was because I wanted to push imagining towards the moment to moment experience instead of answers about the overall game feel of many hours. I think more interesting concrete experiences will be imagined that way. But feel free to imagine any moment of a captivating game.

Edit2: Most comments did not really engage the way I wanted. I might have done a poor job of writing this post. What I see mostly is: Reference old games (like Oblivion/elden ring/botw) rather than imagining new experiences. Focus on what they dislike about modern games. General game design philosophy rather than specific opening sequences. Talk about entire games rather than moments. I will try to add a post of my own.

When it comes to reviewing video games, it is logical to judge it based on the released version. After all, this is the same as when a film is released, or a TV show or a book.

However, what makes video games unique as well is the post-release support due to most games nowadays have live service support.

So when people judge what it means or what it is like to play certain games, they will judge their decisions based on the reviews upon release and it would be logical to say whether the game is good or not upon release. This is especially the case that a lot of games, though not all of them, are released with poor quality or need certain patches upon release like Day 1 patches or graphics updates and so on.

Though there is a surprising amount of games that even though they were criticised for their poor release, they have had a decent amount of reverence long after their initial release due to prolonged support from the developers. For example, one game that comes to mind that had this level of support is No Man's Sky and many gamers see it as the video game that they were envisioned or were hyped at by the developers.

The same goes for other games like the Cyberpunk 2077 game, or even Fallout 76 and its DLCs or even Modern Warfare 3 and its multiplayer or Battlefront 2.

Indeed, some games do not get that same treatment. For example, Dawn of War 3 had a poor release compared to its predecessors and there was the promise of even more DLC and support but it was immediately abandoned by the developers after the review upon release.

And it would be fair to say that the developers abandoned their promises and the publishers pushed an unfinished product or one that is deemed as promised. This was the same No Man's Sky as well as Starfield.

But it is somewhat strange that games may be avoided because we judge them harshly because of how they were launched when some of these games had even more support, more downloadable content and quality-of-life stuff long after release.

So would it be fair to have reviews or observations towards games that were given more treatment long after release?

The only example that comes to mind is Cyberpunk 2077 again because IGN had its post-launch reviews for almost every single update of the game long after the release date and many people actually respect CD Project Red for their confidence in their ability to provide us with a game as it was promised although some are still skeptical about the Witcher 4 because we might get a game that will not be released in the same complete manner as the Witcher 3 did.

So should we keep having these post-release updates on the games that were promised to have post-release support or will be considered as too much resource by every reviewer to judge every game accordingly long after their release

A little late to this retrospective, but August 2014 saw the posting of The Zoe Post- an indictment of the behaviors of indie game developer Zoe Quinn by their spurned boyfriend. Almost overnight, this post seemed to ignite a firestorm of anti-feminist backlash that had been frequently tapped into to target feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian, frustrations over real (or perceived) corruption within gaming journalism, debates over platform censorship and freedom of speech in the wake of widespread harassment via coordinated social media influence campaigns, discomfort with the changing nature of gaming demographics as the AAA industry broadened their appeals beyond traditional gamer demographics, and the nascent alt-right that saw political potential in the energy being whipped up. For months- if not years- following the peak of the GamerGate, gaming spaces were embroiled in waves of discourse, flame wars, harassment, and community in-fighting that to this day still leave scars in the community.

Depending on who you asked, GamerGate was any one of a million different things and we could spend forever rehashing it all, but a decade on, what impacts did it leave across the gaming industry and community?

Hear me out before you get the pitchforks:

I've been gaming for a long time and to this day, I have never found a game that marries aerial combat with an RPG like Starfield does. Some of my favorite games have been Ace Combat and Hawx. The opening sequence in Starfield where you have to fight off the fighter jets or whatever is super memorable but more importantly fun. I think for this feature alone Starfield should be critically acclaimed. Remember that aerial combat in Halo: Reach? That's probably the best level in any Halo game and Starfield managed to recreate that feeling.

Now as for the engine, a lot of people are saying "well Elder Scrolls 6 is going to release on that old ass garbage engine"...what? This engine is freaking insane.

