Withywarlock

One of the slimiest games I recall for having adverts was Disney Skate Adventure. Right out of the gate you were given quests to deliver McDonalds (and get some clown shoes as a reward, how appropriate) and you had to find someone's lost Nokia. If it weren't for its killer soundtrack and not being in my teens I probably would've seen through its Mickey Mouse BS sooner. As others have pointed out, racing games have these adverts all over for all manner of product placement. Whether it's for licensing issues or funding, I'm unaware as I'm more versed in karting games than full on big boy racing games.

I think it's fine; what I don't think is fine is a lot of the commentary that comes from it. See how Anthem went: "It's not day one yet," "it's not been out for a week yet," "it's not March yet, wait for Act 1," "it's not Act 2 yet," And so on until about May, at which point people had forgotten about the game, let alone the problems they went on the forums to have fixed. Alas, Anthem isn't the exception: this happens with every single game, however good it actually is, that allows some modicum of early access. While most people are genuinely fine with the game in its state and don't think it's a big deal (which isn't helpful to someone bringing up bugs and the like, but it is a forum all the same), there's a lot of users who will defend those problems frothing at the mouth, likely because they are far more emotionally invested in the game now they've financially invested in it. I don't necessarily like preorder goodies as such, but early access is one of those that at least tempers expectations provided it's as real a look at the game as the developers and publishers can provide. If there's a refund window in that time, even better. I would still sooner wait for reviews, streams and let's play material to release after the official launch, no matter which official launch (again, see Anthem.)

Customisation is a huge deal when it comes to minimaps for me. If I can zoom in or out, move them, have them remain static or rotate, and enlarge/shrink, or even reshape them (a square minimap is measurably more functional), that can make using what is becoming increasingly a necessity in games that feature them all the better. I say increasing necessity; quest help has been replaced with quest markers, and in multiplayer games pinging is developing at a rapid rate. Another thing which is more of a UI pet peeve than anything is having information in a place I don't need it. One thing I've really appreciated about The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is all necessary information out of menus (which themselves are a faff, I grant you) is in the bottom left corner, including the compass. The map and all other information does not need to be exiled as far away as possible from other UI elements. Be it RPGs, MMOs, kart racers of all genres, such horrendous design features far too often and I don't get how it doesn't get pointed out. At the very least provide an option for those who want a cleaner UI (thank you Final Fantasy XIV).

It's a bit of a mixed bag for me. With The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind there's always the concern that NPCs - including plot-critical ones - can die, and that completing the main quest can be rendered near impossible. In IV: Oblivion you've got to put up with the Oblivion gates spawning when you hand in the Amulet of Kings (and in fairness, you have to make an effort to reach the one at Kvatch without handing in the amulet). And in V: Skyrim you have dragons to contend with, who sometimes act competently and are a pain by staying in the air and sometimes glitching the game by not exiting combat when they decide to go away. Fallout is the more relaxing series... when you're past the Interplay ones. Fallout: A Post-Nuclear Roleplaying Game gives you ~100 in-game days to retrieve a working water chip, and a second - but equally crucial - quest of stopping the Super Mutants from overwhelming the wasteland. In Fallout 2 there's a similar story where you have 13 in-game years to find the G.E.C.K, but that was more of a technical limitation as I recall reading the game breaks at that point, but that's way longer than 100 days. After that, all the other games remove the mechanical urgency, and to an extent, the thematic urgency.

I've no particular brand in mind, but a gaming keyboard would be nice, but I'm particular about the features and how much I'm willing to pay. Some speakers would be a nice change from using headphones all the time. I'm not eager to spend even on sales these days but I'm willing to see what's being sold for how much all the same out of curiosity.

