Big publishers are famously VERY protective of their IP. They would prefer seeing it burn to the ground rather than have it flourish in hands that aren't theirs. See: Microsoft recently killing a deal to get sell Perfect Dark because they didn't want to drop the IP. There has however been some loosening of that tight grip at some publishers and I hope it will continue and spread.

It's been going on for a few years, but with the releases of Ninja Gaiden: Ragebound and Shinobi: Art of Vengeance, I'm starting to feel comfortable calling it a trend. Publishers are lending out their IP to smaller studios to put out entries in their series that they would have never done themselves.

A few examples to give a picture of the spread:

• Nintendo:
  • Cadence of Hyrule
• Ubisoft:
  • The Rogue Prince of Persia
  • Heroes of Might and Magic: Olden Era
• Koei:
  • Ninja Gaiden: Ragebound
• SEGA:
  • Shinobi: Art of Vengeance
  • Streets of Rage 4

It's a bit awkward creating this list, because it's very much based on feelings. Hiring a studio to make a game or simply outsourcing has been a thing forever. A good part of Nintendo's output is developed at Bandai Namco, for example, but I'm not including New Pokemon Snap in the list. The games I find more interesting are the ones that take on the identity of the developer, as if the developer had carte blanche with the IP. The Rogue Prince of Persia, for example, very much feels like an Evil Empire Game, not a Ubisoft game.

I'm not sure whether to include games like Stranger of Paradise: Final Fantasy Origin or Hyrule Warriors.

This has been a true win-win-win situations. Not only is it cool for fans of the series to get new games, especially when it comes to dormant IP. I also see it as great opportunities for small developers and publishers.

Small developers get to work on a famous IP and get a boost in marketing. Some games can only sell with an attached popular IP. Heroes: Olden Era recently announced getting 750K wishlists on Steam; that would not have happened to the same game minus the IP.

For publishers, it's a low-risk way to serve fans of their IP, either maintaining its popularity or attempting to revive it. Ninja Gaiden and Shinobi are clearly part of campaigns to revive Ninja Gaiden and SEGA legacy IP, respectively.

I feel like this loosening grip is a positive side-effect of a widening industry. When before publishers could control every aspect of their IP, they have had to give up on that control to conform to modern marketing. Be it because of cross-overs, movies or TV series with other big companies, publishers have gotten more used to not having the full control over their IP leaving some space for these neat little projects. We might be in a nice little sweet spot right now, however. I could easily see this going overboard.

For the longest time, I thought the real fun in MMO PvP was all about running with a tight Squad of friends. You know, hopping into dungeons, learning how everyone plays, messing around in voice chat - that kind of chemistry just makes everything feel real and reliable.

Then I got into the Warborne: Above Ashes test. Even though my squad was still part of a guild, the whole vibe just hit different.

During the large-scale fights, everything went absolutely crazy - spells flying everywhere, siege engines firing off, players shouting all kinds of calls. I barely knew anyone, but somehow it all just clicked. We pushed together, broke through lines, captured points - it never felt messy, just super coordinated. When we took the fortress, the whole server chat went nuts. Even when we lost, the guild chat was full of people breaking down what happened and joking about it. It wasn’t just fun - it felt epic.

But what really surprised me was how much freedom our squad still had. We didn’t always have to stick with the zerg. We could go off on our own - skirmishing on the edges, snatching resources, even taking on special missions for the guild. That independence didn’t make us irrelevant - if anything, it made us more valuable. And I heard they’re adding a global cross-server trading system later, so all the loot we grab will actually mean something!

To me, this is what ideal MMO PvP feels like - you get the chaos of huge battles without giving up the freedom to do your own thing. It’s got both the large-scale epicness and the small-scale intimacy. Maybe not everyone will feel the same - maybe I just got lucky with a guild that had great vibes. But honestly, it was such a blast that my friends and I are already planning to play together when the game fully releases.

I’m a solo developer working on a minimalist, no-combat maze puzzler and I’ve run into a design tension I’d love r/truegaming’s take on: how do you keep players engaged for weeks or months when you intentionally remove pressure no timers, no enemies, no failure screens because the goal is to relax?

The core loop is simple: navigate to a portal through procedurally generated mazes that scale up gently over time. You can reset the “flow” at any moment to return to smaller layouts. There are optional hints (a subtle breadcrumb), two readable camera modes (pure top-down vs. slight 2.5D tilt), and a calm soundtrack. The intention is cozy, meditative play rather than mastery-driven challenge.

