General gaming discussion

johnny_ultimate

Holy **** indie developers are really knocking it out of the park these days in terms of visual presentation. Seen these two over the last 24 hours.

Harold Halibut, which is just breathtaking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua_qqaAQsBk

Unbeatable, which looks like precisely my kind of jam. This one's on Kickstarter and doing pretty well for itself, even before the demo's released shortly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO5QgOaLdJU

YoshiReturns

Zero-Cool wrote: »

My friend Paddy interviewed Benjamin Byron Davis who plays Dutch in the Red Dead games if anyone fancies a watch/listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRSewN5LIQ4

Fair play.
How did he manage to arrange such a long interview ?
He doesn't seem to have that many subscribers.

Zero-Cool

YoshiReturns wrote: »

How did he manage to arrange such a long interview ?
He doesn't seem to have that many subscribers.

He started with Steve Palmer who played Bill Williamson and just reached out to the rest of the cast from there. The cast are very tight and have regular zoom calls so maybe they spread the word as well. It's more of a chat than a q&a and the guests just get very relaxed, very easy to listen to.

Highly recommend the Rob Wiethoff aka John Marston one, he just seems like one super nice human being, can't help but smile listening to his stories.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQzTwGO8o9S3ZikrlJw1wvlNmnZJc6iYn

Jordan 199

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Pro-Tip for healthy gaming: You don't need to get every achievement.

If an achievement/trophy is easy to get, I'll go for it. There was only two games where I got 1000/1000 gamescore and a platinum trophy. Those games were Tales from the Borderlands and Full Throttle Remastered.

YoshiReturns

Zero-Cool wrote: »

He started with Steve Palmer who played Bill Williamson and just reached out to the rest of the cast from there. The cast are very tight and have regular zoom calls so maybe they spread the word as well. It's more of a chat than a q&a and the guests just get very relaxed, very easy to listen to.

Highly recommend the Rob Wiethoff aka John Marston one, he just seems like one super nice human being, can't help but smile listening to his stories.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQzTwGO8o9S3ZikrlJw1wvlNmnZJc6iYn

Great, thanks. I love the characters and voice acting in RDR2. Arthur Morgan is played by an Irish American actor Rodger Clark. Another one for interview perhaps?

I might leave a lot of this until I start and finish RDR1 to avoid any spoilers.

Zero-Cool

YoshiReturns wrote: »

Great, thanks. I love the characters and voice acting in RDR2. Arthur Morgan is played by an Irish American actor Rodger Clark. Another one for interview perhaps?

I might leave a lot of this until I start and finish RDR1 to avoid any spoilers.

He's trying to get Roger, hopefully he can at some point.

CatInABox

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Holy **** indie developers are really knocking it out of the park these days in terms of visual presentation. Seen these two over the last 24 hours.

Harold Halibut looks amazing, Unbeatable doesn't look like my jam at all.

Indie devs really are knocking it out of the park for the last few years, The Outer Wilds and Return of the Obra Dinn are two of the games that spring to mind when people ask me what games are all about.

I have to admit I really didn't think I'd turn into such an indie fanboy.

pixelburp

There are just so many resources, affordable and approachable Game Engines, and pathways to (digital) release nowadays, it's arguable we're living in a greater indie Golden Era than the old bedroom champions of the mid-80s.

Honestly, these days about 90% of my games consumption is pure indie, or those smaller, indie-adjacent studios.

SomeSayKos

Wow. Harold Halibut looks incredible. Getting a real Wes Anderson vibe off it

Markitron

pixelburp wrote: »

There are just so many resources, affordable and approachable Game Engines, and pathways to (digital) release nowadays, it's arguable we're living in a greater indie Golden Era than the old bedroom champions of the mid-80s.

Honestly, these days about 90% of my games consumption is pure indie, or those smaller, indie-adjacent studios.

