What's your Patient Gamer's Unpopular Opinion?
What's your Patient Gamer's Unpopular Opinion?
Share your unfiltered, unpopular gaming opinions and let's dive into some real discussions. If you come across a view you disagree with, feel free to (respectfully) defend your perspective. I don't want to see anyone say stuff like "we're all entitled to our own opinions." Let's pretend like gaming is a science and we are all award winning scientists.
My Unpopular Opinion:
I believe the criticism against battle royales is often unwarranted. Most complaints revolve around constant content updates, microtransactions, and toxic player communities
Many criticize the frequent content updates, often cosmetic, as overwhelming. However, it's optional, and no other industry receives flak for releasing more. I've never seen anyone complain about too many Lays or coke flavors.
Pay-to-win concerns are mostly outdated; microtransactions are often for cosmetics. If you don't have the self control to not buy a purple glittery gun, then I'm glad you don't play the games anymore, but I don't think it makes the game bad.
The annoying player bases is the one I understand the most. I don't really have a point against this except that it's better to play with friends.
Overall I think battle royale games are pretty fun and rewarding. Some of my favorite gaming memories were playing stuff like apex legends late at night with friends or even playing minecraft hunger games with my cousins like 10 years ago. A long time ago I heard in a news segment that toy companies found out that people are willing to invest a lot of time and energy into winning ,if they know there will be a big reward at the end, and battle royales tap into that side of my brain.
This is just my opinion
You're viewing a single thread.
-
NFT games and using cryptocurrency in games could - hypothetically - have their place, but "investing" in crypto as a way of making money (instead of as a way to take control of money back from central banks) is never going to let that happen. They are a dead end feature solely due to human greed, not due to a flaw in integrating games with a wider decentralized network.
-
Star Citizen is not and never was a scam. It took 10 years, but that video of the seamless transitions from space to atmosphere to landing zone to city and back is about an already available feature, only the better graphics and a couple map updates shown in the video are unimplemented.
-
The people who hate on Star Citizen should hate on games like Decentraland and Star Atlas, which take the early access model and abuse it. You should especially hate Star Atlas, which actually is everything bad you've heard about Star Citizen but with worthlessly unimplemented NFTs for the "pixel starships". Also note that Star Atlas ships appear to be weird amalgamations of Star Citizen ship designs, but the (stated) Star Atlas ship role counterparts cost 3x the original price of backing Star Citizen the moment the site for Star Atlas was up.
-
Regardless of all the above, its my money that I spent on Star Citizen. I'm getting really f-ing tired of being judged for that, especially because I am in a position where I can live in relative comfort but do NOT have the money, neurophysical ability, or social influence to actually improve reality. Building an escapist space fantasy and supporting a community that just wants to have fun is a far better reason to make a video game than taking preorders for games that are tied to draconian DRM software like EA and Ubisoft, or building a pyramid scheme based on a cabal of cryptobros like the "creators" of Star Atlas.
-
Being patient is fine once. I enjoyed watching Star Citizen grow. I think we need to admit that ALL triple-A now have a 10-year development schedule, and that we need to re-evaluate whether every game needs the player to make a commitment to enjoy the game without buying in-game content. I dedicate myself to LEGO Brawls, Crossout and OpenTTD, I have the time to play Star Citizen too but that's my limit. I can't dedicate all my time off to a game after that. Maybe games need to be shorter again?
If you're not designing the NFT game around the profit and trading aspect - then the NFT is pointless and you could just make a game with tradeable assets registered to a conventional relational database.
Aka: What MMO's, browser social platforms and Steam itself has been doing successfully for more than a decade before NFT's showed up.
It's a technological dead end (in gaming) even without the greed, because the use cas is already done cheaper, simpler and better.
The only thing I agree with you in any of these is that they are probably indeed unpopular opinions, so gj I guess.
