Jump to content

Dexterryu

Members
  • Posts

    2,395
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dexterryu

  1. On 3/9/2024 at 11:58 PM, Phaseknox said:

    Ghost Recon: Wildlands is good, it’s one of my favorite open world games.

     

    It was OK, but it's not Ghost Recon. It's 3rd person far-cry with a military/spec-ops plot.

     

    On 3/9/2024 at 7:03 PM, XxEvil AshxX said:

    You know what they should be taking inspiration from? Fucking Ghost Recon.


    So so true. Somewhat encouraged by Ready or Not inspiration, but the other 3 do not impress me. If I wanted to play COD/Battlefield, I'd play COD/Battlefield.

  2. On 1/18/2024 at 4:12 PM, best3444 said:

    I know Indy rarely used guns but I hope in this you can use a gun throughout. The whip might get to repetitive. 

     

    I actually kinda hope the opposite. There are TONS of FPS games out there. The fighting in the movies was mostly fist fights and/or smartly taking advantage of the environment. Rarely was fighting just about fighting... it was about rescuing/chasing/obtaining someone or something. Overall, I hope the combat in the game has some plot driven reason vs just mowing down the bad guys.

  3. On 1/9/2024 at 5:56 PM, Dexterryu said:

     

    I'd say less polarizing and more some venues are less about crapping all over it until they see the final product. Once the final product hits and people see it all, they'll have a firmer opinion. I'd bet there will be several generous scores just related to the fandom of the source material but I anticipate this game to bomb hard in the reviews and sales.

     

    I'd love for the game to be good. I hope it is, but early impressions sounds eerily similar to Redfall to me.

  4. 2 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

    Those previews are all over the place. A game this polarizing is not good. Maybe it’s not as bad as everyone hating it, but it’s gonna lead to some very confused consumers. But I wonder if anyone that doesn’t hate it now, just doesn’t hate it yet. 

     

    I'd say less polarizing and more some venues are less about crapping all over it until they see the final product. Once the final product hits and people see it all, they'll have a firmer opinion. I'd bet there will be several generous scores just related to the fandom of the source material but I anticipate this game to bomb hard in the reviews and sales.

    • Halal 2
  5. The Dev's trying to get people to believe that it isn't a live service game feels pretty tone def to me. Pretty much every hands on I saw says it feels like a live service game.

     

    As for the co-op game play, I think the coop shooter/super hero stuff has been played out from the sense that beyond just hanging out and fighting bad guys together is kind of played out. I say that vs games where the mechanics are built around a high degree of cooperation (It Takes Two/A Way Out) or tactics (Ready or Not/GTF) in order to be successful.

     

    Beyond the DC universe is there much that would make 100s of the same fight over and over again much different than borderlands?

  6. 22 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

    Apologies if I’m a little prickly but inciting the bud light controversy while saying generally that it’s a tough time to be a white man did set me off a bit.

     

    I think it was just a matter of focusing on the controversy vs how I was using it to articulate my sentiment that companies pander. Where I attempted to tie it to the conversation was to say that in many businesses ID&E is part of how they brand themselves as "good" to customers/advertisers/media. In my first hand experience often ID&E has been prioritized over actual measurable performance.

    • Thanks 1
    • True 1
  7. 13 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

     

    The bud light "campaign" was a single tik tok or something that was targeted by grifters acting in bad faith to run a nonsense hate campaign at trans people and the stupid beer company, which, you're right, sure did work real well. Which is something. But it has little or nothing to do with what we're talking about. 

     

    Let's not stray too far from the point I'm pushing against. I mean wtf are we even talking about at this point. Here's what I took issue with: 

     

     

    This is baseless nonsense - the evidence being that you guys "are in meetings" and the real data is being hidden. Essentially every metric says you're wrong. White men in that age group have some of the lowest unemployment in the history of the tracking of that statistic. Activision's demographics are easily surfaced. In 2022 (the next report will come out in March) their workforce was 73 percent male. 68 percentage of their hires were male. 56 percent of their hires were white. 

     

    Now, if you want to sell me the idea that a white male making a lot of money is more likely to be laid off than a black woman making a fraction of that, I would totally believe that! But it is not a challenge for white males 40-55 to find a job by any metric, and they in fact have the LOWEST unemployment rate of any demographic except for white women 55-64. 

