We already do live drills for this stuff. I'm not sure how the 'simulation' will really be better than that.

 

Also people need to calm down a bit. It isn't a reality that teachers are going to have to deal with gunfire in their job, it is still a tremendously small chance. It's good to be prepared and aware, but this comes across as fear mongering.

 

This looks...fun. 

A video about some research done by EA, where the conclusion is that fair matchmaking in PvP is not best for player experience...

 

 

Welcome to the world, where algorithms decide when you should win, and when you should lose. Not your skill...    All in the name of "Better player experience and engagement"... In other words "Better player monetization"

 

 

EDIT: And below, if you want more "colorful" version of the same news by Jim Sterling :D

 

 

 

Edited January 8, 20188 yr by Mamoulian War

EA is full of ****.

 

Give me UT, Quake, CS, TF2, or OW every time.

Would not be so sure about OW future after all the Destiny 2 bull**** and all the Matchmaking patents registered by Activision to raise the player spending

Well OW is basically dead to me now anyways, but it was fun while it was young and pure. Matchmaking always fails in the end, which is why good dedicated servers are always the best way to go.

Some food for your thoughts

 

 

From my PoV, he says a lot of stuff, why I still prefer to play older over newer games. with the exceptions of few Indy gems. It's not nostalgia, the older games just forced you to use your brain more often. And the feeling which you got, when you did overcome some riddle or hard quest or boss, was much more rewarding than in today's openworld checkbox simulators with cutscenes.

Edited January 8, 20188 yr by Mamoulian War

There was a time in the late 2000s and very early 2010s that I started to get the feeling, stronger and stronger over time, that I might exit gaming altogether, as it seemed like I just didn't "get" the video game industry anymore. Eventually, I realized that it would just be better if video games were no longer my primary hobby, and that'd it better to only try the games I'm really interested in. So...that's what I did. Now I mostly only buy indie games and the very rare AA or AAA game (while occasionally trying an older game or two, such as I did with MOTHER/Earthbound over the past year), and I think I'm much happier for it. Stick to the things that actually legitimately seem interesting to you - what that will be, of course, will vary from person to person, especially as some of us are less forgiving of certain trends in video games than other people - ...and don't spend much more than a glance at the constant barrage of the same crappy games.

Edited January 8, 20188 yr by Bartimaeus

 

Time to start saving money.

 

Would not be so sure about OW future after all the Destiny 2 bull**** and all the Matchmaking patents registered by Activision to raise the player spending

 

Correction, they are called 'Craptivision' now. 

 

I wish Blizzard Entertainment could operate on their own:

 

Impressive fan-made Overwatch map gets the Blizzard nod of approval (Eurogamer.net)

Edited January 9, 20188 yr by Katphood

Ew @ the vive pro

 

The future is not A E S T H E T I C

Did they fixed the heat / sweat problem? If not then this is wasted money.

We already do live drills for this stuff. I'm not sure how the 'simulation' will really be better than that.

 

Also people need to calm down a bit. It isn't a reality that teachers are going to have to deal with gunfire in their job, it is still a tremendously small chance. It's good to be prepared and aware, but this comes across as fear mongering.

 

Out of interest how many teachers use these sims to gun down a bunch of virtual kids to let off steam? I can totally see there being a market for that.

Next historical Total War game is Three Kingdoms:

 

 

Seems like something that was a long time coming.

And now, I wait...

Oh ****, is that my boy Lu Bu I see? 

Welcome to the world, where algorithms decide when you should win, and when you should lose. Not your skill...    All in the name of "Better player experience and engagement"... In other words "Better player monetization"

Ars Technica article on the issue...

 

I don't know man, ever since you posted it, the issue gets kinda tossed around in my head and, at the end of the day, I kinda feel like EA is doing the right thing, just for entirely wrong reasons? I mean, you're looking at the problem from a perspective of a gamer that would play MP games to overcome challenge, and to such player, even matchmaking is totally the best experience he can get. What we're talking here tho, games by EA, Activision or similar, they're not designed for that kind of player.

 

Imagine you're the kind of player who buys two games per year to casually play MP matches with his pals and expects them to last him as long as possible just to have some fun on the mic while calling everyone wankers. Wouldn't said game remaining engaging for a longer time be a good thing for such a player? I don't really think casual shooty bang bang players give a crap about fairness, and design of such games reflected that for the longest time (short time to kill, kill streaks etc.) - on top of it, seemingly all AAA shooters that involved a higher skill ceiling than their peers failed.

 

From my PoV, he says a lot of stuff, why I still prefer to play older over newer games. with the exceptions of few Indy gems.