I used to say controls, because per the Angry Video Game Nerd (AVGN), "What's the most important aspect of any video game? Well, how about being able to ****ing play it?!" But a good game controls do not make, because you can have good controls and still have poor gameplay. And gameplay would be my second answer, but what is gameplay? The answer to that will vary from person to person, game to game. What I think is the most important factor is fun. Like gameplay, it's not a particularly helpful word because fun can come in different forms. I don't necessarily think that fun is about the width and duration of a smile upon talking about a game. From different games it can be the joy you had being disempowered or horrified, or intellectually stimulated, or overcoming a great challenge. Upon hearing the phrase "no D&D is better than bad D&D" I realised fun is the single most important factor that determines a game's quality. If it's technically incompetent, it doesn't matter. It would certainly help if it was technically competent, but no game has ever stood the test of time on its technical competence alone.

Funny you bring that up specifically; my partner and I were talking about going to an archery range for a day out, and she'd said that archeologists tend to know which bones belonged to archers due to the density required to draw the bowstring. So I guess there's that; the way an archer would carry theirself, the state of their arms and perhaps the blisters of a sore thumb or fingers might show that. And perhaps it's best that only guards really comment on that given their own use of bows.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is the game I'm currently obsessing over. Ever since it clicked with me, every time I play I don't treat it casually at all. I think of ways to maximise my skills, the paths I'll take, the quests I'll go on, the armour I'll wear, the clothes I'll roleplay in, the houses I'll buy, and the towns I'll favour. I love reading the Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages (UESP) for guides, lore, and to increase my understanding of the game. I make a point of ekeing out as much gameplay as I can before I eventually switch off thanks to that damnable Lady ADHD. Currently I'm playing a Necromancer, which is going to require me to finish this last quest of the Mages Guild to get a staff that reanimates corpses. I collect bones, skulls, bonemeal and mort flesh (human hearts and vampire dust are a nice treat) for roleplay, and horde them in my rundown Imperial Waterfront shack. No-one would expect Archmage John Napier to hide his illicit activities there. Muhahaha....!

This goes for most 3D games as it's unlikely you'll see your character from all angles frequently. Especially bad in this regard is Final Fantasy XIV, RIFT and other MMOs. Not only are your unique features less likely to be appreciated, even more impossible is it to appreciate others' painstaking design choices unless they've mutated their character in such an absurd way it's more for ****s and giggles than roleplay. What I think makes this OK is when you can still notice the effects of this even when you can't see them. When NPCs comment on your attractiveness (clothing in The Elder Scrolls, smell and bloodiedness in Kingdom Come: Deliverance which @killamch89 referenced earlier), amassed wealth, and simply one's stats, it goes a long way to making your character feel unique and noticed in the world. While The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim can take this too far (i.e how can a guard tell from looks alone that I'm an experienced alchemist, archer or alteration user?), I'd rather the game were with such things than without.

I don't think so, and in a way I don't want them to. As the saying goes, "perfect is the enemy of good." It would be devoid of any artistic merit because instead of a developer doing what they want, they'd be doing entirely what we want, and if we want that we should just make our own game. And while "you think you do [want WoW Classic], but you don't" from J. Allen Brack at BlizzCon one time was tone-deaf and, err, completely incorrect, there is merit to it in other instances. I'm not a games designer, I likely never will be, but I know that my wishes will not implemented unless I can somehow conjure them into being myself. For all the reveration developers get they're not mind readers nor miracle workers. It would be nice if bugs were free of all software, but it's likely an inescapable reality when you consider all the factors. It's not just the game, but the people behind it, the people interfacing with it, the hardware it's on, and what that hardware runs on, among myriad other factors.

It depends entirely on how good the character/armour looks without. If I want to be a generic soldier in a massive battle scene, then sure, helmet on. Otherwise I tend to like to have the helmet off. Exceptions to those more tactical situations are when I'm wearing a hat (stetson or beret, usually) to show that I'm the one NPCs are going to talk with.

I'll say "red wunz go fasta." Otherwise, your answer is found above: hardware manufacturers have found the best graphical fidelity (which sells in marketing material better than framerate) for the best price, and developers have even more toolkits to reach and exceed it until the next system comes out. Because of that, optimising smoothness with framerate with central/graphical processing units (C/GPUs) has become the next big step as framerate is the next logical step. Plus it's a buzzword, like teraflops. Everyone wanted more teraflops in the last generation, even when they didn't know what they were.