     

    You're operating on "I'm right because I can feel it." 

     

    And so are you. You are cherry picking data points to articulate your beliefs. There is a certain amount of "duh" here when we're talking about a company like Activision, which is a male dominated field (IT & Developers) making a product who's target audience is also male by a high percentage.

     

    You're also inferring a lot of meaning out of my earlier post about job security and marketability of males 40-55 and refusing to see the meaning behind it... which is that from a demographic perspective, have little protection from a policy/public perception perspective. I have experienced this protection first hand on several occasions (I once had an employee of a protected class routinely ignore their responsibilities, leave work for hours to do errands (their laundry), and had general poor performance, year over year. HR would do nothing specifically because of their "class". Had that person been a white male, they'd have been gone very quickly.

     

    This is not to say that companies are targeting white males. They are not. White males are the "safest" to lay off when they need to cut costs or cycle their workforce with lower cost new grads.

  8. 3 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

    Companies "don't care" about anything -- because they are intangible things, that aren't sentient.

    The priorities of companies are set by their Board, and by the management team.  Their personal agendas and objectives coalesce around what they do.

    ESG ratings are now a very visible way that companies can be measured around diversity.  Since there are very few board members that want to be viewed as being "against" ESG, almost every company will set a target for the management team for achievement of ESG.  This causes management bonuses to be tied to achievement of ESG -- which are largely easily controllable -- so senior management will ensure their targets are hit to maintain their bonuses.

     

    Bingo. Perfectly said.

  9. 1 hour ago, Paperclyp said:


    Wait what does bud light have to do with this? If anything that whole situation would encourage these companies to release the “real” data that proves the white guys are getting the short end of the stick.

     

    Nothing directly beyond this: Companies care about their brand/image more than anything else. That's what brings in both customers and talent in potential hires. They are in an interesting spot right now in trying to attract new graduates (who place a high value on ID&E) and top talent (who primarily care about $$ and getting stuff done). The bud light campaign last year pissed off their primary customers and hurt their brand, costing them billions in sales and market value.

    Most companies really don't care about ID&E (they care about $$ and share value), but they do care about it from the perspective that not being ID&E friendly gets them killed by the media. So they pander (which blew up in Bud Lights face).

  10. 9 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

    This does not move the needle much for me in the “middle aged white guys have it tough right now” argument. 

     

    If you're waiting for data you'll never find it because no one will ever say it and will actively hide it for a multitude of reasons. As you saw with the Bud Light fiasco last year, businesses don't want to piss of a major demographic. So it's something that you can consciously ignore if you wish.

  11. 1 minute ago, Paperclyp said:


    I don’t doubt those conversations happen, but conversations are a far cry from impact on a systemic level. 

     

    I should probably be more clear. There are not conversations about targeting white males. There absolutely conversations about protecting others for ID&E reasons. Higher performing people (with the data to back it up) are let go due to protecting lower performing  (also with data) employees that fit an ID&E statistic.

  12. 4 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:


    I’m sorry but I’m going to need to see some hard data before I believe this narrative that white males are being disproportionally targeted. I am guessing any data you can find will show you quite the opposite.

     


    I take no joy in people being laid off… but I did find the language used by this man and his legal team to be quite funny. 

     

    I can tell you that I am in a role where these factors are actively discussed and play directly into decisions for ratings/reviews and potential layoffs.

  13. It's kind of 2 fold right now. 

     

    1. You have the normal process of corporations pushing out older, higher compensated employees for younger that they feel will perform at a similar level.

    2. You have all of the ID&E efforts going on that effectively protects anyone that is not a white male, regardless of performance.

     

    The combination makes job security and finding opportunities a challenge for white males aged 40-55, regardless of their ability to perform.

  14. On 10/26/2023 at 1:57 PM, Bacon said:

    I just came across this video and I feel it describes what I have seen from the trailers.

     

    The number of mobs is definitely a major reason I get that DS2 vibe. But overall, this video describes the issues I picked up on from the trailers and previews.

