Withywarlock

On the Playstation 4, very much so. The Xbox One, for all its faults, did at least get that right with a nice warm sound. It's such a shrill whine that made me regret booting up the system when - just one room away - my folks would try to sleep. If you do something it doesn't like, it does it three times. It's one of the many reasons I'm glad to be shut of the thing for the time being, to be perfectly honest with you.

I find them rather funny, but I struggle with some of the puzzles, especially when a lot of them have cartoon logic (an oxymoron if ever there was one.) It's a shame that there can be some frustrations with figuring out what to do when the games have frequent moments of hilarity. I reckon I'll stick to the comics.

I'll say Mars: War Logs by one of my favourite developers, Spiders. Like Of Orcs & Men it's one of those shorter hub-based RPGs of theirs that's a three (out of twelve) hours too long, and it doesn't do a good job of setting up The Technomancer which would follow a few years later. Little combat or hallmark RPG stuff to do, the entire cast tried too hard to be badass, and the bleak setting didn't do anything for it. I've never quite understood the appeal of Mars as a setting; even Red Faction: Guerrilla would be vastly improved if the colour pallette were a bit more varied and less dusty.

As others have said, I tend to listen to something while I play a video game. The original DOOM soundtrack got me through Doom (2016). Most games with a Jeremy Soule soundtrack wouldn't be the same without his composing. Stewart Copeland is one of the first musicians that made me appreciate video game music with Spyro the Dragon. Mostly I just watch (or rather listen to) videos in the background. I'm currently listening to Critical Role, which features voice actors of video games among other things playing Dungeons & Dragons.

Not sure if this is being addressed to me, what with it being directly below, but my answer would be that I don't like the model, but sure, I give financial support to it regardless because I want the games it offers. I support them in the sense I buy the Call of Duty that interests me, maybe some other so-called 'AAA' title that's on a steep discount, and that's typically about it. Not that it matters because there's simply not enough people making radical enough changes. I've long accepted that after 10 years of learning industry practice. I'm exhausted being a consumer advocate for consumers that don't want to be advocated for, after spending ages not preordering, buying new, 'supporting' AA and indies and everything beyond and between, and slamming my keyboard as hard as I can telling others to do the same. I can't be arsed being this emotionally invested in the hobby anymore. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. The key word in this is "gamers could" but the evidence is there that we don't do enough. It's unlikely enough of us ever will. Given how gaming makes money hand over fist each year (granted, there may come a dip when we see the tail end of coronavirus), I just don't see any proof that it'll be customers who make the changes unless they just lose interest in something. See the zombie survival craze being overshadowed by hero shooters overshadowed by battle royale, and one day even that genre will be overshadowed by something else and everyone will go crazy for it and support it, in whatever fashion. I'll stop 'supporting' companies when they stop doing things I enjoy, independent or otherwise. I like what is offered in DLC, microtransactions, and battle passes. I'd prefer it to be free, but I've had my say over the years, I've joined many failed boycotts, and have just joined what seems to be everyone else in handing over their money with gritted teeth. My initial point was that there's a lot of evangelising of indie developers when in truth everyone is human and has their own skeletons in their closet; it's just that bigger companies have more people, and that's more room for unlocked closet doors. If indies were given half the chance, they'd screw up as much as the so-called AAA. That's how these companies became that way in the first place. Electronic Arts was a beloved point-and-click adventure game studio and publisher. Activision made beloved arcade games for consoles. My apologies for getting so heated, but I really do feel strongly about the fact that for every one of us who hates certain business practices, who actually puts their money where their mouth is, there's thousands of people who will make up the losses time and time again. And I've spent too much time and energy trying to change things.