Yep, the Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology, aimed more at MMO players but can probably be used in other genres (if used outside of games, I'd be very pessimistic about what the results say.) As for studies and surveys, when I used to frequent r/truegaming, there'd be quite a few studies and surveys there from developers and publishers gauging community interest, or university students asking questions for their dissertations.

If you can stomach its age, I'd strongly recommend checking out the old Gothic games, where you can have a whole lot more than one summon. You can summon as many skeletons and whatnot as your mana will allow. Now that's a game that makes you feel like you're in control of a necromancer army! More impressive than summoning though is being able to craft spells, which I believe was introduced in The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. But I'm more of an alchemy man myself; potioncraft and cookery is my cup of tea in roleplaying games these days (even when it's as 'authentic' as in Kingdom Come: Deliverance).

Quite right! One scene in Game of Thrones I particularly like is where sellsword Bronn, threatened by Cersei's kingsguard, is about to draw his dagger and slice the two elite bodyguards' throats before they can draw their longswords in but a single step. I'd still rather have mechanics where I can keep an enemy at the end of a spear, and it do different levels of damage depending on which end of said stick I'm hitting the enemy with, and then following that, mechanics where dropping the weapon and drawing another isn't just a one-and-done thing (or at the very least, bonuses to weaker but more situationally appropriate weapons such as the dagger.)

I wrote an article on the subject of single, one-handed weapon proficiency appreciation (ooh matron) some years ago in a knock-off 'The Angry GM' style, and I stand by what I said. Video games are terrible at the roleplaying aspect of using one's hands, and it's one of the missing components in conversation about whether first or third person is more immersive (a topic that can be discussed elsewhere.) What I mean by this is having a single one handed weapon means you can: Open a door Quaff a potion Throw dirt into an enemy's face Throw ball bearings on the floor Pull something Push something The exception to this usefulness is races with prehensile tails such as tieflings, cat-likes or dragons, or trunks in the case of Dungeons & Dragons' elphant-like loxodons. Meaning that while your hand(s) are exposed, you can use your tail to pick pockets, cast spells, or signal to others. So, one-handed weapons are my favourite when video games aren't cack at implementing them. They almost always have to be dual-wielded though, which isn't as cool as it used to be, and it usually requires some skill/talent point investment before your character can begin to see the benefits, by which point you realise archery's overpowered because it is in every RPG. As for two handed weapons, I find they're at their most useful in a battlefield more than a tactical situation. They're great shock-and-awe weapons in either a solo or mass warfare environment, but are clumsy enough to make longer close quarters combat difficult. The spear and quarterstaff, my favourite sorts of weapon, have this exact problem: combatants need to be kept at the tip for it to be effective. Every inch that polearm affords you is useless if anyone has passed it. But again, video games are awful at demonstrating this, because melee combatants will always close the gap whether or not they will survive. Just about the only kind of game that will punish you for not keeping a distance with a greatsword or pike is a game aiming for authenticity such as Kingdom Come: Deliverance where you can't get the heft and momentum in your strike in close quarters. I suppose this is more a criticism of video game implementations than weapons and styles because they each have their merits; it's the design that does not. In most RPGs I see the two-handers doing the most damage, and it's probably because it's a lot easier to calculate the damage and speed, and then balance it, than two weapons that may have vastly different properties (Fable was one of the first games to my knowledge which properly explained the differences in weapon types.) So, let's answer your question. I prefer single-handed weapons because I have one hand free, and we've come a long enough way from The Elder Scrolls: Arena to where we no longer have to meekly waft our blades at our enemies, but now we can do so whilst drinking a potion. It's a shame most RPGs haven't yet got the message. In a multiplayer game though, I want to roll through people. Put me in heavy armour, give me a claymore (either the sword or explosive) and launch me at a fortified line of spearmen.