     

    And just a heads up that this guy didn't beat the game as he didn't like it. I know some might say, "well you didn't beat the game so opinion invalidated," but in his 15 hours, he describes issues I pieced together on my own without even playing it.

     

    I'll still prolly give it a shot someday, just so my takes have something to back them up but not until a deep discount, or maybe even a lil :pirate_2:

     

    I picked this up on steam and played about 90 minutes before I refunded it. As a FS fan (and Lies of P) the Dark Souls 2 feeling  and comparison is spot on and just like DS2 I wanted to like it but just didn't. It has all of the ingredients, but for whatever reason it just doesn't fit right to my tastes.

    • Like 1
  15. 11 hours ago, 5timechamp said:

    Honestly at this point its not the sidequests that are important as much as the baked in mechanics for the NPCs, AI etc during some of these games… in GTA this manifests itself with random crimes or arguments you can get into at random moments.. the mechanics and emergent gameplay from those situations make full use of the beautiful maps in these games.. a simple mugger you chase can shoot at you, fight you, or even steal a car to try and get away.. the random factors make the game better

     

    Ghost Recon Wildlands biggest flaw is that it has one of the very best maps of its generation, but most gunfights are relegated to towns or enemy bases… If the game populated random patrols in the environment the replay value would be endless specially if it had a well developed QRF system..

     

    again, sidequests in and of themselves are fine but its the mechanics and ability to generate emergent gameplay that truly sets some open world games apart..

     

    for example.. I loved Red Dead Redemption the missions are great… but what I will remember most is going into Tall Trees and the sheer terror of Bear attacks, vicious and merciless

     

     

     

    Emergent event's are great... they're neither padding nor plotted. They're just there and make the world feel dynamic and alive. So honestly a bit of a different topic.

  16. On 10/26/2023 at 2:47 PM, crispy4000 said:

     

    I like the idea of many people in a settlement giving you vague clues to a side quest rather than quest markers and explicit directions.  I'd want to hear rumors about something mysterious happening in the woods up there.  Then piece together what actually happened myself.

     

    On 10/26/2023 at 1:57 PM, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

    Quests also often feel pencil whipped. Too often there’s no clues to follow or find. 
     

    Starfield is a recent example of this issue. I land at a settlement and overhear an altercation between characters. I talk to one who tells me a bit of what’s going on who then tells me to go talk to character 2. Where is character 2? Don’t know. No “they’re probably hiding their office in the building to left there. On the second floor”. So all I have is a name and because the quest markers have bugged out and aren’t appear I have no idea where this person is. I eventually find the person. Who tells me I need to find some security person who went missing outside of the compound. There’s no blood on the ground. Tracks left behind. A trail of breadcrumbs, nothing. Just wonder around until I stumble across the person. I find the person and get them back. Now I need to check out some complex/building or

    something nearby. Where? Who knows. Around. The NPC knows it exists, but they couldn’t be bothered to have a line of dialog pointing me in a direction. 
     

    Too often it feels like magic quest trails or way points serve to be just as much crutches for the developers as it is for us. But worse so when they use it as such, because it means we have to too. 

     

    Calling out Witcher 2 & 3 on this as a great example of what to do vs what not. They integrated clues, witcher senses, etc... to help you find/hunt whatever it was in everything from main quests, side quests, and quick contracts.

  17. 15 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

    A game that always bothered me in quest design was Dragon Age Origins. A great evil is coming to bring about the apocalypse. I need armies to fight it off. And the game devolves into nested quests, because everyone needs me to do them a favor. It would get so bad at times I’d forget what I was trying to do for the main quest. lol

     

    Ironically, this is something I find fairly realistic. Look at what happened with Covid and with Global Warming. Regardless of where you fall politically it's universally challenging to understand the objective truth due to the amount of media manipulation & misinformation (Aside: "Don't look up" articulates this so well). So despite what the Grey Wardens knew to be an apocalyptic threat, the general population and nobility were basically shrugging their shoulders and greedily maneuvering to gain power.

  18. On 10/23/2023 at 1:24 PM, AbsolutSurgen said:

    To me "Side Quest" and "Something To Do in The World" are synonyms, as long as there is some sort of reward received for doing the thing. 

