Jerykk wrote on Dec 16, 2014, 04:14:

Quinn wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 19:45:

Redmask wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 19:21:

Quinn wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 13:57:
No matter how good games like Wasteland 2 and Divinity Original Sin are, they are fillers to me. Not remotely as good as the stuff like Dragon Age, The Witcher, Mass Effect, etc. There's a reason developing the latter games takes and costs more. I feel that reason every damn minute playing, forgotten that I'm still on Earth.

That's because your taste is shallow, you admitted it already. You want visuals and thin gameplay over depth and complexity, that's fine. It's not a bad thing because everyone has different taste so whatever. I like plenty of trashy movies and books. No one cares until you start acting foolish about it and make ridiculous comparisons.

Give the Wasteland 2 devs 50 million to make a game like Bioware then I'm sure they will produce some fabulous spectacle to dazzle you.

"That's because your taste is shallow". *sigh* Such nonsense. Like I implied earlier, if that was the case I wouldn't enjoy books as much. It's about the way a story is told, really (if a game is devoid of one, like most sims for example, I don't touch them to begin with). For me, games like Wasteland and Divinity do have a story but its emphesis is mostly on combat and micromanagement. I don't see people play those type of games for the story (same goes for HoM&M for example). Then there's games who focus way more on the story and how it's told, and not just the story but a focus on the world the stoey occurs in. Those games would crumble to dust if the player wasn't motivated to find out more about the world and move on in the story. Those games are DA:I, The Witcher etc etc. That's what I meant to say with the jigsaw puzzle and reading a book comparison. I didn't mean to say one is worse than the other. A person can find joy in completing a jigsaw puzzle not because they desperately want to see the picture a complete jigsaw puzzle shows, but because of the act of just doing it. A person mostly doesn't read a book just for the act of reading, if you know what I mean. That's the difference. You can be both type of gamers but I'm mostly the book reading one, which is maybe why I have a hard time trying to understand all the complaints about the UI and gameplay in DA:I btw.

Wall of text, sorry. Smartphone.

Out of curiosity, have you actually played WL2 or D:OS? Neither game was as pretentious as Bioware's games but I thought their writing was interesting enough. Aside from the companions, I thought DA:I's writing was fairly mediocre. The story, characters and quests simply weren't as compelling as they were in DA:O. Also, Bioware's RPGs have a heavy emphasis on combat and micromanagement. They are all squad based and combat is often the only solution to any given problem.

I have played D:OS about 15 hours. Wasteland less because I realized sooner the game didnt have a hold on me whatsoever. I thought I loved D:OS until I realized I hadn't touched the game for 2 weeks without giving it a thought.

Honestly, I can't put my finger on it how it is DA, Risen 3 and older games like Neverwinter Nights win my complete heart while games like Wasteland 2 and D:OS leave me cold in the end. They just do. I'd have to chew on it for a while.

Btw, I agree with your complaints about DA:I. Verno's too (the main story is way too short compared to all the filler stuff). I do praise the game though. Highly. And I'd recommend it to anyone. If they made it a tad less open-world and focussed more on the main story... I'd have built a freaking pedestal for this game. In the middle of my living room. xD

DA:I feels like the DA2 team trying to move back to DA:O without anyone from the DA:O team to hold their hand and show them the way. I don't mind a short game if the content is meaningful but this goes the other direction. A bunch of banal content designed to inflate game time with a very short story. The amount of superficial elements in the game is bordering on comical. Nearly every quest is resolved by fighting and the amount of quests without even text dialogue is kind of alarming. The story itself probably would've been better served by a 40 page choose your own adventure book. The ending is a big let down and really gut punches the build up they had going.

I liked the game because there aren't many RPGs on the market and your first time checking out the various zones was fun but I'm bouncing pretty hard off it trying to do a second run. It just feels superficial and without substance, just makes me want to replay DA:O instead.

I don't regret the money spent on it but after finishing the game and thinking about it I can't say I loved or even particularly liked it either. A few memorable moments in the story, a lot of annoyances from the AI/UI and not much else to take away. Also this game has the clunkiest CQC I've ever seen, so glad I played ranged.

That aside, I'm happy that they're moving in somewhat of the right direction instead of doubling down on DA2 bullshit.