There's an interesting test called Bartle's Test of Gamer Psychology (other names also known), wherein you can find out what kind of archetype you are. Here's my results, which I think reflect my experience rather well: You are 93% Socialiser What Bartle says: ♥ Socialisers are interested in people, and what they have to say. The game is merely a backdrop, a common ground where things happen to players. Inter-player relationships are important: empathising with people, sympathising, joking, entertaining, listening; even merely observing people play can be rewarding - seeing them grow as individuals, maturing over time. Some exploration may be necessary so as to understand what everyone else is talking about, and points-scoring could be required to gain access to neat communicative spells available only to higher levels (as well as to obtain a certain status in the community). Killing, however, is something only ever to be excused if it's a futile, impulsive act of revenge, perpetrated upon someone who has caused intolerable pain to a dear friend. The only ultimately fulfilling thing is not how to rise levels or kill hapless drips; it's getting to know people, to undertand them, and to form beautiful, lasting relationships. You are also: 67% Explorer 40% Achiever 0% Killer

I will typically play a game with a male character first, but then will play the opposite sex to see if the dialogue or reactions are any different in a second playthrough. Some games have very minor stat differences between sexes that you won't really appreciate unless you look in strategy guides, so there is sometimes merit to making a character based on their sex if your intention is to min-max.

It's kind of hard to without being an ass to players, rather than their characters, such as robbing guild banks and ganking others (which was one of the earliest unsolved problems of Ultima Online). With the exception of Star Wars: The Old Republic and I imagine Eve: Online, MMOs as a whole simply aren't sophisticated enough to have any more than killing NPCs or roleplaying things in chat channels. And if everything's done through chat channels and murdering NPCs of an opposite faction, I'd say this is just a weaker version of the tabletop or a single-player title.

If they did value it, it wasn't obvious. Which I can understand given they'd rather take their opinions from experienced players who can show that through their streams and gameplay, rather than boosted achievements and other displays of (in)ability on their forums. I suppose it was just a matter of visibility, even if I am bitter about it. Community Managers (CMs) very rarely spoke to any but the select few 'greens' (MVPs are called such because of the stand-out green text) that they apparently deemed worth talking to. In my time with them I'd learnt very little about their motivations and means of gathering information to pass onto the higher-ups. The European players and forumgoers were never taken all that seriously anyway I'm afraid. As for what's being said of them from outside their forums, it appears as though the lead game designers simply had enough time to watch YouTube and streams in between sexually harrassing their employees. Thanks for taking an interest! Sorry I couldn't provide much valuable info, it was a few years back since I frequented those forums, and I shall likely never do so again.

It's probably an easy choice but I'd say Nintendo. Which branch or arm of Nintendo I can't say because I don't know enough about them. Whichever one had the good sense to give the all clear to funding Paper Mario's development, that'll do me.

Stagnant implies there's no movement and is becoming foul as a result, so really the simple answer would be that it's not doing anything. This has been the case with World of Warcraft of late, where people can go nearly a year without new major content but are expected to pay £9.99 per month, which can no longer be justified as server maintenance when the game's netcode is off (which can't be blamed given how much the game has to process; WoW 2 looks better each day for that reason.) WoW's an astonishing case study for MMO stagnation. My observations are as follows: Faction Borefare: World of Warcraft is about the Horde. Something within the Horde happens, the Alliance assist, and ultimately the Horde decides to deal with it in house. The Alliance politics are as follows: Genn Greymane gets mad at Sylvanas. Tyrande is either mad or calm depending on if Sylvanas or the Fel are about. Anduin must choose between being a Paladin or a Warrior, and ends up becoming a Paladin. It's been like that since at least Christie Golden's novel The Shattering: Prelude to Cataclysm, which I enjoyed very much, but I feel so sorry for Alliance players who have to suffer that. The Horde has the same story every expansion (see above) but at least each of the faction leaders have their role to play, besides the leader of the Huojin Pandaren. One, two, lootin' my shoes. World of Warcraft is about raiding. Every activity, no matter how minor, has the sole purpose of getting you into raids. The exceptions being things like pet battles or the Darkmoon Faire, which have universal acclaim despite the former being branded as a Pokémon ripoff (which it is, but at least it rips off something good.) Even PvP at several points has been a recommended means of gearing up for raids, or being part of the Mists of Pandaria legendary cloak. Every profession has a purpose in raiding, but is rarely used outside of that activity besides to level said profession up to be raid-ready. Major content that's added is a raid, maybe a dungeon (solely to be done in Mythic difficulty of course) and that's it. Why PvPers stay is beyond me; I only play for casual Alterac Valley skirmishes. The Game Begins at Endgame. World of Warcraft is about getting to the highest level. Nothing prior to it matters. Even its players agree that your experiences before then are worthless as they herald "the game begins at endgame." The problem with this is it doesn't, and shouldn't, because the endgame changes every 2-4 years, and since the Cataclysm expansion there's been a decrease in what you get in your endgame, and your monthly subscription fee. Ask any player when was the last time they did a raid in a previous expansion that wasn't for transmogrification item purposes, and chances are it'll have been during that previous expansion. The moment new content comes out, both the players and designers agree it is pointless. The devs shoehorn in catch-up mechanics, and the content locusts gobble them up and complain further. Those're just a few observations. I'd write more but it's way past my bed time and I need to go for a walk tomorrow morning to let out some of this venom.