It's funny, I am the complete opposite, they just to do nothing for me. Whenever I listen to a gaming podcast they seem to spend most of the time talking about the latest indie game which is usually an 8-bit top-down roguelike/rhythm action hybrid where you play as a orphan on some epic quest to cure their senile parents' cancer, but it is secretly a metaphor for trans rights or something. They all kind of blend together for me. I would just rather spend 90 hours mindlessly and repetitively stabbing people in a graphically impressive copy/paste open world game.

pixelburp

Markitron wrote: »

It's funny, I am the complete opposite, they just to do nothing for me. Whenever I listen to a gaming podcast they seem to spend most of the time talking about the latest indie game which is usually an 8-bit top-down roguelike/rhythm action hybrid where you play as a orphan on some epic quest to cure their senile parents' cancer, but it is secretly a metaphor for trans rights or something. They all kind of blend together for me. I would just rather spend 90 hours mindlessly and repetitively stabbing people in a graphically impressive copy/paste open world game.

They all blend together, but copy/paste open-world games don't? lol :pac:
Sounds like you need better podcast options TBH; or your own personal barometer of genre preference clash against the 'aul conundrum of "the indie darling" mentality, rather than anything fundamental to "indie gaming". Plenty of indie games out there that will facilitate a basic, visceral desire for catharsis. Heck you got Devoler Digital doing gods work, with games such as Ape Out or Disc Room that have very simple, punchy premises that don't arse about with any metaphors.

Retr0gamer

pixelburp wrote: »

it's arguable we're living in a greater indie Golden Era than the old bedroom champions of the mid-80s.

Arguable? Indie gaming is amazing at the moment. That 8bit homebrew stuff was mostly crap!

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

Also, indie games are simply not as good as the big budget triple A games. There, I said it.

Just can't get behind this. There's just so many triple A games out there that are so basic, repetitive and boring and get high praise. I'm more shocked when a genuinely great one like Doom 2016 comes out that actually has the balls to be fun to play rather than relying on skinner box mechanics. Triple A games are mostly bad now. I mean they aren't terrbile. It's just that games like Days Gone or Farcry 5 aren't bad just so bland, uninteresting and unexciting that I'd rather play a bad game as I'd get a laugh or at least find it interesting. These types of games would have been solid 7/10's in previous generations but the bar has been lowered so much that they get praised.

Nothing wrong with popcorn food gaming either. I like a bit of mindless nonsense but you can kind of get that from indie gaming as well except much better. But these triple A games have the audacity to last more than 40 hours when before it would be a one and done in 8 hours. They just aren't rewarding enough to put that time into them.

Honestly is indie games didn't exist I'd have retreated back to retro gaming at this stage. It's a real golden age of gaming at the moment thanks to indie.

johnny_ultimate

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

I'm not saying there aren't people who genuinely enjoy indie games but

No need for a 'but' - many people just genuinely enjoy indie games, and it's as simple as that without it being pretension or intellectual superiority.

pixelburp

Like everything else in media, a balanced diet is best. Mix the indie with the blockbuster but for me the simple reason I've stayed away from AAA is not pretension but the simple reality that a lot of the industry doesn't respect my time or status as a customer - rather a consumer to nickel and dime where possible. IMO the difference is more than wording but a perspective of me, the player. While also, the games tend to be safer, less interesting titles and at worst over-engineered time sinks.

Like, I know I'd like to play FIFA cos I miss the simple pleasures of a good footie game, but I'll be damned if I'll grease that particular mill. But like F1 and other sports, licensing has killed off arcade football games.

Retr0gamer

If you want a good footie game FIFA won't give you that.

The Raging Bile Duct

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

At the risk of sounding basic, I have to non ironically agree.
On that note, I've noticed that whenever something that was previously niche goes mainstream there seems to be this weird strain of rebellion to "take back" that thing by "ascending" to more alternative tastes in some sort of misguided effort to appear intellectually superior, and it just comes across as pretentious.
I'm not saying there aren't people who genuinely enjoy indie games but I think some hardcore gamers out there hype these things up for the rep.

Not really onboard with that. I'm sure there's people that will cling to hipster trends in gaming as they will in movies, music and design but I think they're in the minority. I think there's plenty of people that like delving into a medium and finding new experiences or new forms of expression and it can be quite the rabbit hole to fall into. Most do it out of pure love for the medium. Johnny Ultimate is a great example - the guy loves his movies and his games and he is constantly looking for new experiences that move him. I've seen people accuse him of being pretentious in the past but for me there's nothing but pure enthusiasm fuelling him.

If you do look down on other people's tastes because they don't align with yours then you're being a dick - it doesn't matter if you're into obscure games or a fan of the big triple A's. I've been a dick in the past, and I'm sure I will be in the future, but I am trying to reform myself - in these times it's all about finding the things that bring you joy and not shítting on the things that bring others joy.