Where I’d value your perspective is the structure around that loop:

1. Stakes without stress. If there’s no failure and no timer, what forms of “soft stakes” still feel meaningful route efficiency, collectibles, optional constraints, or curated micro-goals (“reach the portal visiting 2 keys first”)? When does that quietly become pressure again?
2. Progression vs. stasis. Procedural generation can give infinite variety, but variety ≠ progression. For a game that’s deliberately low-arousal, what kind of meta-progression feels appropriate? Cosmetic unlocks? Gradual palette/theme shifts? A gentle expansion of maze properties (size/branching/loops) that plateaus rather than spikes?
3. Information vs. discovery. Hints can prevent frustration, but they also short-circuit the little satisfactions of spatial reasoning. Have you seen hint systems that feel like good coaching—nudges that preserve discovery rather than solving it?
4. Readability as design. In a purely navigational game, visual clarity is difficulty. Any heuristics you like for maintaining “at-a-glance” readability as mazes grow (e.g., padding margins, limiting corridor width variance, controlling braid/loop density, using color to encode layers without visual noise)?
5. Achievements and “ambient goals.” Do achievements help in cozy games, or do they turn a wind-down activity into a checklist? If they help, what kind of criteria feel aligned (milestones, exploration patterns, style constraints) vs. misaligned (speed, grind)?
6. Daily seeds / leaderboards. Do daily seeds add gentle community touchpoints in a non-competitive game, or do they pull players toward optimization that contradicts the vibe? If they help, what guardrails keep them from becoming pressure?

My instincts so far: keep the failure loop soft (no hard fail), let difficulty be readability-driven (size/branching gradually increase, then plateau), and treat achievements as ambient signposts rather than directives. But I’m concerned about drifting into pleasant sameness without long-term meaning.

I’m not trying to market here just looking for design critique from people who enjoy thinking about systems. There is a Steam page for the project; if mods are OK with it I can put the link in the first comment for context. Otherwise I’m happy to keep the discussion abstract.

Thanks for any thoughts especially concrete examples of cozy games that sustain engagement without sneaking pressure back in.

Years ago when I was trying new games with my friend, we discussed the evergreen topic "what makes a game good". He said something that changed the way I approach RPG games. I don't remember his exact words, but the idea was:

"If a game can't make the most thematically straightforward and mundane archetype functional and entertaining, it's most likely not a great game".

It's basically the "Order a Margherita in a new pizza place". So I tried to apply this as some sort of litmus test on new games...

Several years and dozens of games later, I think this approach has improved my experience of playing games dramatically. Every time I picked up a new game I would go for the most mundane build - the Human Fighter so to speak.

Here's why:

• If the game can make the most mundane builds feel satisfying, it suggests the core combat systems are tight and fun even before adding bells and whistles.
• Mundane builds are usually the most accessible ones for new players. I definitely don't fear complex RPG systems, I play stuff like Path of Exile or Pathfinder CRPGs, but games often introduce ridiculous amount of mechanics, keywords and terms that are different from what other games do just to stand apart, and it's way too easy to get overwhelmed. Especially various magic-related systems tend to differ dramatically between games, but "Strength", "Armour" or "Bleed" are familiar concepts that work the same pretty much everywhere.
• Simple builds are a great way to create a "benchmark" to which other builds can be compared. RPG games are about choices, and if I like the game I'm eventually going to try most things, so having a clear reference point is very valuable
• It allows me to focus on what is going on around my character instead of having to care about them. That leaves more attention for the companions, world, plot.
• While companions and party members sometimes come and go, the main character is a constant. Having a balanced, straightforward character just makes the inevitable "solo missions" and "forced guest team member" sections much more bearable
• This may be a stretch, but it seems that developers are often deliberately using these builds as reference point for balancing the game, its encounters and map design. Going with such build often means I won't struggle because my build happens to be very weak against a specific boss, but it also means that I probably won't one-shot a cool boss and miss out on what have the developers prepared for me.

I think it has worked out for me great, and you can be sure I'll be rolling that Human Fighter in Elder Scrolls 6

Ironically my two examples are of games that took too long and too much to develop. But plenty of games from back then still look great though. Playing a good looking 15 year old game you'll mostly notice:

• textures have lower resolution, but still clear enough to do the job.
• some articulations don't look as smooth as today.
• shadows flickered more, lighting wasn't as good.

However is this why there was a 10 fold cost increase since the 2010s? That figure comes from a UK report ordered for the Activision Blizzard merger. I should note there's been MYRIADS of technical improvements other than those three, but those had the biggest impact for me.

Out of those three I guess textures take the most extra work. MGS4 uses a 1024x768 resolution scaled to 720p. 720p is 9 times smaller than a 4k resolution. Is it just graphics, the cost increase?

I dunno because from my layman perspective there's been a trade-off with less in-house engines, more third party engine games. Unreal Engine with its performance issues also comes with many tools to make development more agile.

Biggest cost is staff and if staff can work faster, that's a cost saving. Plus, like I said, those old games don't look bad. The graphics leap is real but not PS2->PS3 big.

There are other things though that have noticeably changed.

• Cutscenes facial and body animations look better, are more detailed
• There's much more side content
• More open worlds or open world-ish.

I suspect this is where costs have gone up. It's what makes more sense to me because these also demand more visual assets, more models, more textures, more optimization.

For me personally, for my tastes, I can appreciate those things but I don't need them in every other game. I'd gladly see all of Chadley's FF7 Rebirth quests go away if it meant Bone Village got made, for an instance. Just one tiny little town. I wouldn't mind at all having nothing to do but walking when moving to the next area.

Idiotically, I completed all of Chadley's quests, and I don't think the game was better for it. But that's another can of worms.