Look at this example of 0 gravity being simulated in Starfield: https://x.com/SynthPotato/status/1701537488718762416

If this is not one of the best engines in gaming right now, I don't know what to say.

However, I will concede that maybe the story and plot were not amazing but I think Starfield will be remembered for the gameplay and engine.

With inventories, crafting, quests lists, skill trees, journals, codexes, etc... becoming more and more prominent in gaming, we are spending more and more time menuing around. A huge chunk of that menuing involves getting to the information we want to get to, and not actually doing any actions.

I've recently been playing Indiana Jones and the Great Circle and while I'm liking the game a lot, the journal menuing is straight up terrible. Many of the side objectives require you to open your journal multiple times in quick succession to decrypt codes and read notes. Every time you open your menu, it'll open up to the map, you have to shift tabs twice to get to your quests, then you have to find your quest in a relatively long list, then again click on the document you want to open. You have to do this multiple times within a few minutes and it's pretty grating.

Similarly, I have gotten quite frustrated with Frostpunk 2 this year, because it never memorized my zoom level. It's a game that will constantly have you switch between different colonies and every time you go back to a colony the game would have forgotten your camera placement and zoom level, Very annoying.

It's a small thing, but I'm convinced games could significantly reduce that wasted time and frustration by memorizing where we last were in the menu by opening up where you last were. It wouldn't be a 100% efficient solution, but I already feel like it would be an improvement.

I know the UI in Monster Hunter Rise is quite divisive, but it is full of these small UI touches and I feel like many games could learn from it. For example, before every quest you have to get a meal to buff up, it's a relatively involved menu with many options. The game simply memorises what you chose last time and by default places the focus of you cursor on your previous choice. This enables you to mash through the menu in a flash, it's really effective. Also, if you open your weapon tutorial menu, it'll by default place the cursor over the weapon you currently have equipped. The game also optimized list orders to put the most used options a minimal number of button presses away.

My biggest common complaints in gaming these past few years have been about their UIs. I hope UI design will eventually catch up with the amount of UI we present players and that developers will take the time not only improve interface overall but also implement these tiny changes that can make a world of difference.

Hey, all!

In this thread, the rules are more relaxed. The idea is that this megathread will provide a space for otherwise rule-breaking content, as well as allowing for a slightly more conversational tone rather than every post and comment needing to be an essay.

Top-level comments on this post should aim to follow the rules for submitting threads. However, the following rules are relaxed:

• 3. Specificity, Clarity, and Detail
• 4. No Advice
• 5. No List Posts
• 8. No topics that belong in other subreddits
• 9. No Retired Topics
• 11. Reviews must follow these guidelines

So feel free to talk about what you've been playing lately or ask for suggestions. Feel free to discuss gaming fatigue, FOMO, backlogs, etc, from the retired topics list. Feel free to take your half-baked idea for a post to the subreddit and discuss it here (you can still post it as its own thread later on if you want). Just keep things civil!

Also, as a reminder, we have a Discord server where you can have much more casual, free-form conversations! https://discord.gg/truegaming

The game is rated E, but for those players that are over 21 years old, they could use the livery of the Nascar Cup Series' #2 car (which was sponsored by the beer company Miller Lite back then) like what you see on TV in all of its glory instead of being censored.

I think for games that would put sponsorships from these companies (eg. gambling/alcoholic drink sponsors in football/soccer jerseys in certain leagues, certain sponsors for racing games like F1 and MotoGP, especially if they want to include the classic vehicles like those from the 1980s to the 2000s) this would be a very helpful way to retain some kind of authenticity without sacrificing the game's rating.

Why wasn't this kind of practice done in other games? My only guess is difference in regulations between each countries regarding sponsorships of these companies. But then the NASCAR game could do it even if it's mainly sold for the USA market.

So having finally finished Veilguard, it taking me like 2 whole months, I kind of just wish I could take all that invested time back.

I played an elven female Mage Rook with the Antivan Crow background and my god, this was probably one of the most bland player characters I've ever had the displeasure of playing as. It just highlighed to me the issues I have with this archetype of character, the "nobody archetype." Essentially meaning, the player character has no special quality or attribute that makes them stand out among the crowd of companions and/or other characters in the story.