Depends on what you mean by 'indie', because the term has long outgrown meaning the rubbish you'd see thrown up on the Xbox LIVE Arcade, back in 2008 where Castleminer Z was the most successful game because Minecraft wasn't there at the time. Point to a popular indie game and there's a good chance it's far from independent, usually having a 'AA' publisher behind it, or some unknown entity wanting to skim heavily the profits for the little marketing and admin they've actually done. Not to mention 'support' is limited also. Most game platforms take a 30% cut anyway or offer pre-order discounts, so unless you're buying it from the developer's site on day one whilst keeping it wishlisted and upvoting every news post, you could do a whole lot more to support them. But that's too much of a hassle for enough people. 'Support' these days tends to just mean 'buy' whilst feeling good about satisfying another impulse purchase. This is ignoring the more common problems such as inexperience, budget, overreliance on famous names and the vast spectrum of problems that come with too little budget, which is likely as many as too much budget (see so-called AAA games). Neither is superior in every aspect. I reckon change to 'AAA' has to come from within, not from us. It's not going to be a moment of enlightenment or reaching zen or CHIM, but worry that their budgets aren't sustainable and they need to get their act together. When that will happen I can't say. But I know for a fact what will happen afterwards: indies will become 'AAA', as John Carmack and Todd Howard and other bedroom programmers eventually did, leading to what we have today. Because indies are human, and they like money.

I would love to have been my age when the Playstation came out, knowing what I do now. I would've made a point of drifting in gaming circles, buying up whatever print media I could on how it came to be, and just indulging in all the rumours and speculations of the time. Alternatively, seeing the Nintendo versus Sega wars would've been fantastic. If it's not too greedy, seeing the comings and goings of failed systems like the Virtual Boy and Atari Jaguar would've been phenominal as well. How appropriate you ask this in December. It's Dickensian! The Ghosts of Console Past shall visit!

I would have to ask "which games?" Because gaming is bigger than it's ever been, and the spectrum of challenge and failure states has broadened dramatically over time. Even so, there's always a challenge to be had in some fashion, even if you have to set it yourself. Take speedrunning for example; anyone who says that isn't challenging is either a liar or has speedrun a game that nobody has - or ever will - bother to attempt. Are there any serious speedrunning attempts for Hello Kitty and Sanrio Friends Racing for instance? Nope.avi. In broad strokes I would say games have become easier, of course. Easy games make more money and make people feel better about themselves. And the same goes for difficult games for those who want them.

More often than not this will be one of those "I think I do but I don't" questions. Like, I'd love to play the Napoleonic-era multiplayer shooter Holdfast, but I'd want to play it as one of Richard Sharpe's lot. What makes a good soldier? The ability to fire three rounds a minute, sir! Historical accuracy - and authenticity, a word that oftentimes gets forgotten in discussions such as these - is one of those things where you should either do it properly or not at all. One cannot pick and choose when to invoke historical accuracy in defence of a game; it is either accurate or it is not. Authenticity is what I care for, where elements of history are 100% true to life such as clothing, vehicles, buildings, warfare, and so on. Have as many or as few authentic things as you like, but accuracy has to be total.

While I admit I like the idea of LARPing, it mostly depends on the game. I wouldn't particularly want to play a fantasy LARP unless it was romantic fantasy like Blue Rose, which is more about political intrigue, or perhaps a Warhammer Fantasy LARP because I get to do my good Greenskin accent and swing a foam choppa around. A LARP I'd particularly like to partake in is Vampire: The Masquerade, but the only one I know if is in York. A bit too far for me, and not somewhere I want to be at night unless it's the Christmas market. Again, lots of political intrigue with the added bonus of wearing a trench coat and wielding a katana.

There's been ups and downs to how reviewing has affected my ability to play games. It used to be that even if I wasn't interested, or even vehemently against reviewing a game I would find it impossible to break out of my mindset. Instead of looking at a game as something to simply enjoy, I'd analyse it, think up quips for a script, and eventually enjoy the game less because it has something that I as a player can forgive, but not as a reviewer. One such experience, which I wouldn't have done had I not been covering it for a magazine, was when my partner and I went to York to see the Van Gogh Immersive Experience. It's an astonishing thing, and the VR lent to it... but I was using the headset not to experience Gogh's magnificent works, but to test out the hardware and how it affected my partner and I. Needless to say, I was grateful to have experienced it but would prefer if I was doing it for the sake of leisure more than an article. I'm long out of the reviewing mindset, I'm now mostly doing opinion editorials (op-eds), but I've taken away a lot of lessons in my time as a reviewer and wouldn't trade any of my old negative habits for the knowledge I've gained of the industry.