In the end though, given how usually less than 50% of players get an achievement for beating any given AAA game, I wonder if this is really what we want.

Maybe we would prefer games taking less time to come out, more streamlined, less risk-averse, more innovative, less story and more action, less time looking at quest logs and maps in the menu and more time actually playing the game, less time traversing from A to B to start a mission.

Just games with more quality play time in general and that don't risk bankrupting a company if it fails. Maybe that's what we want.

Or not, because GTA 6 is of all of the cost ballooning trends packed into one to the power of ten and it's likely to be the biggest release ever despite its price.

This seems like the place to ask. The purpose of this post, beyond my own speculation, is to maybe get perspectives from people more knowledgeable about game dev and the gaming industry than I am.

The Sims franchise is hugely popular. What's interesting to me is that ever since the original vanilla Sims 1 debuted in 2000, The Sims has basically stood alone in its specific genre.

There are other games that could be reasonably labeled as "life simulators,' but there's never really been one that's similar to The Sims. (Think like, something that is to The Sims as Cities Skylines is to SimCity.)

This is interesting to me, because there are so many complaints about The Sims 4. Very justified complaints.

For some context, I play The Sims 2, but have avoided The Sims 4 because apparently it's an overpriced, janky mess compared to its predecessors.

Overpriced DLCs that are released half-broken. A total cost of nearly $1,000 currently, if one wanted to legitimately purchase the game and all of its DLC.

Many features standard in the vanilla versions of Sims 1, 2, and 3, have only recently been released as pricey DLC, a decade or more after The Sims 4's initial release.

Example: up until a recent DLC from within the last couple of years -- in a game that, again, was released over a decade ago now -- infants were treated by the game as objects intrinsically bound to their bassinets. This was the case in The Sims 1, but not 2 or 3. It's a noticeable regression.

It legit feels like every time I read a post and its comments in /r/thesims, I find out about YET ANOTHER seemingly basic thing that was present in vanilla releases of prior Sims games, but is either still missing in Sims 4, or was only recently introduced.

For quite some time now, in the Sims 4 era (which released in 2013, iirc), there's been a very viable market for a The Sims competitor. Again, think Cities Skylines in relation to SimCity.

This has yet to occur. I'm curious as to why.

There have been a couple of potential competitors over the years. This post was inspired by my having found out that Life By You -- Paradox's answer to The SIms -- was cancelled.

The other big one is Paralives, an indie contender that's been in development for years on end. It isn't particularly close to completion at this time, with no release date in sight.

A "Simslike" could do absolute gangbusters. There are legions of Simmers dissatisfied with The Sims 4, who'd be super eager to try out a competing game in the same genre/subgenre.

So why has no one created one yet?

Possible speculative reasons:

1. It wouldn't be profitable, so it hasn't seriously been tried. I question this, as The Sims is a wildly popular franchise that's made a hell of a lot of money over the years.

2. A game of this nature is unusually difficult and costly to develop. Perhaps this is the reason? Being indie might be a factor, but I've mentioned that Paralives has been in development for ages now, without having come to fruition. Perhaps this is a type of game that's just plain hard to make?

3. Perhaps would-be competitors are hesitant because they're not sure that a competitor, on release, could really compete with the now twelve year old Sims 4 when it comes to depth and feature-richness? A possible counterpoint would be that to my understanding, The Sims 4 was quite barebones upon its initial vanilla release compared to its predecessor -- but it still sold well.

A competing "Simslike" just seems like such a no-brainer, it's such an obvious niche to be filled in the market. So there must be reasons why there isn't one.

EDIT: I found out after writing this post that Paralives now has an early access release slated for December! Excellent news. However, this still leaves the question of why it's taken this long for any competitors to arise.

This post is about action games, not RPGs. I'm fine with them in RPGs. In action games I've had some of the most epic fights against multiple phase bosses, but gee devs let me take that win sometimes.

This trend is old as sliced bread though I think Dark Souls 3 had the biggest impact in how this trend plays out, specially with Soulslikes and souls adjacent games which seems to be maybe about 70% of the melee action games out there.

Not the first DS to have multiple phases but the first to have lots of them.

I think I don't need to spell out what's annoying about multiple phases. It's when the actual fight starts at phase 3 and you just want to learn those difficult moves, so getting past phases 1 and 2 become an annoying hurdle.

Also they can be epic, early phases working as a warm up, not necessarily for the player but for the mood of the fight. But that effect quickly wears out when the final phase is so hard the problem I described above happens.

I'd be okay if they're used very sparingly and if the second phase is more about throwing a surprising, injecting some adrenaline, than amping up the difficulty. In fact, beating a multiple phase boss on the first try is also really exciting.

Or the Contra way, where bosses do have multiple phases but they just keep cycling through them. Or the old style of just making the boss faster and meaner, I can take that too.

I'm also in general done with games being mean to me. The whole souls meanness of enemies in annoying places, with annoying attacks, traps etc. Demon's Souls was some 15+ years ago, I'm ready for a game to be just difficult without being mean. Maybe my memory fails me completely here but I recall Devil May Cry 3 being hard but not mean. It didn't try to fuck with me, it just played straight.