This comment was edited on Dec 16, 2014, 09:02.

Quinn wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 19:45:

Redmask wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 19:21:

Quinn wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 13:57:
No matter how good games like Wasteland 2 and Divinity Original Sin are, they are fillers to me. Not remotely as good as the stuff like Dragon Age, The Witcher, Mass Effect, etc. There's a reason developing the latter games takes and costs more. I feel that reason every damn minute playing, forgotten that I'm still on Earth.

That's because your taste is shallow, you admitted it already. You want visuals and thin gameplay over depth and complexity, that's fine. It's not a bad thing because everyone has different taste so whatever. I like plenty of trashy movies and books. No one cares until you start acting foolish about it and make ridiculous comparisons.

Give the Wasteland 2 devs 50 million to make a game like Bioware then I'm sure they will produce some fabulous spectacle to dazzle you.

"That's because your taste is shallow". *sigh* Such nonsense. Like I implied earlier, if that was the case I wouldn't enjoy books as much. It's about the way a story is told, really (if a game is devoid of one, like most sims for example, I don't touch them to begin with). For me, games like Wasteland and Divinity do have a story but its emphesis is mostly on combat and micromanagement. I don't see people play those type of games for the story (same goes for HoM&M for example). Then there's games who focus way more on the story and how it's told, and not just the story but a focus on the world the stoey occurs in. Those games would crumble to dust if the player wasn't motivated to find out more about the world and move on in the story. Those games are DA:I, The Witcher etc etc. That's what I meant to say with the jigsaw puzzle and reading a book comparison. I didn't mean to say one is worse than the other. A person can find joy in completing a jigsaw puzzle not because they desperately want to see the picture a complete jigsaw puzzle shows, but because of the act of just doing it. A person mostly doesn't read a book just for the act of reading, if you know what I mean. That's the difference. You can be both type of gamers but I'm mostly the book reading one, which is maybe why I have a hard time trying to understand all the complaints about the UI and gameplay in DA:I btw.

Wall of text, sorry. Smartphone.

Out of curiosity, have you actually played WL2 or D:OS? Neither game was as pretentious as Bioware's games but I thought their writing was interesting enough. Aside from the companions, I thought DA:I's writing was fairly mediocre. The story, characters and quests simply weren't as compelling as they were in DA:O. Also, Bioware's RPGs have a heavy emphasis on combat and micromanagement. They are all squad based and combat is often the only solution to any given problem.

Finally, the complaints about the UI and gameplay in DA:I have nothing to do with presentation or story. The tactical cam suffers from a number of problems, like not zooming out far enough, snapping to characters when you select them and arbitrarily colliding with the environment. DA:O was designed with the tactical cam in mind. DA:I clearly was not. There are also some baffling control issues, like characters not automatically running up to targets when you click on them or characters not auto-attacking when selected. Then there's the 8 slot limit of the hotbar, which serves no purpose other than catering to gamepads and discourages you from unlocking new active abilities in the late game. As for the gameplay, the side-quests were extremely half-assed. "Collect 10 shards!" "Close 5 rifts!" "Claim 10 landmarks!" "Read this note, then read another note, then find a loot container!" This is the stuff of MMOs, emphasizing quantity over quality. Bioware was so focused on creating a huge game that they forgot to fill it with interesting content.

DA:I is not a bad game. I wouldn't have put over 100 hours into it if it were. I liked the companions, I liked the combat, I liked the crafting and I liked exploring the various hubs. But the game has plenty of immersion-breaking flaws that other, lower-budget RPGs like WL2 or D:OS do not.

PHJF wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 12:51:

The fact that you consider Wasteland 2 "simple" or "half-arsed" is downright absurd. There's nothing simple about it.

Except, you know, the combat, which is a majority of the game.

I dunno about you but I spent a good amount of time exploring, talking to NPCs and doing quests. Quests with branching paths that had an impact on the narrative and game world.

Was the combat simplistic? Sure. But combat is pretty low priority to me in an RPG. WL2's combat was good enough and about on par with Fallout's combat. Like Fallout, WL2 had interesting quest design, which DA:I severely lacked.