It's easy to make that argument when you pick arbitrary videogames, point at them and say "Those games are modern." Those indie gems are modern games too tho (and would stand no chance of success back in the day when having a distributor was almost necessary to get any kind of market penetration... Hehehe, penetration.) and omitting modern games like creations of Arkane - which are systematically much more advanced than most older games while offering mechanical interactions which were simply not possible with older tech.

 

Nowadays, we have a fantastic selection of games of various complexity, majority of them not challenging player to 'find out how to play them' (in other words, pressing random buttons on the keyboard, hoping it'll do something - that's not meaningful and smart gameplay, that's waste of time.) Remember, back 'then' (pre-2000), videogames were a niche hobby, so 'mainstream' titles were targeted at that niche audience. Games are now mainstream, but there are still games coming out targeting said niche audience.

Edited January 10, 20188 yr by Fenixp

Not my niche anymore sadly, my beloved R6 and GR died a wretched death.

 

 

Eurogamer deciding to provoke religious zealots with this article.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-01-09-star-citizen-alpha-3-impressions

I can't help but feel half of their issues are due to using CryEngine, the other half from using double precision floats for every god damn thing, and obviously indev feature bloat.

 

Ubisoft might pull of a scaled down and focuses realization of a similar experience with BG&E2. Even that seems like a pipe dream, but it's a pipe dream I still can see myself dreaming about.

Oh right, interview with Harvey Smith (Deus Ex, Dishonored 1, 2 designer)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU8MeU2Sszw

 

And with Ricardo Bare & Raphael Colantonio about Prey and Immersive Sims (Bethesda approached us and said "hey, why don't you use this name?")

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

 

Not my niche anymore sadly, my beloved R6 and GR died a wretched death.

Well, Siege is supposed to be really good.

 

If you like being yelled at for sucking hard.

 

And playing with other fleshbags.

Edited January 10, 20188 yr by Fenixp

Maybe, seems like they went too far into Tom Clancy wankfantasy land with gadgets nor does it have the pace of RVS.  I do own it, should download it some day.

I actually really enjoyed the most recent Ghost Recon. 

 

Welcome to the world, where algorithms decide when you should win, and when you should lose. Not your skill... All in the name of "Better player experience and engagement"... In other words "Better player monetization"

Ars Technica article on the issue...

 

I don't know man, ever since you posted it, the issue gets kinda tossed around in my head and, at the end of the day, I kinda feel like EA is doing the right thing, just for entirely wrong reasons? I mean, you're looking at the problem from a perspective of a gamer that would play MP games to overcome challenge, and to such player, even matchmaking is totally the best experience he can get. What we're talking here tho, games by EA, Activision or similar, they're not designed for that kind of player.

 

Imagine you're the kind of player who buys two games per year to casually play MP matches with his pals and expects them to last him as long as possible just to have some fun on the mic while calling everyone wankers. Wouldn't said game remaining engaging for a longer time be a good thing for such a player? I don't really think casual shooty bang bang players give a crap about fairness, and design of such games reflected that for the longest time (short time to kill, kill streaks etc.) - on top of it, seemingly all AAA shooters that involved a higher skill ceiling than their peers failed.

 

From my PoV, he says a lot of stuff, why I still prefer to play older over newer games. with the exceptions of few Indy gems.

It's easy to make that argument when you pick arbitrary videogames, point at them and say "Those games are modern." Those indie gems are modern games too tho (and would stand no chance of success back in the day when having a distributor was almost necessary to get any kind of market penetration... Hehehe, penetration.) and omitting modern games like creations of Arkane - which are systematically much more advanced than most older games while offering mechanical interactions which were simply not possible with older tech.

 

Nowadays, we have a fantastic selection of games of various complexity, majority of them not challenging player to 'find out how to play them' (in other words, pressing random buttons on the keyboard, hoping it'll do something - that's not meaningful and smart gameplay, that's waste of time.) Remember, back 'then' (pre-2000), videogames were a niche hobby, so 'mainstream' titles were targeted at that niche audience. Games are now mainstream, but there are still games coming out targeting said niche audience.

As I said. The Indy games are an exception, because most of them, which have won me over, are using the right balance of old school design, with modern gameplay. And I have to say I enjoy it much much more even though some of them are not very challenging difficulty wise, but they still force you to use your brain. AAA games are now completely lost to me (btw, I do not count games as Dishonored or Prey as AAA. They do not need such a big budget, and mostly give you a lot of options how to turn off the handholding stuff). FFXV was the last straw for me.

"From my PoV, he says a lot of stuff, why I still prefer to play older over newer games. with the exceptions of few Indy gems. It's not nostalgia, the older games just forced you to use your brain more often. And the feeling which you got, when you did overcome some riddle or hard quest or boss, was much more rewarding than in today's openworld checkbox simulators with cutscenes."

 

games always sucked, difference is in the 80s and 90s there wasn't youtube