So yeah I guess you figured out I'm playing Silksong too.

Loving it, but ugh those flying fucks standing in the path of pogo jumps and then I find my first multiple phase boss fight. I didn't play HK so I didn't know what I was getting myself into. Great game though, I don't need to recommend it because you're probably already playing it anyway. But devs stop being mean to your players and maybe retire the multiple phase boss fight. Or don't retire them, just keep them on Soulslikes, I've played enough of those and I'm not getting back to them any time soon.

Everyone loves to dunk on the "idea guy" in game dev (or anywhere, really). I came across this old article by game designer David Mullich and he's right: everyone has tons of ideas. What matters is execution, especially if you're trying to get hired.

But here's the flip side. When newcomers look at AAA and see endless sequels, reboots, remakes, remasters or studios chasing the latest trend (and failing), it's no wonder they think the industry is "lacking ideas" and that they're the hero it needs. They're not wrong to sense stagnation, they just haven't diagnosed the underlying problem.

There may not be a shortage of ideas, but AAA only embraces originality after indies prove it's safe. Or they let their ideas die in the gauntlet of skyrocketing budgets, eternal development cycles, layoffs, risk assessments and shareholder expectations, making them as worthless as when they came from the idea guy.

So when someone says, 'I just want to be the idea guy', maybe we can roll our eyes and simultaneously see them pointing towards a system that seems allergic to novelty. They see the disease, but mistake themselves for the cure.

Execution matters, but so does creating spaces where bold ideas actually survive. Oh and being able to brainstorm a 100 ideas in an hour is not the same thing as coming up with a viable, original and compelling concept worth pursuing. If we can redefine the 'idea people' to be the latter, maybe we do actually need more of those!

I’ve been replaying Spider-Man PS4 and Miles Morales, and honestly… Spider-Man 2 just doesn’t feel like the continuation it was supposed to be.

Back in the 2021 reveal trailer, the tone was darker, more grounded, even horror-inspired. Peter’s narration, Venom in the shadows, the purple map aesthetic everything pointed toward Spider-Man 2 being the dark chapter of the trilogy. The game that pushed PS5’s power to its limits.

Instead, what we got in 2023 feels rushed and softened:

• Emily May side missions, drone hunts, goofy carnival rides.
• Ganke disrespecting Peter like he isn’t the original Spider-Man.
• Mysterio reduced to mini-games instead of a terrifying, psychological villain.
• No serious fallout from Peter’s black suit corruption — no real horror tone.
• Venom doesn’t even feel that threatening.

Fans literally told Insomniac back in 2021: take your time. They could’ve delayed it into 2024–2025. We would’ve understood, just like with Across the Spider-Verse’s delay. Instead, we got a “safe” version of the game that plays more like a reboot than a continuation.

The original vision mattered:

• Peter’s black suit arc was meant to be horrifying, like Spider-Man 3’s church scene.
• Miles discovering his blue powers was supposed to be emotional and personal, not random.
• Fisk Tower, Otto’s lab, even JJJ’s role all were likely cut down or rewritten.
• This was supposed to be the real dark, horror chapter before Spider-Man 3.

I don’t think we should just “move on.” Spider-Man 3 will be amazing, but it doesn’t erase the fact Spider-Man 2 was rushed. We deserve the director’s cut of Spider-Man 2. The version we saw glimpses of in 2021.

It’s time: #ReleaseTheRealSpiderMan2

I’m a dad with limited free time, and while there are some AAA games I’d love to play, I feel as though they’ll be far too time-consuming for me. As the average age of gamers is getting higher, this must be more and more of a problem.

Games spend a lot of time encouraging you to upgrade your armour, weapons, stats etc. Many people love that stuff and that’s fine, but it bores the arse off me. Would it be possible for games to have an option to automatically equip and upgrade you to a good build without you having to get involved at all? Of course it wouldn’t be the BEST possible build, but I’d happily trade that for not spending any time messing about in menus and looking at stats. Maybe you could choose from some pre-set options such as stealth, brawler, sniper etc, according to your play-style.

On a similar note, not all side-quests are equal. Some are fun, and some are entirely missable, but there’s no way of knowing which is which until after you’ve played them. Would it be possible to select “I only want the main quest and the best of the side-quests”? Maybe if a game has 100 hours of play-time, there could be an option to choose the 50 or 30 hour versions, where only certain quests are offered to you. We already know that most 100-hour AAA games aren’t finished by most players, so why not have options to make them less time-consuming?

Do you think these ideas would work in practice? Or would there be unintended consequences? I think it would really help to beat feelings of overwhelm whenever I start a new game. It would all be optional, in the same way that difficulty settings and accessibility options are.

All opinions welcome!

The Coffin of Andy and Leyley (henceforth referred to as tcoaal) is a game that I simultaneously really like but at the same time have a hard time understanding the intention behind.

From a purely technical POV, the game is pretty good. The art is fantastic throughout, gameplay is virtually non-existent outside of some OK puzzles (I guess that's to be expected of what is in essence a visual novel) and the writing is usually funny/interesting.

