this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
240 points (99.2% liked)

Games

16645 readers
896 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] snooggums@midwest.social 19 points 3 months ago (2 children)

There are a ton of underwhelming and outright predatory single player games too. I think the biggest takeaway is that live service is the new hotness for over monetized live service games using popular IP and players should be extra wary of those games just like they should be for single player games.

There are still a few live service games that are not predatory. I picked up Helldivers 2 for the $40 standard price and have unlocked all the warbonds and bought a chunk of the stuff off the super store with super credits earned in missions. While you can spend more money on the game if you want, it is not in your face or predatory at all. And they are keeping the living world changing on a constant basis.

It can be done, just have to watch out for the worst offenders like Multiversus.

[–] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (4 children)

God, helldiver's is a little intimidating with the constant updates to the game.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago

Lol I am on the opposite side of the spectrum. I've unlocked everything possible with medals and am constantly looking for them to add new content for me to spend them on.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 4 points 3 months ago

It has a lot of bugs that are not due to the live service approach, and they are improving their patching process.

The live service part about new missions and storyline can be joined at any time, no more complicated then when released.

[–] vinceman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 months ago

But the legitimately nice thing about Helldivers is you can look through all of the updates, and decide which you want over time.

[–] all-knight-party@kbin.run 2 points 3 months ago

It's slowed down now, and either way you can feel free to run missions at any difficulty you're comfortable with to get equipment for viable builds.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't care if it's predatory; the server requirement means they can change that at any time. It also means that it's not built to last like thousands of other quality games are. Helldivers 2 will be completely unplayable in 30 years, but we'll still be able to play Baldur's Gate 3 no matter what happens.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Not every game needs to be playable forever. Yes, BG3 should be playable indefinitely and with mods it would probably be worth it too!

But there is also space for games that have a design for a shared group experience with a changing world that will result in a limited lifespan. If the world in HD2 didn't chsnge and there wasn't an evolving setting it would probaably grow stale a lot faster as the gsme play itself is repetitive. Events like wiping the automatons off the map and them reappearing are only clever once, and wouldn't hold up on a replay. Without major orders there is less community engagement with the fantastic setting leading to more multiplayer dives once all the unlockable stuff has been unlocked.

It is a different kind of game and there is space for that alongside the other replayable games that don't have a limited lifespan. It isn't like all the games similar to BG3 are going to hold up nearly as long as BG3 either, it stands out as one of the best of its genre.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why not? Surely after some time, HD2 would be fun to replay, even if the content was the same as the last time. Not every game needs to be continually played forever, but games should be replayable forever. I still replay very linear games periodically even though I'm not seeing anything new, because I want to relive my memories of the game.

Another option is procedural generation, which would work really well for HD2. That's a pretty good stand-in for constantly evolving content.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The HD2 maps are procedurally generated so that they are not identical each time you play.

The overall storyline is set, but they craft how it plays out in response to community engagement, which isn't possible with random generation. We never would have had the mines vs orphans set up in random generation.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but once the storyline is played out, it could certainly be made available offline, no?

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The shared mutiplayer experience available offline?

Ok.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

LAN and direct IP connections allow for network multiplayer games to work when official servers are no longer operational.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And self-hosted servers are a thing. By "offline," I mean "not connected to official servers."

[–] snooggums@midwest.social -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That is not what offline means.

If it's self-hostable, it absolutely is. I self-host Minecraft on my home LAN and my kids can absolutely play even if the Internet goes out. That's by definition offline, though you can certainly put it on a public server if you choose.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I can play offline with tens of thousands of other players in a dynamic real time campaign on a LAN?

Neat!

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, you can't. They decided not to give you that functionality. But amateurs are able to get pirate MMO servers up just fine until the lawyers come through, so it's all possible for us to do if they let us.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Cool, so it doesn't matter if the official game is live service then.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion from that.

[–] wolfshadowheart@leminal.space 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Lost Planet, there's plenty of examples of this working??

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Lost Planet has a shared multiplayer experience with thousands of other players offline?

I guess the context of how many are sharing the multiplayer experience needs to be explicitly stated.

[–] wolfshadowheart@leminal.space 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Gameplay wise it's very similar, and it's not like adding fake "players" is unheard of in games, like .//Hack or Goat Simulator.

You don't need to act like it's leaps and bounds away

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago

I'm not talking about filling in with bots, I'm talking about a large active community of humans.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not every game needs to be playable forever.

Yes it does! To not allow for that is purposely delivering you a worse product than they ought to, not to mention destroying the history of our medium. It would be a damn shame if your favorite movie from 30 years ago didn't survive long enough for you to see it. That these games are designed to disappear is completely unnecessary. If the game gets repetitive after a while, that just means it's the same as every other video game. You had your fun, now put it down and play something else. In a world where your game lives on forever, words like "engagement" are meaningless. People will play a game as long as it's fun. You can play a game multiplayer as long as you have a handful of people who want to play it with you. And if it takes decades for you to boot it up again, that's fine too, as long as you're able to run the server yourself.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Summer sports leagues are bullshit because they don't last forever!

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Summer sports leagues aren't a computer program that's capable of being copy and pasted ad infinitum. You can play baseball forever without someone's permission. You can play chess forever without someone's permission. Live service games are basically like putting an expiration date on chess.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Sports are able to be replayed indefinitely.

Summer sports leagues are specificly set up for a limited time engagement based on how the games play out and respond to the player base. It is a perfect comparison to well executed live service games.

Not all gsmes need single player or long term playability just like not all games need online multiplayer.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, it's not. Because the sport doesn't disappear when the league is over. If you want to run a league for StarCraft: Brood War, you can do that with a Discord server. If you want to run a league for Hyperscape, the game is fucking gone.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You should really complain about how baseball doesn't have a single player mode.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You really should understand what the actual complaint is.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I disagree with the complaint being valid for every single game in existence.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Then go ahead and fight for your forced obsolescence. I personally prefer games and other creative works that don't arbitrarily delete themselves. Meanwhile, Ubisoft convinces people that it must be this way while they decommission one version of The Crew so that they upsell you on a sequel.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Sure, man. I've just been telling you to stop having fun this whole time, regardless of the problem statement in title of the article we're discussing. I think we're done here.