My two favourite games of the last couple of years are probably Days Gone and Obra Dinn, I'm as happy listening to Wings as I am to Steve Reich and I'm going to try and keep finding something new to experience and to challenge me until I die.

pixelburp

Retr0gamer wrote: »

If you want a good footie game FIFA won't give you that.

Wouldn't know really, given I stay away! I know I've banged the "no good footie games anymore" drum before so won't repeat.

Now, if only there could be a good Rugby game! That's not a licensing issue so much, unfortunately, merely it being more of a niche sport. There are a few out there, but they're not great (apparently), while often being rebadged rugby league games from Oz.

Penn

I generally don't care if a game is indie or AAA so long as it's good. I mostly do prefer AAA games, but that's personal choice more than anything.

However, I do think in many cases AAA games are judged more harshly and indie games given a free pass on things simply because they're indie. I'd much rather play an AAA game which is mostly derivative of other games but does pretty much everything well, than play an indie game with a unique artstyle or system but which is a jumbled mess.

I played Return of the Obra Dinn for about an hour and a half and had to give up because I knew it was just going to annoy me the more it went on. I played Hollow Knight for maybe 2 hours and was just mostly bored. I'd rather play something like Days Gone where I know it probably won't do anything particularly great, but I'm more likely to get engaged in it and want to progress, and ultimately I'll enjoy that more.

pixelburp

Hollow Knight has terrible opening structure; give it some more time. One huge flaw was its decision to make staples of the genre items to purchase (like mapping). Unless of course you just don't like Metroidvanias anyway of course

Markitron

Penn wrote: »

I generally don't care if a game is indie or AAA so long as it's good. I mostly do prefer AAA games, but that's personal choice more than anything.

However, I do think in many cases AAA games are judged more harshly and indie games given a free pass on things simply because they're indie. I'd much rather play an AAA game which is mostly derivative of other games but does pretty much everything well, than play an indie game with a unique artstyle or system but which is a jumbled mess.

I played Return of the Obra Dinn for about an hour and a half and had to give up because I knew it was just going to annoy me the more it went on. I played Hollow Knight for maybe 2 hours and was just mostly bored. I'd rather play something like Days Gone where I know it probably won't do anything particularly great, but I'm more likely to get engaged in it and want to progress, and ultimately I'll enjoy that more.

Yea I'd say this is a decent approximation of where I'm at too.

Retr0gamer

Penn wrote: »

I'd rather play something like Days Gone where I know it probably won't do anything particularly great, but I'm more likely to get engaged in it and want to progress, and ultimately I'll enjoy that more.

I won't deny people can have fun with these games and that they aren't well made. It just infuriates me how safe they are. I'd just love if they did something a little bit different to make them standout. Even just to be a tiny bit inventive to make them standout from the crowd.

Even in the Ubisoft open world genre there's great games. Spiderman is very generic but it's movement makes it stand out. Horizon I'm not the biggest fan of but the combat makes it stand apart. And even zelda isn't all that different, it's biggest change is just to make the player explore its world it's that small change is totally transformative. Red Dead 2 is the exact opposite of those games. Days Gone, maybe the hordes are but I never got far enough to find out and apparently it doesn't do enough with them.

I'd just like them to step even a little out of their comfort zone. Less Farcry 4 being Farcry 3 with mountains and more Doom completely gamifying FPS and adding in elements of a Platinum games combat system to create something that totally engages and surprises me.

There's plenty of derivative indie and japanese B tier games but since they are freer of the constraints of marketing and shareholders they can take more chances and it just makes it a much more vibrant scene.

And to be fair to triple A, it's gotten a lot better than it was during the PS360/ early current gen era as a lot of triple A games are taking on board lessons from indie games.

It's just unfortunate they are also taking on lessons from mobile games by having skinner box upgrade systems and trying to be 'a service' and being longer than they need to be.

The Raging Bile Duct

Penn wrote: »

However, I do think in many cases AAA games are judged more harshly and indie games given a free pass on things simply because they're indie. I'd much rather play an AAA game which is mostly derivative of other games but does pretty much everything well, than play an indie game with a unique artstyle or system but which is a jumbled mess.