A big deal to me in any RPG is, "why is MY character, specifically, the protagonist here and not these other people?"

If I'm investing time into playing this game, making my own character, why in the hell would I like to be just some random person with no importance or connection to the plot? Why is this random nobody the protagonist? Why are they commanding people who are clearly vastly superior to them in many areas?

I should never, EVER, in a RPG game, get to a point where I'm like "why can't I be this other actually cool character, this companion" and I've had this happen multiple times with Veilguard.

The reasoning we're given by the game through the mentor character is "you(Rook) get shit done."

And I'm sitting there thinking...what the fuck? Literally every single companion in the party gets shit done! Literally every previous protagonist and their companions "got shit done", hell NON-PLAYABLE characters in the previous games got shit done. So why the hell is this somehow now a point in Rook's favour and the reason why they were chosen to be the protagonist?

Why am I even here? Everyone else here is literally more competent than me in multiple areas, why am I the leader? To be emotional support or something?

Look at the previous games. In DA Origins you may have been a nobody before joining the Wardens, or you could've been the son/daughter of the 2nd most important family in the country, but at the end of the day you became a Warden. You were one of the only 2 people left in this damn country who could stop this massive threat and only you had the means AND the charisma to recruit many allies to your cause to combat this threat. Other characters, like Loghain, may have had the charisma, but they didn't have the means, his army is imploding on itself or being wasted by in-fighting with other noble houses, alongside the fact he couldn't have possibly killed the BBEG because he lacked that crucial "IT" factor your player character and one of their companions has.

THAT'S what I like to see, theres a specific reasoning why my character is even needed in the first place here and why they're a protagonist. I literally can't ever stop to think "well why doesn't this other character do thi-" no, full stop, they literally can't because they don't have a certain quality MY character has.

And make no mistake, this doesn't mean you're destined to succeed in Origins or the world is forever doomed. There is still a distant chance the threat can be beaten if you died, but it would mean massive amounts of people dying and property being destroyed, both of which could be avoided if YOU succeed.

Or take Baldur's Gate 3 for example. It recognises that you may or may not want to play a completely blank slate character that's barely connected to the plot, so it gives you Origin Characters with predefined stories interwoven within the bigger plot to play as. In the Dark Urge's case you can even fully customize that character to your liking.

I want to start by saying Ann has good character potential. Ann’s character backstory and her role in the opening of the game is compelling, with a strong arc and a role in the plot to come. Her character encourages empathy towards victims of sexual abuse, challenging players to look past their assumptions and stereotypes about the hot girl who’s too friendly with her professors – and then immediately it tosses that in the trash in order to sexually objectify her in a manner which undermines her agency. I under why they did it – sex sells – but Persona 5 wants to have its cake and eat it too, and it frustrates myself and others to see how Ann’s character, in particular, is mistreated by the developers.

You likely know this character if you’re watching this, but for a quick recap. Ann Takamaki is introduced as a 16 year old girl being preyed upon and abused by her PE teacher: Kamoshida. Kamoshida’s palace is the first major area of the game, setting the tone and themes of the story. This palace’s overall theme is about confronting Kamoshida’s sexual abuse of his students, and makes it clear that Kamoshida’s leering and lustful behavior towards the high school girls on the volleyball team is wrong. His whole palace is adorned with headless girls in athletic clothing – their individuality simply does not matter to him. Kamoshida very literally objectifies these girls and the story condemns him for it – the characters of the story are willing to go as far as to risk murdering him to end his abuse and all the fallout that can come from killing him.

And then the game spends most of its extremely long run time objectifying those same girls, Ann especially. Hell – it happens before the game starts proper. The first clear shot of a character we get in the introduction song of Persona 5 Royal is a close-up of Ann’s behind. Before we ever see her face – the focus is drawn to the sexually abused girl dancing for the camera – and throughout the game we are treated to her in compromising poses, titillating positions and scenarios, and of course with a beach scene with the smallest bikini you can put on someone before raising the age rating.