You don't understand the complaints about DA:I because you're ridiculously one sided about it but that's a different matter entirely. Point remains, comparing indie RPGs to AAA titles makes no sense. Most Kickstarter RPGs don't get 3 years and 50 million dollars so there are tradeoffs in production values. Steam gives us more choice than ever so pick whatever suits you and play it. Publishers like EA are the ones pulling their games from Steam to get more of a cut, indie games aren't pushing anything off.

It's a big market with plenty of room for all sorts of games.

A more valid comparison would be why the 'open world' in DA:I sucks so much compared to Skyrim. Why are most NPCs useless? No day night cycle, nothing but rudimentary AI routines and all that shit. But since you're one sided and overly defensive about that game, here's one for you, why does the combat and story in Skyrim suck so much compared to DA:O or DA:I? Blahblahyaddayadda. Different games made by different companies with different priorities.

'I dont understand how anyone can enjoy ___________' can be said by anyone about anything ever.

This comment was edited on Dec 15, 2014, 20:02.

Redmask wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 19:21:

Quinn wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 13:57:
No matter how good games like Wasteland 2 and Divinity Original Sin are, they are fillers to me. Not remotely as good as the stuff like Dragon Age, The Witcher, Mass Effect, etc. There's a reason developing the latter games takes and costs more. I feel that reason every damn minute playing, forgotten that I'm still on Earth.

That's because your taste is shallow, you admitted it already. You want visuals and thin gameplay over depth and complexity, that's fine. It's not a bad thing because everyone has different taste so whatever. I like plenty of trashy movies and books. No one cares until you start acting foolish about it and make ridiculous comparisons.

Give the Wasteland 2 devs 50 million to make a game like Bioware then I'm sure they will produce some fabulous spectacle to dazzle you.

"That's because your taste is shallow". *sigh* Such nonsense. Like I implied earlier, if that was the case I wouldn't enjoy books as much. It's about the way a story is told, really (if a game is devoid of one, like most sims for example, I don't touch them to begin with). For me, games like Wasteland and Divinity do have a story but its emphesis is mostly on combat and micromanagement. I don't see people play those type of games for the story (same goes for HoM&M for example). Then there's games who focus way more on the story and how it's told, and not just the story but a focus on the world the stoey occurs in. Those games would crumble to dust if the player wasn't motivated to find out more about the world and move on in the story. Those games are DA:I, The Witcher etc etc. That's what I meant to say with the jigsaw puzzle and reading a book comparison. I didn't mean to say one is worse than the other. A person can find joy in completing a jigsaw puzzle not because they desperately want to see the picture a complete jigsaw puzzle shows, but because of the act of just doing it. A person mostly doesn't read a book just for the act of reading, if you know what I mean. That's the difference. You can be both type of gamers but I'm mostly the book reading one, which is maybe why I have a hard time trying to understand all the complaints about the UI and gameplay in DA:I btw.

Wall of text, sorry. Smartphone.

Quinn wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 13:57:
No matter how good games like Wasteland 2 and Divinity Original Sin are, they are fillers to me. Not remotely as good as the stuff like Dragon Age, The Witcher, Mass Effect, etc. There's a reason developing the latter games takes and costs more. I feel that reason every damn minute playing, forgotten that I'm still on Earth.

You want visuals and thats the most important metric to you, whatever. It's kind of lame to sit around dissing one game that gets has like 1/50th the budget of another. So go play Dragon Age, no one is stopping you or asking you to play Wasteland 2. It's there if you want to and otherwise have fun waiting 3 years for the next game. Everyone has different taste so whatever. I like plenty of trashy movies and books. No one cares until you start acting foolish about it and make ridiculous comparisons.

Give the Wasteland 2 devs 50 million to make a game like Bioware then I'm sure they will produce some fabulous spectacle to dazzle you.

It's not an either or scenario anyway. We get both games on the market so people can make their choice or simply play both. This isn't consoles with team sony or team microsoft so maybe stop treating it that way. Don't like indie titles? Don't play indie titles. Their presence on Steam has nothing to do with EA pulling titles off to put on Origin and it doesn't diminish any of the other stuff you play so why whine about it?

This comment was edited on Dec 15, 2014, 19:32.

PHJF wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 12:51:

The fact that you consider Wasteland 2 "simple" or "half-arsed" is downright absurd. There's nothing simple about it.

Except, you know, the combat, which is a majority of the game.