     

    On 10/23/2023 at 2:17 PM, gamer.tv said:

    Side quests for the sake of it (collect 40 of something) are awful. If they progress a side element or non-essential part of a story or allow you to get/upgrade your character, they’re fine. 

     

    Responding to the two above. Yes, quality is largely a thing here but also narrative value. That's what makes something have a little impact vs just being filler.

     

    On 10/23/2023 at 3:07 PM, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

    The whole discussion makes me think of this video I saw a while back. 
     

     

    And I kind of agree. I am often less likely to finish open world games due to burnout or a sense of being overwhelmed with so much to do. 
     

    More often I want a world to feel open and vast more than I want an endless world. And when Devs create a big open world they feel a duty to fill it with quests and little things to do. As if they need to justify the size. As if the world will feel empty if they don’t. 
     

    I still feel like this is part of why Elden Ring ended up not feel overwhelming. You can miss things and not even know it. And the ignorance of that doesn’t bother you. You just run into something. Now it could do better with a journal system to keep track of the quests you do find, but it’s lack of half holding felt freeing and less stressful. 
     

    I think side quests will always be a bit at odds with the narrative in many games. You take away the choice to do side quests and people might get upset. Depending on the story they are telling you might not be able to even complete side quests after a main quest. So no matter the urgency devs may want to still give players the chance to mill around doing other stuff. 

     

    Some easy side quest styles I like are when you’re asked to do something as part of a main mission, or while on a main mission you find or read something important and later find a person interested in it. It feels a bit more organic and doesn’t distract from the main mission and the main narrative. 
     

    In Horizon Zero Dawn the side quests kind of annoyed me. Here I am trying to find the people responsible for a viscous assault who are threatening to destroy everyone and Aloy is also seemingly the only person that can do literally anything. How the fuck did any of these people survive to adulthood or to build a society is beyond me. That being said I felt very rewarded when at the climax of the game you are aided by everyone you took time out to help. Mass Effect 2 was kind of similar except you were punished one way or another if you waited too long to do the major side quests (loyalty missions). 
     

    I don’t think when it comes to side quest design the issue is open worlds. I think the greater issue is the story being told and whether the design of the side quests have any cohesion with the main story. Both in how they fit in story wise, but also how they are given to the player. But a lot of it stems from why the side quests exists at all. And often it only exists as a cheap way to pad out the game’s run time and to make a world seem more alive than it really is. 

     

     

    Great points on Elden Ring (both the not-overwhelming part and the journal).

     

    As for side quests being at odds with the narrative, that depends. Ideally they should be able to deliver one of two things: 1 - Adding something to the main narrative or 2 - Be worthy of standing on it's own in a way that's good enough that you'd want to do it after completing the main game.

     

    I like to call back to Witcher 3 on this one because they really nailed the aspect of being a Witcher with the contracts board.

    • The means of getting the quest from the board felt like a very in-world way of accepting the quest.
    • They were almost always local to the village (no traveling to a remote corner of the world to deliver a love note).
    • They were all "Witcher things" kill x monster that is doing evil things and get paid.
    • They generally had a mini-story with a few ways of solving it.
    • They fit just as well for living in the world after the main narrative as during.
    • They weren't in your face pestering you to do them while you were doing the main quests (a la Cyberpunk/Far Cry 5 & 6).
  19. On 10/18/2023 at 2:07 PM, AbsolutSurgen said:

    There are lots of ways that developers can signal the importance of sidequests -- i.e. Hogwart's Legacy used different map icons to indicate the different things you could do at each place.  The character's you met throughout the school would also give you side quests, which you could decide to do (or not).  Most games don't just put an exclamation point above a character's head anymore.

     

    That's actually kind of what I'm getting at. When do we consider something an actual side quest vs just something to do in the world. Hogwarts is an interesting topic in this regard because it was all over the place. It had the main quest, which was decent. The companion quests, which were excellent. A few side quests where an NPC gave you something to do which were honestly a mix of forgettable/annoying for me. Yes, it had item collection/puzzles identified on the map as "quests" but I don't really consider those things quests as much as just stuff to do in the world.