There is an attempt to reconcile this dissonance where the game creates a subtext for Ann where her Persona is a sort of “dominatrix” type. Carmen, her Persona, is depicted as proudly displaying her chest while reigning in and controlling love struck men. Ann’s dominatrix theme is heavily used in her outfit and character design, with her outfit being predominantly fetish wear with zippers conspicuously placed around the crotch and chest, being totally skin-tight, while also showing cleavage. Moreover she awakens to her Persona while strapped, against her will, to an “X-cross” which is used in BDSM with the submissive usually strapped to the cross just as Ann is. In this scene she breaks out of her restraints – turning herself from the unwilling sub into the dom – or at least that’s the subtext. She’s “taking charge” of her own sexuality. She works as a model after all – a profession she enjoys, which is another way the game convinces us her displays are self-motivated.

Which is great, I like when people, preferably adults, feel able to express sexual agency on their own terms. That’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? Feeling empowered to express yourself in the way you decide. So the argument might be that Ann’s behavior is consistent since she offers herself in this way for the audience, both diegetically and not.

The problem is that Ann is not someone with true agency, she is a construction – someone designed, written, modeled, animated, and voiced by others. Fictional characters, while they may express the language of autonomy, do not have it in the same way real individuals do. This might seem obvious – but it’s an important consideration when talking about Ann’s objectification. The fantasy of the 16 year old sexually abused girl turning dominatrix in theory allows Ann to be sexually titillating and appealing to a heterosexual male audience, while sidestepping the growing critique of objectifying women in media.

So when Ann’s character idle stance in battle is a pin-up pose, her unique abilities revolve around skipping enemy turns by seducing them, and her role in the second “chapter” of the game is to use her naked body to bait a future party member … Well, it sure is convenient then that she wants to express that all herself - isn’t it?

But even then, her character sans this meta commentary is often against this portrayal and use of her body per her own words. Ann repeatedly protests against baiting someone by posing naked for them, and is pushed into it by her teammates, who one chapter earlier saved her from her abuser. This doesn’t happen just once either, it repeats itself throughout the game’s whole run time, with her making another appearance in her bathing suit to seduce an old womanizer on a boat as part of the mission – not her idea – not her wishes – but she’s pushed into it. The idea that “Ann is in charge of her sexuality” is undermined by the text where she is regularly coerced into such behavior, even her own outfit is something she explicitly does not choose and does not agree with at the start. Ann constantly objects to her being ogled – but the cast (and camera) rarely, if ever, respect her wishes. Ann often ends up caving to demands despite her protestations. If Ann is meant to be in charge – the game as a whole does not respect her agency.

I want to sort of segue to define Male Gaze for a moment. To keep it very brief, This is part of feminist theory where women are objectified for the sake of a heterosexual male audience’s pleasure. I’ve indirectly talked about it before, but it warrants defining. Persona 5 leans into male gaze for most of its female cast – but Ann is especially targeted despite the themes of her story. The desert car scene is a prime example, where the whole purpose of it seems to be giving an excuse to give the characters and audience a chance to see through Ann and Makoto’s tops to expose their underwear, again, explicitly against their wishes and interests. Male gaze generally helps explain the girl’s outfits and why they’re often so much more revealing than the boy’s.

Moreover, the story frequently excuses other characters who objectify Ann. How can I say that when I was just arguing that Kamoshida was a villain for this behavior? Well, Kamoshida is in media language clearly a bad guy and an enemy to defeat – but Yusuke and Ryuji both ogle Ann repeatedly, while Morgana borderline obsesses over Ann, constantly making comments about her appearance and coming on to her despite her clear disinterest in being seduced by a childish cat. These sex pests are the good guys, these are your party members. Regardless of their motivations – the rest of the cast doesn’t really stop or challenge it either. You, as the player, don’t get to object to this behavior. This is tacitly accepted and consequently endorsed. Ann’s protests are portrayed as little more than inconsequential nagging, something for the audience to hear but not internalize… Or worse – it’s played as a gag, something for you to find amusing, cute, endearing, or funny.

So, why does this matter? Why should you care? Some fictional character is objectified, no real person is affected, and we get to enjoy these high schooler’s sexy bodies (I hate that I wrote this) – why should anyone think twice about this?