But I still can't figure out what this game is about. The best I've come up with so far is that its a character study. Andy, Leyley and Renee are all 'interesting' characters. Or are they? I can't tell you why I think they're interesting, and a part of me suspects its just because they pique my morbid curiosity. I think I just like seeing fucked up people do fucked up things and then maybe getting an explanation as to why they're so fucked up (its because of other fucked up people, shocker).

Is that really what this game is? It really is a labour of love, there's nothing in it that I can seriously call low quality, but has it all amounted to nothing more than a cutesy version of LiveLeak? Is that even a bad thing?

This is a touchy subject for many gamers. As Far Cry 7 was being worked on, I noticed an article where a developer commented on how they were attempting to reinvent the formula. If the formula is perfected, meaning the concept resonates beautifully, why does the game need to be reinvented to retain originality? Gamers will proclaim that a lack of reinvention renders the game unoriginal, I think instead of it being a superficial gesture, it is merely pragmatic and even evolutionary in its own right to comprehend the concept of a game and to improve upon it, instead of adding in some grand design difference, a new way to play, isn't the viable solution to incrementally refine the games mechanisms while retaining the integrity of what has made the games function as well made titles in the first place?

Mario, as a beloved game series, is a brilliant example of switching up the formula from game to game, but what I dislike is that the concepts have been far too genius for the lack of content to be as prevalent as it is. A run through of a Mario game can literally last you twenty hours. Do I wish to experience Odyssey's concept in a further fashion than what was developed for it? Absolutely! Unfortunately, those twenty-thirty hours might be all that the concept will have to offer, because it is seen as inherently evolutionary and innovative to change up the concept of a game. Really think about it: games are formed upon pragmatic design. There are only so many ways to create the gameplay's design, such as there are then many ways to improve upon that design by smoothening and polishing the gameplay. If Nintendo revisited the Super Mario Sunshine concept today, they'd be met with too much criticism for it to be sensible, as it was a clever function that integrated into the gameplay well, and how many concepts like it truly can exist after all?

The innovation is in the brand new design, brand new adventures are enough to quantify new games being released, but not without doves of gamers proclaiming "unoriginality!" Even if the former titles in the series were loved by the very same gamers. It seems so illogical to me, to not accept that design is pragmatic in its core functions, therefore why not embrace the gameplay and want more titles that innovate on the merit of new areas instead of new gameplay features. I really don't understand why it is seen as so regressive to accept that a formula has been done so well that it could be the foundation of the future of the games in that series, if the map design and the story is completely redone, if the gameplay is made to be more fluid, if the game is more polished, where is the problem? Why the need for a grand core change in design? I think the criticisms encourage this, and gamers indirectly to directly influence future games because of this, and I hate that there is a stigma for retaining the same sort of design and the core strengths of the game, when that should be celebrated much more.

Don't get me wrong, core gameplay changes can be a beautiful thing, they have been with the Mario games even, but at what cost? Eventually, what if Nintendo runs out of new gameplay ideas for their series? What then? You could argue that then they'd go back to their basics. Is this a good, a bad, or even a great thing to you? Why? To me, it only makes sense, because whether we like it or not our depth is limited to our possibilities.

Neil Druckman has at least formerly wanted The Last of Us Part 2 to be the final installment. A game can make a pivotal gesture, a game can be transformative and emphasize its point beautifully, such as a concept can be truly so precious that it shouldn't be lost merely because a beautiful outcome has been achieved. Innovation can be realistic.

To summarize, concepts in games are key to the function of the games. It is innovative to change gameplay and key design elements of a game series. No one liked the malaria cure in Far Cry 2, it was a terrible idea if you ask me. Since then, they streamlined it out of the game, to the point that Far Cry 3 is widely considered to be an amazing entry to the series. They have been reinventing the story and the map design, and they have been iterating upon the gameplay. Some would say for the better, some would say for the worst. Regardless, for someone who thinks that the gameplay design not being redesigned by adding in a pivotal decision to the gameplay is an unoriginal basis for a game to stand on, that it makes a title less innovative as a result, why? If you do agree with me, why as well?

I’ve been thinking a lot about how much of modern gaming success comes from the modding community.

In many cases, players buy (and stay with) a game not just for the base title, but for its thriving mod ecosystem. Sometimes mods are better than the game itself. Think Skyrim, RimWorld, Cities: Skylines…

And yet, top mod creators rarely share in the economic upside. The only path to monetization is spinning off into an independent game (CS, Dota/LoL, DayZ, PUBG). Even GTA’s FiveM was so influential that Rockstar first cracked down, then acquired it.

Meanwhile, Roblox shows what’s possible when you align with creators: billions in revenue and over $1B in annual payouts to devs.

Why does the rest of the industry still assume mods must be “passion work”? What would a fairer model look like?