It essentially began with The Elder Scrolls Online. I've always been a console player so playing this particular MMO on PC was - at the time - simply out of the question. I decided on a Sony Playstation 4 because of its greater hardware specs and a few games that interested me. It fell out of my favour as several games were delayed and the controller wasn't doing it for me. Whilst waiting for TESO to get its backside in gear with a release date, I swapped that console for the Microsoft Xbox One, and I found myself satisfied with Titanfall and other games to keep me occupied. Plus I felt guilty owning a PS4 knowing I wouldn't be able to play Sunset Overdrive, which - like all but one game in 2014 - would go on to disappoint me. ESO was further delayed. I traded in the Xbox One upon having played all it had to offer, and put the money toward a poorly put together system that barely out-performed an Xbox 360. The thing is, I already had a massive Steam library and I could play World of Warcraft at a framerate higher than 15 per second. The savings from game sales were passed on, and I could save more money for a better PC a few years later. Mounting disappointment in the console space, an all-purpose machine and an overwhelmingly greater choice of games in one place has made me stick to PC ever since. It's not without its own problems, but I'm long over caring about them. By the time Valve u-turns on its stance on DRM (or publishers force them to) and whatever other cynical views I have come to pass, I'll be long out of the hobby.

I'm guessing it's a cheaper quality of plastic, or maybe it's the moulding? I know you mean about this, with even the much improved Dual Analogue controller (with the concaved sticks). You can only clean your fingers so much before your naturally produced grease makes their way onto them.

Absolutely this. I do like that you have the miscellaneous quests that - upon doing 10 of each type - net you some traders and craftsmen. It's a shame that other Elder Scrolls and Fallout games didn't do this. Once you got the final title and achievement for a guild, that was it, you might have a follower to order around (which is extremely limited in function) and some miscellaneous tasks to fulfill that you were already doing. Again, this is a fine expectation given the prominence of companions. They've not changed since the days of Baldur's Gate though. They only speak three times: For their first quest For their second quest For the final part of their quest After that, it's like nothing happened. Unless there's a romance, in which case afterwards, there's either the option for woohoo, or see what I said before. With Fallout: New Vegas you have to goad characters into giving more info, but even then it's only after spending a predetermined amount of time, rather than naturally. I would very much like for companions to have their passive dialogue evolve over time, and stop you at different times to one-another. Bring back banter between two companions in the same party! Apologies for going on about Oblivion once more, but I never got over the fact that before Baurus has even left the sewers, before the Emperor's body has gone cold, the first friendly NPC you talk to has rumours about Uriel Septim's assassination. Even I'm not over that! I like the idea of news travelling slower than Fast Travel. This one definitely needs to come up in more conversation about open world games. I would too, but I think this is just one of those things that works better in hub-based games like Dragon Age. The passage of time is a lot different when the scale's reduced like DA or Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines. I can't think of many additions to add besides those I made in another thread about open world games, but I think you've hit the nail on the head.