- I whole heartedly agree. NFT/cryptocurrencies have their place, but I haven't seen that place in practice. The tech is good, greed isn't. Maybe I'll build a game someday to prove it.
- I hate the term "scam" because most people use it to mean "not a good deal" when it actually means "getting something other than what was advertised." In this case, Star Citizen had a huge case of scope creep to the point where it could be considered a scam because it shouldn't take 10 years to deliver what they originally promised.
- Haven't heard of either, I'm guessing I wouldn't like them. I avoid Early Access games as a general rule.
- Agreed. I didn't back Star Citizen nor have I played it. So I don't talk about it. In fact, this might be the first time I've engaged in a discussion about it on lemmy, and I'm only doing it to discuss the topic of "scams," not the game itself. However, you draw a false equivalency, you can just play indie or older games instead, that's what I do.
- Yes, games should be shorter, and I'm happy with less tech as well. I play a lot of indie games, and only get AAA games when they provide a tight experience.
On the topic of MMOs, I want to point out that I generally avoid them. I think they can be done well, I just think they've been captured by the "do dailies to progress" perspective where you miss out if you don't dedicate your life to it.
I want to make an MMO that respects the player's time. The best way I can think of it working is for it to be cyclical. As in, you play until some in-game event happens (my preference is a large guild battle over some resource), then the world resets and the winners get some boon and everyone carries something forward to the next round (new players pick a starting perk). Cycles should be relatively short (days, maybe weeks, and definitely not years), and each cycle should bring something new to the game. I would play that, but I'm definitely not playing a longer game like Star Citizen.
Bit late, but your last point reminded me about Foxhole, a top down war game, which have these mmo like bits, and also has a cyclic wars, but these don't give any advantage in the next war.
I don't play it, but the biggest downsides I heard are 1) losing ground on the battlefield (progress) while logged out, as you can't help your faction while offline, and 2) the players working in logistics (collecting ores to craft supplies for the frontline) find that gameplay loop repetitive/boring, while its crucial for the faction victory.
I guess it makes sense this is one of the biggest hurdles in pvp mmo, since in pve mmo the enemies wait for you, and it isn't possible to lose major progress, especially offline. (random thought: is Rust a pvp mmo? That's kinda cursed.)
The other problem with cyclic games is the non existent progression, since things reset. Most mmo players do the 10+ hour grinds on quests for the shiny thing or the prestige titles, like getting lv99 in Runescape. Even in Escape from Tarkov at the end of wipe most players stop playing, since they feel it would be a waste of effort.
The idea of boons or things that carries over is interesting, but of they stack through multiple wipes there could be a super guild who gets an unfair advantage.
So yeah, surprisingly, game design is hard (also I dont have any gamedev experience, just like thinking about it)
losing ground on the battlefield (progress) while logged out
I'm thinking of allowing players to configure an AI to work while they're out. So they can leave their character harvesting resources on loop, doing simple fetch quests, and perhaps a set of actions to run if attacked. That way you can't just wait until a lot of them are offline to storm their area, but being offline would have a penalty.
I also want to make a mobile app so you can update the AI controlling your character at any point, as well as engage in trades while "offline."
The idea of boons or things that carries over is interesting, but of they stack through multiple wipes there could be a super guild who gets an unfair advantage.
I'm planning on some kind of "perma-death" as well, so if you die, you lose your character, but you get an XP gain boost until you're back at your old level. The idea is you have a "soul" that inhabits other bodies, and that soul helps the body gain new skills, though it doesn't need to be the same skills you had last time. So you could go from a mage to a tank and get the same boost.
The boon would merely jumpstart that process in the next game, like maybe you get a one-time XP gain boost, it's easier to find resources, etc, but those effects would either only last until your first death, or not be useful in the late game. So you get a temporary benefit, but your faction also has a target on its back.
I'm still working out the details, and I don't have time to work on it anyway, but I think it would be an interesting experiment. Maybe I'll try out a smaller version of it in 2D or something to play with the mechanics.
-