There is research that establishes links between sexual objectification and various mental health and self image issues, and this affects women in particular - https://www.apa.org/education-career/ce/sexual-objectification.pdf. This type of objectification leads to a perception of women as valuable only for their bodies. But even if you don’t care about all that, it’s just bad for Persona 5’s story and Ann as a character. It’s genuinely confusing for her character, and undermines what could be a fairly clear and positive spin on the problems of sexual objectification the game itself identifies. I want the story to be its best – but it leaves a sour taste in my mouth when otherwise good character writing is undermined by a need for cheap T&A. This is doubly true since decisions like the opening cinematic I talked about is designed after the release of the game as part of its Royal edition, and P5’s spin offs largely continue the trend. The developers, instead of recognizing the problem, leaned into the cheap titillation – and no, the rest of the female cast is not spared this objectification either. It really feels like at least some people in the studio started out writing this game with the intent of addressing a societal problem very close to video games and Japanese culture, only for that culture to effectively takeover during production and in post.

Let me ask you, if you still wonder why I wrote this. Do you not feel a certain level of discomfort from this? Especially since – and I’ve repeated it a number of times throughout – we as the audience are made to act like the creep Kamoshida who’s whole thing was sexually objectifying and abusing the 16 year old high school girl? Does that not give you some level of Ann-xiety? (Sorry, I’ll see myself out)

Thanks for reading – let me know what you think. I will try to keep an open mind, so please try to do the same!

Random peds in open-world games--and I'm mostly talking about GTA-style urban crime games, so GTA itself, Mafia, Watch_Dogs, Saints Row, etc.--are a staple but also, funnily enough, barely matter. They're borderline set dressing, existing because they have to give the illusion of being in a big urban city, but otherwise have almost zero interactions with the player. You can barely do anything to them, they barely do anything to you. They drop a tiny amount of money if you kill them in GTA, but it's so miniscule it's more flavor than anything, and it's not dependent on the kind of ped at all (indeed, in GTA and most of these games, there is basically no difference between peds besides appearance; also, funnily enough, they never drop guns, even though 90% of these games take place in America and you'd think they'd love to satirize how much we love guns here). I wish these games would do just a bit more in that regard.

Now, to clarify quickly: I'm one of those people who doesn't mind procedual generation and random little emergent elements in gameplay. I was unironically hyped for No Man's Sky and Starfield. I still love the concept of little minor random elements emergently forming a larger whole, and I look to games like Dwarf Fortress or Rimworld to showcase the potential of this kinda stuff in gameplay--or even, on a smaller scale, stuff like the random maps in Helldivers 2. I understand the "it's just repeating the same stuff" arguments, but in my eyes that doesn't matter so as that "same stuff" keeps coming up in unique little emergent ways.

So, when the first Watch Dogs came out, I played it on PC. I honestly thought it was better than people gave it credit for, but that's not why I'm bringing it up. One of the things I remember in Watch Dogs was the fact that you could use Aiden's phone to spy in on basically every pedestrian on the street. They'd get a little picture, a name, an income, a job, and a fun little trait like "art collector" or "single mother" or whatever.

I loved this mechanic. I am well aware that the game was just randomly mashing five random things from five random pre-made lists and these didn't actually have any impact on gameplay whatsoever. I am a roleplayer by nature and don't mind "filling in the gaps" instead of just pessimistically viewing it as an artificial diorama with no depth behind the curtain. Sure, the stage is pure artifice--but you still believe it's a place as you watch the show. The idea that all these random NPCs were people with lives was fascinating to me. I used to go around scanning damn near every NPC I found, laughing when the traits were amusingly inconsistent and otherwise loving the immersion of it all.

The thing that really struck me though, is that this did actually impact my gameplay a little. One of the mechanics in Watch Dogs is being able to quickly get money by scanning a person and hacking their bank account. You basically have zero penalty for doing this ever. There's no reason, from a purely gameplay-optimization standpoint, to not do this when you have the chance. But I didn't! I would willingly refuse to hack people who had low incomes or were suffering some kind of struggle. The fact that these traits weren't actually "real" and were just programmatically picked out a digital lottery didn't matter. I just couldn't steal from the single mother who made 20K a year.