I far prefer large-scale modes such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare's Ground War (Infected GW is to die for), but I don't mind the tighter-knight skirmishes of Black Ops: Cold War. I was even hooked on the Zombies mode Outbreak which is a sandbox, but again, I can't deny my love of the more claustrophobic survival modes. I may well subscribe to Origin's service just to play the new Battlefield, as I do enjoy those large scale conflicts. It's the one place I feel brave enough to engage in a sniper battle, albeit poorly.

I do, yes, but don't always pay attention or remember when's the appropriate time to begin it. I find most DLC is better played after you've seen the base game, so you know where it fits and what to expect coming out of that DLC. I do the opposite with prequels though; I will always play games in release order rather than chronological, because the prequels are made with an understanding that it will lead up to a game made before it, which wouldn't have known it would see a prequel in the first place. It's appropriate you ask this now; I've just finished reading the comic book series Preacher, and closely adhered to the guide of which comics to read in which order, and even the more out of place one shots and serials blended in perfectly with the game. The same cannot be said of most game DLCs when played in the most fitting order. I suppose it's because it takes a whole lot more effort to make a DLC - especially standalone - work to bridge two installments of a story than it is a graphic novel.

I think it's a very real possibility. Between legislation being slow as molasses when it comes to gambling innovations in the digital age and the video games industry getting away with tons of tax avoidance, it's the perfect climate for gambling - as is typically known, as I too think loot crates are very much proper gambling - to become reality. A profitable, untaxed reality. What's going to change between Hawaiian state representative Chris Lee saying "it's a trap" and, say, 12 months after this old style gambling is added to video games? Nothing. At least not in the UK or the US.

Artix Entertainment of the AdventureQuest franchise have always been consistently enthusiastic about game updates, and their optimism and drive has seen them through a few products that would have otherwise flopped immediately under a lesser studio. Even AdventureQuest 3D which I thought would be written off weeks after its Steam Early Access has pulled through as being an amazing game given its limitations as a mobile MMO. It's one thing for a studio to just churn out updates and monetisation. It's another to do so with a genuine love for your franchise which has gone on for so long and not hopping onto the latest trends because they make a ton of money.

I suppose it comes with the territory, but then it also begs the question for another, much bigger discussion: what makes someone a completionist? Is it on a per-game basis, or is there a measure of what makes a person a completionist, and to what extent will someone go to 'complete' something? To give you some examples of when I'd done something for completion's sakes, my favourite game of 2020 was Vakyria Chronicles. I used a cheat engine on the third or so mission because I found the game too tough, but the story, music, and art style to be so impressive. I then decided to use the cheat engine to get all of the content done, including non-achievement stuff which I only wanted initially. It's a game I will forever kick myself for cheating at, but the guilt is bittersweet because I enjoyed the game so much that it was worth every minute. Another time I did something for completion's sake was Insane in the Membrane in World of Warcraft. I wrote all about that on this here forum, so no need to repeat too much of that. But I found a love for something I previously never saw any sense in, and now lament that there's no more reasonable grind in the game.

Not only do I find laziness to be an ironically intellectually lazy criticism, I also find it to be false if one digs beneath the surface of the studio. The incompetence displayed at Blizzard Entertainment and BioWare is irrefutably down to the abuse of upper management, and Rockstar was - and may still be - seeing the same. How can employees make a good game when they pay more tax than the company they work their backsides off for, or are sexually assaulted in and out of work by their boss? So while the remaster is terrible, nobody's disputing that, I want to know why. There's no room for laziness in the games industry when there's too many bright eyed, bushy tailed straight out of college young 'uns who want to do the same job and would do it for less, and be grateful for it. See how Epic games referred to employees as 'bodies' regarding Fortnite's crunch culture. So what is it that's causing people who we know can do the job aren't able? Time? Money? Management? We won't know so long as there's so much cloak and dagger, and the inability to see through it.

It's a nice headset. My only complaint is that the microphone being in one's peripheral vision is annoying, so it's not recommended when using them as just headphones. Alternatively, fork out the extra ~£50 for a Sennheiser or Ars Technica pair of gaming headphones. The mic quality on those is astonishing.

I should've elaborated; a gaming mat is like a mouse mat, but Gaming™. It's just a big, long mouse-mat, not something you use on the floor (though there are gaming mats for chairs that go on the floor, strangely enough!)