—-

I wrote a longer breakdown here if anyone’s curious Here’s the full breakdown on Twitter for those interested: https://x.com/LuozhuZhang/status/1963628537199673847

i’m not gonna waste your time and just get right into what i mean since this might be a little long (ENDGAME SPOILERS FOR HOLLOW KNIGHT FURTHER DOWN, the section is delineated at the beginning and end of the spoiler section if anyone wants to skip that part but still read the rest of the post)

i have 2 examples to try and illustrate what i mean, one more general that i see all the time, and one more specific that, while not entirely unique to the example i’m going to give, i definitely see less often

first, when the team behind a series that is HEAVILY story based tells an audience “it’s okay to jump into the new game without playing the previous ones!” (i personally believe this generally holds true for most sequels regardless of the type of game but for the sake of the argument i want to keep it focused on story focused stuff). i obviously understand WHY they do this, they want people to buy their game, and it’s hard enough to convince the average gamer to buy and finish ONE game, much less 2 or 3 or even more, but this just doesn’t work in practice most of the time.

if you go to play final fantasy 7 rebirth without playing remake first (and the original ff7 too but that’s also another topic), you’re not going to understand anything! the recap video the game provides is nowhere near sufficient to explain the previous 30-40 hour game and properly connect the player to the characters in the way the game wants you to be. i haven’t played the yakuza games but i know jumping into infinite wealth without playing anything prior means anything present in that game just isn’t going to be AS impactful as it should be. jumping on at the latest entry of a 20 year ongoing story, while technically something you CAN do, is by no means something anyone SHOULD do, and yet it’s something that devs continue to say constantly

second is when they say something like “all endings are equally canon!” even when there is one that is clearly and obviously the better ending. team cherry of hollow knight fame said as much in a reddit ama a few years ago, even saying that they “will do their best to incorporate all endings in future games or content”. and again, i understand WHY they say this, especially for a team as small as cherry and for a game with as many hidden goodies and secrets as hollow knight: you don’t want your players who have spent their hard-earned money supporting you to feel bad for missing content and like their experience is “lesser”, but also again, i feel like it just doesn’t really work that way in practice

(hollow knight ending spoilers incoming!!!)

base game hollow knight has 3 endings (really 2 since the third is a branch of one of the main 2). the Knight can take the place of the Hollow Knight as a vessel to try and contain the infection spreading across hallownest, with no guarantee or certainty that this will work longterm of if they will one day start leaking just like the Hollow Knight did. this can happen with or without Hornet present depending on if the player has met certain requirements. if she is, she gets sealed in the temple with the player character and presumably takes a role similar to the dreamers. that’s one option, the OTHER is that the knight can enter the dream of the hollow knight through the aid of hornet and challenges the source of the infection, eventually defeating it, and given all present information, ends the infection for good, allowing the shades of all the broken vessels to rest and pass on. (there’s another ending added in one of the dlc’s but imo it’s not worth discussing as a serious ending and to me at least comes off as more of a “what-if” scenario unless silksong makes me eat my words)

the first 2 endings have nothing wrong with them in isolation, it can be pretty bittersweet and provide enough resolution to still be very satisfying. the issue is that the existence of Dream No More ending kind of makes them completely irrelevant and, imo, almost objectively “bad” endings in comparison. when there’s an option that provides a definitive solution to the threat in the narrative, it makes the alternative that says “well, maybe this works, hopefully, fingers crossed” really not all that satisfying.

furthermore, i feel as though it’s just impossible to write a single narrative assuming ALL endings are equally valid options. assuming silksong is a sequel not a prequel (which again they might make me eat my words in just a couple days, i’m very excited despite my criticism of this line of thought from the devs), the sealed siblings ending realistically can’t be a possibility. in order for hornet to be kidnapped and taken to this new kingdom, most importantly she would need to be alive, which is debatable in that ending to begin with, but it would also require the seal on the knight to be broken which would then once again release the infection into hallownest which would THEN likely infect whoever would be trying to take hornet making the abduction impossible to begin with

(HOLLOW KNIGHT SPOILERS END)

like i explained, i understand why devs say these sorts of things, but it still just frustrates me because they ultimately lead the audience to believe things that are just not true. it makes me feel bad for the people that fall for it and end up confused or lost or with an experience that is lesser than what they deserve. am i just insane or do you guys see where i’m coming from? i’ll be happy to discuss it more in the comments if possible and anyone wants to

I mean, yes, indeed, games should try to be games. Both in storytelling and mechanics, that doesn't mean cinematic games are inherently bad, though.

Yet, I often see people claiming their weird and bad because the player needs stuff to do. (Because it's a game) So they force action scenes as gameplay. But that is a problem with the inherent writing, not the writing.

I also saw people say you can't feel sorry for characters like Nathan Drake, all cause he kills people indiscriminately. Which...no? That's dumb; those people are trying to kill him, so he kills them back. I don't know, is it just me, or do these complaints not make sense?

Over the past several years, with the widespread adoption of Unreal Engine 4/5 (and other engines like Godot, Creation, CryEngine, Unity, and even the more controlled adoption of Decima), we’ve seen a wide spectrum of games either thrive or stumble in terms of performance.

A lot of YouTubers and critics tend to blame the engines for poor performance; lately Unreal 5 (especially versions 5.1–5.3) has been singled out. But while engines do have their quirks, at the end of the day they’re just tools. Some studios ship highly polished experiences with the exact same engines that others struggle with (for example: Crytek’s own CryEngine titles vs. Star Citizen, or Epic’s Fortnite on UE, vs. Jedi Survivor).