I played Return of the Obra Dinn for about an hour and a half and had to give up because I knew it was just going to annoy me the more it went on. I played Hollow Knight for maybe 2 hours and was just mostly bored. I'd rather play something like Days Gone where I know it probably won't do anything particularly great, but I'm more likely to get engaged in it and want to progress, and ultimately I'll enjoy that more.

And for me, Obra Dinn was one of the best games I've ever played. They way I pored over the clues and kept revisiting scenes to view them from different angles to get a few more hints to the identity of different people made me feel more immersed in the game than probably anything else I've played.

SomeSayKos

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

Also, indie games are simply not as good as the big budget triple A games. There, I said it.

There are amazing indie games, terrible indie games and some average indie games.
The exact same could be said of AAA games.
I don't know how you can stack them against each other and say one is better than the other.

johnny_ultimate

Every game deserves to be criticised if it doesn't achieve what it sets out to do, no matter the scale.

I'd occasionally give indie games a bit more leeway in terms of rough edges considering the vast difference in production scale involved. But it’s important to always be willing to call out fatal flaws or unrealised potential - Marquette is a game recently I'd have liked to love, but ultimately it left me unsatisfied.

Personally, though, I often see AAA games getting away with murder. That the likes of The Last of Us 2 or Cyberpunk reviewed overwhelmingly positively for me indicates they can get away with a lot more than indie games can. IMO and for many players those two games were far from unambiguous triumphs, albeit for different reasons.

Ultimately, though, a great game is a great game. I'm loving Monster Hunter Rise at the moment, even as I eagerly await the next indie gem that'll surprise or amaze me

Markitron

It's pretty simple really.

2D, Indie and especially Nintendo games are for pretentious elitists.

Modern AAA games are for juvenile meatheads with no taste.

pixelburp

The simple generalisation is that Indie games are more likely to be built by small teams, sometimes just single individuals like Stardew Valley; so if they tend to get more critical leeway, it's likely just down to the fact they don't have the resources or time to polish off every rough edge. They get the benefit of the doubt by dint of the environment they came from. Slamming an indie game for not being perfect, having a tough difficulty curve or whatever, feels unfair. It's similar enough to those "euro jank" games that occupy the low-mid tier of the industry.

AAA games don't have that excuse; it's a literal multi-billion dollar industry, with the largest games commanding hundreds of workers contributing to a single vision. They're held to a higher standard because they themselves are built to larger and more demanding standards than a typical indie production. They can afford dedicated QA departments. But that scale and ballooned budgets then comes at the cost of creativity or divergence from a trend, often resulting in safer end-products. That's the trade-off.

Penn

pixelburp wrote: »

Hollow Knight has terrible opening structure; give it some more time. One huge flaw was its decision to make staples of the genre items to purchase (like mapping). Unless of course you just don't like Metroidvanias anyway of course

I did get as far as unlocking the map and some associated things, but even then it wasn't much addition. I ended up checking out a video from the middle of FightinCowboy's playthrough of the game to see what the middle of the game would be like, and it didn't really inspire me to push on. I might revisit in the future but don't know.

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

And for me, Obra Dinn was one of the best games I've ever played. They way I pored over the clues and kept revisiting scenes to view them from different angles to get a few more hints to the identity of different people made me feel more immersed in the game than probably anything else I've played.

I can see why it would be enjoyable, but it's definitely emblematic of one of those "unique" artstyles, which was one of the big things putting me off. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it just looked that way for the sake of looking that way, and the look of it just annoyed me.

Retr0gamer

Markitron wrote: »

It's pretty simple really.

2D, Indie and especially Nintendo games are for pretentious elitists.

Modern AAA games are for juvenile meatheads with no taste.

I was about to get angry. Well played.

johnny_ultimate

Penn wrote: »

I can see why it would be enjoyable, but it's definitely emblematic of one of those "unique" artstyles, which was one of the big things putting me off. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it just looked that way for the sake of looking that way, and the look of it just annoyed me.

I'd disagree there. The abstracted nature of the art design works so Pope can carefully control and artfully obscure some of the identifying details and add to the mystery. In many ways it limits the amount of information being given to the player, so key details stand out more. A more realistic style would not only be massively labour intensive, but it would be a completely different game.

Also, beyond function... it looks bloody fantastic