Think about that: by simply having the game randomly generate, from a list, some surface-level traits, the developers of Watch Dogs got me to willingly refrain from doing a thing with zero consequence in-game or out of it. A minor thing, yeah, but the fact that I even had this completely intrinsic moral choice honestly rules to me.

(I have not played the other two WD games. As you might expect, though, the basic concept of Legion sounded incredibly cool to me pre-release and I am really sad that it didn't pan out, but I would like to play it still--maybe for a roleplaying-type like myself, I would get a lot more out of it than people who aren't inclined to fill in the gaps. Things the devs described like the idea of someone getting killed and their sibling seeking out your crew in a grief-fueled rage are my crack, to be frank).

I wish more open world games would do things like this. I don't even need them to be complex. I would like pedestrians to have some form of humanity, even the barest scraps of it. I don't even need it to be extensive, as long as I can fill in the gaps with my mind a bit. Anything from the place they spawned actually affecting how much money you'd get from killing them, or if they had a gun or not, or perhaps they can have very simple personality traits, even something as simple as "won't run away if you start shooting and will try to pull out a gun and fight you" or "thinks you're suspicious and will tail you for a certain time". Spawn two NPCs in front of a store and have them start fistfighting each other because of an argument. I don't mind that there isn't actually an argument, just the idea of walking the streets, seeing that, and wondering "huh, wonder what caused that?" is enough for me. I bet these are much more complicated to program than they sound, so I'm not gonna call devs lazy for not doing them, but I'd love to see a game take a crack at this.

If you need a final thesis statement for this rambling, I guess what I can best say is I wish games would let me fill in the gaps more as I play them. Give me tantalizing morsels of a life outside of my own gameplay. I don't care if it's "skin-deep", merely being there enough to let me roleplay would be enough. So much time is spent crafting the visuals of these worlds to absurd, borderline irresponsible levels of detail, yet the humans in them are literal set dressing outside of the 30 characters that matter to the story.

If you're one of those people who can't help but seeing the artifice of it all, and never letting yourself just suspend your disbelief, well, I'm not saying your personal opinion is wrong, but I personally just don't understand it.

Hey everyone,

I’ve been playing a lot of games like Elden Ring, Sekiro, Wukong, and Ghost of Tsushima lately. My playstyle is all about exploring every corner, completing as many side quests as possible—without obsessing over hitting 100% completion. I also enjoy watching YouTube streams where players take on insane challenges, like no-death runs or beating games without armor.

But recently, my cousin Artur visited, and we had a really cool conversation about gaming. Artur plays games in a completely different way—he treats them like a movie. He roleplays the main character as realistically as possible, avoiding unnecessary actions like random jumps or swings. He even slows down to walk in buildings or safe zones where running would feel out of place. Artur plays on the easiest difficulty, focusing only on the main story to fully immerse himself in the narrative.

This got me thinking: What if we turned this cinematic playstyle into a challenge for streamers?

Artur's Ultimate Cinematic Challenge:

The goal is to play the game as if you're creating a movie.

Any out-of-character actions—like unnecessary jumps, weapon swings, or breaking the immersion—means you have to restart the game.

Streamers could race to see who can complete the game first in this "cinematic mode."

To make it even more interesting, you’d be judged on the choice and sequence of quests/scenes, creating a cohesive and immersive story.

You’re allowed to use all in-game content, but you can only gather the minimum resources needed for upgrades, avoiding things like pre-collecting every top-tier item before starting the challenge. The idea is to preserve the progression of a first playthrough.

All cutscenes are mandatory—they’re part of the story!

Imagine the cinematic masterpieces that could come out of this! The streamed version could include commentary (like Hollywood-style director’s cuts), while the cinematic version of the playthrough would make for amazing YouTube uploads.

I’d love to see this challenge take off and add a new layer of creativity to gaming streams. Let's make the gaming world even more interesting and diverse!

What do you think? Could this be the next big challenge for streamers? If you like the idea, feel free to share it with other subreddits or communities and tag your favorite streamers. Let’s see who’s up for the ultimate cinematic challenge!