Meanwhile, engines like Decima often get praised as “superior” because of visuals. People will point to things like: -lighting -environments -textures -character models & animations -steady frames

But here’s the thing: none of that is inherent the engine itself, engine merely provides a way to show those. Those are the results of countless talented artists, technical artists, and directors building incredible content, and of skilled teams optimizing it to run at high fidelity in real time.

Studios like Rockstar and Kojima Productions have been doing this for decades, going all the way back to the PS1 era. They’ve mastered the balance of making a game look stunning while also making it play well. That optimization is a skill, not a checkbox an engine gives you. They have done it with Fox Engine, with Decima, and with OD, I’m sure will be the case with UE5.

You don’t blame Photoshop when it begins to Chug after you drop in 200 4k textures in there after all. There are methods for everything.

TL;DR: Engines don’t make games great, developers do. I just think we should stop praising the tool and start praising the people behind it. ❤️

I can't overstate how much this infuriates me.

I LOVE roleplaying games where I actually get to roleplay and make impactful choices.

However, it seems like 99% of these games are extremely crusty top-down turn-based games.

I am not a fan of this type of gameplay whatsoever. I understand you can very easily transfer player stats into gameplay with things like hit chance, but that doesn't take away from the fact that I find this kind of combat dreadfully boring.

I'll get through it for a good story, like with Fallout 1 and 2 and Baldur's Gate 3, but it makes me wonder why there are so few games like this with fun moment-to-moment gameplay.

The only game that's really come close that I've played is Fallout New Vegas. Although the gunplay is a tad clunky, I'll take it over turn-based combat any day.

Now here's the core of the post: why are there so few games like this?

Am I overlooking a whole slew of games, or are there just genuinely very few games like this?

None of Bethesda's games have come close to being as immersive and reactive as I would like since Morrowind, even though the format perfectly lends itself to it.

Where are all the good action/shooter RPGs at?

As good as the gameplay is, Kazer to me is it's most Underrated flaw that I feel like no one is Mentioning when discussing the Gameplay, hear me out.

What make DMC such a cool franchise is not just the Gameplay but the Characters you play as. Virgil being Calm, Collected, and Reserved is portrays through his Gameplay, slice up guys like it's nothing. Same thing with Dante, being very Charming, Confident, and Flashy, His Gameplay also Reflects that as well. I mean he's literally Beating Demons up with a Motorcycle, like shits is Cool as hell. Bayonetta, Ryu, Raiden, Chai, etc these Characters and there Persona's are all reflected through there gameplay and it Fits them well and that's an aspect a lot of actions are missing, action game like LSA.

Kazer himself is Just another Generic Protagonist, his Character is Flat and it's goes against the way he play cause while his moveset is Honestly fantastic, with a bunch of Combo variety and experimentation, Kazer himself is low-key another Guy. Heck I'd argue Arena feels more real than Kazer and he's your damm weapon (Ironic ik). I know this is a Minor Gripe and a lot of y'all might this I'm just Overthinking this but like for me, who I play as just as important to what I'm doing. The Games fun don't get me wrong but I rather play as someone else that Kazer (It also doesn't help that the English Dub is Atrocious 💀).

With the release of Delta I'm reminded of the period of time around 2015 when Konami fired Kojima, removed PT from people's playstations, and generally seemed like they were completely giving up on the gaming market.

I wasn't super informed or looking into what was happening but I was extremely disappointed whenever I heard news about Konami. I was told several things like that they were taking veteran game developers on contracts and putting them on pachinko manufacturing lines which now I realize is extremely unlikely but it shows just how bad things were that my teenage brain believed it.

Recently I heard a small snippet of a podcast saying that the reason why Konami has turned around from what seemed like an exit from the gaming market to desperately clawing their way back is due to stricter laws cracking down on gambling in japan and missing out on the huge spike of revenue that most digital entertainment developers got from covid.

So I'd like to ask you all for more details and understanding of the situation, was Konami actually trying to abandon video games and go all in on gambling? Or is that just what it seemed like?

Whenever someone asks “why do you play games?” the easy answer is “because they’re fun.” But I don’t think that really captures it.

It feels kind of like saying you eat food just because you’re hungry. Sure, that’s technically true, but food is also about flavor, culture, memory, and sharing meals with people you care about. Hunger doesn’t explain why a favorite meal sticks in your head for years.

For me, games are the same way. The best moments aren’t just about “fun.” They’re about the journey. The close calls, the failures, the chaos with friends, and the times you almost lost it all. Those are the memories I still talk about years later.

That’s why I find it interesting that communities like Dwarf Fortress literally say “losing is fun.” And designers like Miyazaki and Chris Wilson talk about how death, failure, and high stakes make victories more meaningful.

So I’m curious: do you think “fun” is too shallow of an answer for why we play games? If not fun, how would you describe it?

Hey, all!

In this thread, the rules are more relaxed. The idea is that this megathread will provide a space for otherwise rule-breaking content, as well as allowing for a slightly more conversational tone rather than every post and comment needing to be an essay.

