Leaderboard

Here is an essay on the concept of “ludonarrative dissonance” in games that I found very interesting: http://www.fredericseraphine.com/index.php/2016/09/02/ludonarrative-dissonance-is-storytelling-about-reaching-harmony/ I guess this really bothers a lot of people. Ironically, I feel most of the games that have really impacted me have deliberately featured this dissonance and made it part of the experience, rather than trying to avoid it. In some ways though, I don’t even get why this bothers people. A gap between what I am trying/want to do and what I can/must do IRL pretty much is the essence of my normal human experience. Life, at its core, features this “dissonance.” When it features in games, to me it actually makes them more lifelike.

Do you know of anybody who was maybe from your hometown? Since I’m not into sports that much, I haven’t met a Pro athlete. Nobody from our small town ever has been drafted to play either. If you could pick someone to meet, who would you choose? It took me some thinking but I think I would choose someone like Mary Lou Retton. I know she’s older, but she is still an athlete. I pick her because I was a kid when she was in The Olympics doing her gymnastic routine. For a kid, it was quite exciting & I remember my friends & I trying to do cartwheels, handstands, etc.

They called. I’ll spare you the details, but we’re heading out there this weekend. Hopefully.

I think it's a very mixed bag in both directions. Most of AAA is graphics, which is fine and all. The stories are cool, too. I'm more of an interesting mechanics plus game flow guy. And, you don't need superb graphics to be pretty, either. Most indie games frankly suck. They would, they're mostly by new devs. I like indies mostly. I don't mind sorting through a hundred crap games to find that one passion project where the dev has looked into every aspect of the game, like Stardew Valley or Vintage Story. In the end, I'd have to lean towards indies. AAAs are made by teams. I like my games to be labors of love. Just one dev, or a couple of friends putting their whole hearts into a world of their own making.

Why do I need to game on a large TV if I have a gaming monitor that's worth $1000 😛 My monitor is an 27" Asus IPS 165hz with all the gear that comes with it. PLus TVs are not meant for high speed gaming on them, and FPS will be so bad and time respones just poitless in CSGO games.

Low quality game features, and gameplay full of glitches that slows down the movement of the characters in the game.

Definitely; I love the roads, soil, fauna, stone paths, dead bodies, everything. I like the sound of walking too. I like the puddles of water reflecting light. The animals running around. I love the streets in Days Gone with the black tar, dried cracked lines, yellow lane paint fading. The footprints in snow. Puddles of blood. Flowers. Debris.

Yes, I find myself doing that at times. That's actually what starts straining my eyes because I'm looking around too much too fast. And it makes gaming have a distancing effect instead of immersion. Sometimes I know I have to move on and it's easy to fall into the fast play. Sometimes I even think about getting somewhere before the sun sets or before the sun comes back up. I have to stop myself and look at my surroundings. Many times the in game music motivates me to slow down and soak things in. But when the music cuts out, and I start fighting, looting, riding, etc. I've got to remember to enjoy myself before I give myself a headache.

More then me and I beat that you have 80% of games that you have not even played before 😛

This is exactly why, despite what the so called "PC Master Race" will say, we need consoles. Consoles effectively "tie down" game development so it doesn't run too far forward out of control. Without them, dev's would push games too far and too fast towards running on top-end hardware that a lot of people can't afford. Thus the install base is lowered. Combine that lower install base with the fact these games would cost even more to make, games would have to be even more expensive to buy and/or filled with more monetisation bullshit than they already are. This would push even more people out of gaming, lowering the install base even more creating even more expense for all parties, thus lowering the install base again. Basically, it would be a massive negative feedback loop that would cause the ecosystem of the gaming world to pretty much collapse. Look at Cyberpunk 2077. That game was developed to get the best out of PC's then they made console ports, and we remember how well that worked. That's why developers usually design their multiplatform games primarily as console games the further develop a PC version. Like it or not, that's the way it needs to be done.

It's the progression of graphical technology that causes the requirements of games to increase. Every time a new version of technology is launched such as NVME 2.0, it has a domino effect where every manufacturer will start making their devices require NVME 2.0 because they'll make a lot of money for implementing more modern tech standards and the competition will do the say and as such, the creep in requirements happens.

This is what always happens in PC gaming when next generation consoles come out. This is why I always say to anyone considering building a PC around that kind of time that's it's better to wait until a year or two AFTER next gen comes out to build a PC. That's not however, taking into consideration that high demand, low supply and the subsequent scalping has still kinda fucked the market a bit. So it might be better to wait even longer now.

Some people prefer the simplicity of gaming like playing on an older console or even those that enjoy the classic games. But technology is going to keep moving forward and expenses will keep rising to keep up with it. I'm usually not a fan of getting the latest tech that comes out. I don't even game on a 4K TV. The only thing I can suggest, is to wait a couple years to get whatever latest tech is out today so you can save money. It must be more difficult for PC users because on consoles, game are released for that console. For PC, you have to keep up with your computer. So in that case, you have a good point how things should plateau a bit. But no way it will unless there is a world war or economic collapse.

I think it's more of most of us gamers liking to explore and have a more feel of more games than actually completing all of them.

I totally agree - your game collection is for your own enjoyment no matter how many games it is.

Agreed @PGen98. The PlayStation Plus free games have been really good although the recent months haven't been as good. The lineups when the PS5 first came out, was really, really good. Games like Overcooked and Wreckfest were awesome to play with the new DualSense features.

I'll simply say that the AAA game series aren't performing well lately due to the fact they've placed more money as their main target and forget about improving the quality of their gaming.

To be frank what you've said it's simply straightforward way when one doesn't have much of the funds. I always put aside savings for the game on my fantasy and not rushing up using money I've set aside for other things just to satisfying my gaming urge, No, I make plans for everything I want.

I've met plenty - part of the list is as follows: Usain Bolt (I'm acquainted with him in real life). Allen Iverson - Basketball Player Dikembe Mutombo - Basketball Player Patrick Ewing - Basketball Player Thierry Henry - Football Player Christiano Ronaldo - Football Player Ronaldinho - Football Player Triple H - Wrestler The Rock - Wrestler Kane & The Undertaker - Wrestlers I'll stop at those 10.