A similar question to this was posted on r/truegaming and I can't for the life of me find my answer, but it was essentially asking what are the differences between ladders and stairs in the context of video game design. With ladders, they typically require an action command to commence climbing, or the game to register the fact you're humping this particular surface for a reason, and you need to be able to climb it. So it could be a code issue, especially when you mention - and this will happen in any game - NPC reluctance or fetish for climbing ladders. Another possibility is for tactical purposes. A flat vertical surface that you can't use a weapon on (or have limited choice with) is one consideration, but also games where in order to climb a ladder you simply look in the direction you want to go, you've got different visibility and cover than if you were ascending/descending a staircase or ramp. I'd like to be able to give a much more detailed answer to this question, but I suppose it varies from game to game. I'd say it's different levels of budget, time, and ultimately being arsed.

uTech Venus Smart gaming mouse. RGB, it has 12 buttons on the side, a 3x left-click button next to the left bumper, and up/down mouse speed buttons. steelseries Apex 3 TKL gaming keyboard. A membrane RGB keyboard that looks gorgeous, but its raised keys make typing a bit more difficult, especially when considering the fact it's a membrane keyboard. Still very nice, and I'm happy to continue using it. MSI Optix MAG241C gaming monitor. 1920x1080, 144Hz. Razer Blackshark V2 X gaming headset. Wired, non-detachable microphone, works best when plugged into the back of the motherboard. nobleChairs Epic 2019 Limited Edition gaming chair. Very good build quality but ultimately not recommended because, y'know, gaming chair instead of decent office chair. Gaming mat. Not much to say on this one, it's just a gaming mat with a map of the world on it.

We don't have GameStop in the UK, our equivilant is GAME. The people there are nice and are enthusiastic about their games, but it must be draining to know that you make people miserable constantly asking about all the different schemes that make the shop more money. It's why I made a point about not working there when looking for retail jobs after college, it just sucked the fun out of the hobby to tell people to buy used versions of games, or pre-order things, or buy into some new reward system that was cumbersome to explain and deal with. Not to mention it's becoming anything but a video game retail store, rather offloading pre-order tat and merch vaguely related to video games and entertainment pop culture. They are only people though. So the brand, especially with how it treated employees at the beginning of Covid-19, is awful, but the people there are typically a pleasant bunch.

I agree with @m76's assessment of hints making one feel 'stupid,' as they did me in New Super Mario Bros. and Yooka-Laylee and the Impossible Lair (not sure about impossible, just downright infuriating). But I still think they should be in a game, if only as a toggle-able option for those who either don't feel stupid, or accept that "yep, I am struggling, and it's OK to ask for help." The thing for me is I've paid for the game and I want to see the end of it. If I want to see it badly enough I'll go through Hell and high streams to cheat at it, as I did with Valkyria Chronicles, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, and indeed Yooka-Laylee and the Twenty Trials of Toadshit. No longer do I need to put up with the coin-eater mindset that went the way of the sixth generation consoles. Now games are so much more sophisticated to offer all kinds of failure states, such as endings, dynasties, lowering difficulties or more noticeable, checkpoints. As for receiving more hints, it's hard for me to say on this point because hints will vary from game-to-game. Indeed, some games will give you red herrings. Going back to Pathfinder: Kingmaker, the hints for dealing with swarms (requring a torch, limited magic, or bombs) and Branded Trolls immune to fire didn't appear to trigger, and are easily missed on loading screens. In Crash Bandicoot: N-Sane Trilogy, hints weren't so much hints as flat-out spoilers. Dara O'Brien did a fantastic stand-up bit about how video games are the only art form that won't let you fully appreciate it if you don't display ability, and what if others were the same: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeFPIDTkWyA

Well done all, and thanks for having me tagged here, it's much appreciated. Keep up the good work! ^^

One of the big examples of a game taking place in a prison is Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay. It has a similar premise to the films, wherein Riddick finds himself in trouble because that's exactly where he needs to be, and is considered one of the great stealth games. I'm not overly fond of it today, but I enjoyed that and Assault on Dark Athena when it was on the Xbox 360.