Top-level comments on this post should aim to follow the rules for submitting threads. However, the following rules are relaxed:

• 3. Specificity, Clarity, and Detail
• 4. No Advice
• 5. No List Posts
• 8. No topics that belong in other subreddits
• 9. No Retired Topics
• 11. Reviews must follow these guidelines

So feel free to talk about what you've been playing lately or ask for suggestions. Feel free to discuss gaming fatigue, FOMO, backlogs, etc, from the retired topics list. Feel free to take your half-baked idea for a post to the subreddit and discuss it here (you can still post it as its own thread later on if you want). Just keep things civil!

Also, as a reminder, we have a Discord server where you can have much more casual, free-form conversations! https://discord.gg/truegaming

I was curious - has there been any word from them that the DLSS version change done by the Nvidia App on multiplayer games wont get people banned. Transformer model is a significant change if a game is not based on that DLSS algorithim.

Ive always seen warnings for DLSS mods that they may result in bans for games that dont support DLSS; so Ive always focused on using DLSS mods only for single player games.

With Nvidia App you can now update it to current DLSS with Preset K, for the entire computer; overriding game files.

Is this going to result in a banning issue or are devs just gonna let this slide?

There is no doubt to me that the best multiplayer experiences are with your friends in local play. The obvious reason is that your friends are people you already know you get along with and that you get to see their reactions to your plays. I think there is more to it. Being familiar with your opponents and playing according to that knowledge is some of the best gameplay multiplayer games have to offer.

The main difference between playing a human and playing a bot is that the human is, well human. Humans are flawed. They don't know everything about the game, the react slowly, they panic, they don't pay attention. All these things can be exploited to your advantage. When you get to play the same opponent over and over, you get to know their shortcomings and come up with strategies to exploit them. In turn, they are doing the same to you. The big thing with humans is that they learn, and they improve. That knowledge gap you exploited, well your opponent filled it. That bad habit you tried to capitalize on, it isn't there anymore. You now have to find new flaws and change your game plan. This is what multiplayer is about for me, using the tools at your disposal to "solve" your opponent.

Metas generally get a bad rap because they limit the play-space by giving out quasi-axioms on how to play. Set and adopted metas are indeed boring, but creating and molding the meta is where its at. While the general meta will be molded by top players, within your microscosm you get to make the meta shifts and that is the fun part.

This obviously works best when playing your friends over and over again, compared to matchmaking with thousands of players online, but there are some genres that can give you this experience within a single match. Fighting games in particular let you do this within a match and it's one of the main draws of the genre. Mobas having relatively few players and longer match times let you get a feel for your opponents and adapt to them within a single game.

Another great aspect of being confronted to the same opponent over a longer period is the creation of rivalries. Having an opponent that is often pushing the same point as you or often side by side with you on the leaderboard makes for some nice player storytelling. Getting a kill is so much sweeter if you kill someone that has been bullying you for multiple rounds. One small detail I always appreciated in Battlefield (which usually doesn't let you get familiar with your opponents) is that it displays how many times you've killed each other with opponents. If you see that someone has killed you multiple times, you'll make note of their username and placement and try to take them down.

What I describe is often incompatible with matchmaking, as teams and people gets mixed up every match. I would like to see games facilitate facing the same opponent multiple times, even if it's just a rematch feature.

With the Netflix Assassin’s Creed series on the way, I keep thinking about how other adaptations have reignited interest in their source material. Cyberpunk: Edgerunners gave CDPR’s game a second life, and The Witcher show pulled a lot of new players into The Witcher 3 years after release.

Do you think the AC show could do the same for this franchise?

• Could we see a wave of new players picking up the Ezio Collection, Black Flag, or Origins?

• Might Ubisoft even tie in remasters or promotions to ride the momentum?

• Or is AC too different from those other cases since each entry has its own self-contained protagonist and setting?

Personally, I’d love if the show encouraged people who’ve never touched the series to experience the classic games, especially the Ezio trilogy.

What do you think — could Netflix breathe new life into older Assassin’s Creed titles, or will the impact mostly stay limited to the show itself?

Hi 👋

I am conducting academic research for my Master’s thesis at the University of Science and Technology in Krakow. The study focuses on toxicity in online multiplayer games, something many of us have likely encountered—from subtle sarcasm to intense, aggressive outbursts.

Survey details:

Purpose: To better understand the forms, frequency, and impact of toxic behavior in online multiplayer gaming communities.

Researcher: Anna Kucia

Contact: akucia@student.agh.edu.pl

Institution: University of Science and Technology in Krakow

Duration: ~5 minutes

Format: Anonymous, single and multiple-choice questions

Survey link: https://forms.cloud.microsoft/e/DTTGTV5sHF

To encourage conversation, I’d love to hear your thoughts on these points:

• What do you think drives toxic behavior in online games: competitiveness, anonymity, frustration, or something else?

• Do you believe certain game genres foster more toxicity than others?

• Have you ever witnessed or experienced a case of toxicity that stood out as especially memorable or absurd?