    One of the things that HW did well was make it fairly easy to distinguish between them because it was a game that for me, sort of dragged on, got a bit repetitive, and it's idea of increasing difficulty was just more bad guys at once or endlessly spawning bad guys. So it made it very easy for me to realize that I didn't care about searching for so & so's missing stones and ignore it.

  20. First off... Thank you to everyone that responded. Really like where the discussion is headed and seeing opinions. I've quoted several folks here as you've brought some additional dimensions to the conversation that warranted a specific response/deeper dive.


    The other thing is how many of us are lamenting the open world games themselves. That's another topic altogether of the value of the open world game vs semi-open world vs level based. Who wants to start that thread?

    The other main thing that several mentioned was Elden Ring. I thought I'd call it out here separately because it fits both in the side quest and open world discussion. It's open world was built with the purpose (and player value) of being explored. It was filled with it's own history and secrets to discover which made it a character of it's own (a FromSoft speciality). To contrast it with Cyberpunk where Night City was just a setting. 
     

     

    20 hours ago, Biggie said:

    I enjoy side quests. Sometimes in games like Starfield when I wanna jump on and play for maybe an hour I’ll do some side quests instead of getting involved in a Main Story Quest that’s going to be a time sink. 

     

    ^^ I think this aligns to the perspective of just having them there and giving the player the choice. Though it also begs the question of options for filtering/obscuring side quests beyond just a basic quest tracker.

     

     

    20 hours ago, Bacon said:

    Side quests are best when they are to be done alongside the main quests. Like, you do both at the same time. While FFXVI had very poor side quests, they were generally designed to be done during your current visit to the area. FFXIV actually does the same thing in some cases. Like, it just doesn't make sense from a story perspective to do some quests after you have already resolved the zone's main issue.

     

    When it comes to games with a narrative time limit, just make it all post-game if you can. If CP77 didn't have god-awful endings, this game would be perfect for it.

     

    Overall, I hate open world games these days. This isn't my main issue but I can't say I'm a fan of it. Also, most side quests kinda fuckin' suck. In CP77 and AssCreed, they aren't even a quest. More like a task that isn't worth doing if it wasn't for some enhancement to your character.

     

    ^^ In the case of FFXIV (I haven't played it)... if the side quests are poor yet you can do them at the same time as a mainline quest then what is the value they provide to the player or the narrative? Are they just EXP padding? If so, maybe a flaw in the design of the XP system? Or are they just another reward system trigger to give a player a sense of extra accomplishment?

     

     

    19 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

    If your game has to set up a whole system to let the player keep track of and juggle side quests, you probably have too many.  And if your game feels empty without that many, you need to find other ways to make your world interesting, IMO.

     

    As for the quests themselves I think there needs to be something worthwhile to them to justify their existence.  A cutscene that doesn’t feel slapped on, but something you’re truly glad you got to see.  A cool item that you’d actually use.  A hint for uncovering some other secret in the world.  A new member of your party.  A super boss.

     

    In general, the more that side quests feel like enhancements that better your experience with the game, the more their existence is justified. 

     

    ^^ Great points. Especially on a side quest tracker. I think you call out something about the side quests themselves being interesting. A great example of this to me is ME Trilogy vs any Ubi game. UBI's are mostly filler whereas ME, the side quests added significant value to not only the outcomes of the games but the character interactions.

     

    19 hours ago, TwinIon said:

    I think it's worth separating out a few different issues at play here. One issue is the ludonarrative dissonance between the story being told in an urgent main quest and the gameplay experience of knowing that there really is no real urgency and thus being able to take all the time in the world to help a random NPC find their lost cat. The other issue is the way so many open world games simply inundate the player with an endless amount of activities, most of which are of a relatively low quality as compared to the main quests.

     

    Personally, I'm less bothered by the latter problem than most seem to be. I'm not a completionist, I don't care about trophies or scores. I'll take part in side quests when I'm enjoying spending time in that world or it seems the reward is worthwhile, but if I don't enjoy a type of sidequest, I'm more than happy to simply ignore them. Personally, I'd much rather creators pad their games' length by adding in 100 copy-paste side quests than by putting a bunch of low quality filler into the main quest.

     

    Ideally the gameplay itself is enticing enough that I'm doing side quests just to enjoy the process, but even when that's not the case I think there is a place in these massive games for the more bite-sized content provided by all the optional activities. Sometimes as a player it's nice to have the option to do something small that you know won't spiral your game session out longer than you have time for. Sometimes it's nice to have bite sized encounters available to try out a different build or a new ability. As long as you're not locking great material behind something tedious, I think having a bevvy of options is usually a good thing for players, and at worst it's something to just ignore.

     

    The narrative issue is more difficult, but I do think we've seen it done well. The GTA games often get credit for spawning the side quest hellscape that dominates modern gaming, but the newer entries have done a great job of balancing the main story with the side content. The stories aren't usually so urgent that it wouldn't make sense to take part; to the contrary, the main quest usually has built in lulls specifically put their for players to explore. I feel like both Cyberpunk and Horizon do this as well, though I agree that the primary driver is such that it makes any break seem narratively difficult to justify.

     

    ^^ Several things here. First regarding the filler quests that you could ignore or not based on completionism. The problem that I have is that they often add general clutter. My problem is the constant interruptions from those quests.  Far Cry games, Harry Potter, Spiderman and CP, it felt like every ten seconds some NPC is calling or texting me to do something. It's almost like game doesn't want me to enjoy whatever it is I was doing to try and pull me onto something else. 

    Second is the gameplay aspect... and this is where going to something like GOW, Arkham, and Spiderman games stand out. Their fantastic gameplay made me want to come back and unfinished side quests were there to give narrative reasons to add value to just simply playing the game more. For my money GOW was the sweet spot in giving the feel that many side quests felt like post narrative bonus content vs filler.

     

    18 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

    There isn't one type of side quest -- in modern video games side quests can be anything from a huge side narrative to managing collectibles.

     

    Designers feel the need to include some quests to make the world more alive.  Others are just there to pad out the game time for players who are motivated by "how long does this game take to beat".  There is no straightforward answer, because so many different designers have done it in so many different way.  I like having the option of deciding what I will do next.  I like having the option of not doing something I don't enjoy.  Fundamentally, given that different players have different preferences, I don't really have a problem with games having tons of side quests that don't interest me -- because they could interest someone else.

     

    This is a good callout because it addresses side quests in a way that qualitative vs quantitative. AC Odyssey is a good case study because it was a mix of both. It had some quests that sent you across the map for a 15 second conversation as a glorified messenger (that are so forgettable I can't go into further detail) and then it had other things that were truly cool like the Minotaur quest line. The problem here is that there's no way to tell when you encounter a quest giver. It could be a grand mini-adventure or it could be sending the savior of the world on a silly trip to deliver flowers to their dog.

  21. Thanks for clicking on my post. I hope it's a fun discussion.

     

    I've been gaming since the 80s and as technology has progressed it's felt like many games have transitioned from levels to open worlds... and to varying degrees of success. I was prompted to start this discussion based upon going back to replay CyberPunk for the Phantom Liberty DLC... and as I did I became somewhat frustrated and overwhelmed by all of the side stuff going on... because it didn't really feel right narratively. Here's V, who's literally in a race against time to save his/her life taking on side quests... and those side quests usually required me to spend at least a little bit of time traveling somewhere where characters are texting V with even more crap to do.

     

    So... that brings me to the question and asking your opinions about side quests in game design. Where, when, and how should side quests be implemented? On one hand, it's an open world. The player is given freedom to go and do as they wish. However, the world waits for them. Johnny waits to glitch V out until various narrative actions are taken... so V really isn't in a race against time. On the other hand, who in that situation would ever be doing a "side quest" with their life or some other urgent situation on the line? World is possibly ending, but Aloy has time to go help some random NPC she just met hunt down black boxes from 1000 years ago.

     

    In this case, side quests often detract from the experience. The main narrative gets muddled, details get forgotten, and often (since everything has RPG elements these days) the character is over-leveled and unchallenged by the big ultimate thing. That said, many are good... but I'm wondering if they wouldn't be better as continuations of the world and characters to do afterwards (basically built in DLC).

     

    So what do the gamers say? Is it better for open worlds to be stuffed full of side quests or should they be streamlined to the main narrative? What games find the right balance vs being bloated?

    • Halal 1
×
×
  • Create New...