I didn't mind so much that the combat was simple, but there was way too much of it for how simple it was, and nowhere nearly enough cleverly planned encounters (such as when the robots ambush your base in the plant in California ; that was a really well-executed combat. It was tough to survive, forced you to make some tactical choices, and it was fun to play.)

And then there was the weird disconnect between skill levels. I'd basically maxed out my combat skills by the time I went to Cali, which made all the combat there just a boring attrition slog of watching numbers dwindle until Yet Another Robot with 400 health had died, but at the same time all my usage skills that were at level 6-8 become completely useless since every single skill check in California was blatantly level 10 or higher.

I finally gave up playing it in Hollywood. Keep meaning to go back, but really have no desire to.

All that said, I think they delivered a great game for their Kickstarter budget.

Jerykk wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 12:33:

Quinn wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 05:43:

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 14, 2014, 20:12:

Quinn wrote on Dec 14, 2014, 18:28:
My god Steam is becoming a fucking mess. Indie & early-access & Free To Play garbage everywhere I look. I personally don't upgrade my PC for €1200,- every 3 years to play that weird arcady shite. Immersion, man. Some quality RPG stuff. No sidescrollers or random generating maps crap. Hate to see this becoming the new PC thang.

/rage
(seriously, open your Steam app on your smartphone right now and feel where I'm coming from)

83 hours into DA:I and still got 3 huge areas to explore. Loving it. Can't wait for The Witcher 3 either. Luckily not all devs resort to the low-effort-big-cash-in shite Steam is swamped with these days.

Weird. I feel like you're me. Same feeling about Steam and I'm at the same point in DA:I as you and loving it. Weird.

Somehow read over this post last night (it was 4AM :P). Feels good to see I'm not the only one who feels this way about Steam! Funny how I'm stepping on people's toes here, obviously. Obviously, we can all have our opinions as long as it's not in conflict with others.

I just hate these half-arsed, simple games -- and for the record, I'm comparing it to stuff like DA:I, The Witcher, Wolfenstein, Skyrim etc. There's PC gamers here who act like this and that relatively simple indie-game is their wet dream come true, yet try their hardest to bitch about everything a big fish releases simply because it "can take the beating" (learned that much from earlier threads). Silly. There's this little and maybe irrational fear inside me other devs will catch wind of this thang going on, and maybe in a few years all we have is Wastelands, Dungeon Defenders and side-scrolling survival sims. While all these kinda games are fun in their own way, there's one thing they can't deliver and that's immersion, which is why they leave me as cold as ice.

The fact that you consider Wasteland 2 "simple" or "half-arsed" is downright absurd. There's nothing simple about it. It's a 80+ hour CRPG with tons of meaningful choices. Having completed both it and DA:I, I can safely say that the quest design in Wasteland 2 was way more interesting than the quest design in DA:I.

No, the only reason you'd ever classify Wasteland 2 as simple or half-arsed is because of its presentation. If the only thing you care about is presentation, no wonder people are offended by your comments. They come across as incredibly ignorant and shallow.

The question is simple: Do the story and situations in Wasteland 2 move you as much as the stuff in Mass Effect and Dragon Age did? I highly doubt it. Being emotionally involved, that's the immersion I need. Do the latter games only immerse in that fashion because of the visuals? Well, because I can get as emotionally immersed into a book as I would in said games, it doesn't have to be the case.

No matter how good games like Wasteland 2 and Divinity Original Sin are, they are fillers to me. Not remotely as good as the stuff like Dragon Age, The Witcher, Mass Effect, etc. There's a reason developing the latter games takes and costs more. I feel that reason every damn minute playing, forgotten that I'm still on Earth.

The fact that you consider Wasteland 2 "simple" or "half-arsed" is downright absurd. There's nothing simple about it.

Except, you know, the combat, which is a majority of the game.

Quinn wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 05:43:

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 14, 2014, 20:12:

Quinn wrote on Dec 14, 2014, 18:28:
My god Steam is becoming a fucking mess. Indie & early-access & Free To Play garbage everywhere I look. I personally don't upgrade my PC for €1200,- every 3 years to play that weird arcady shite. Immersion, man. Some quality RPG stuff. No sidescrollers or random generating maps crap. Hate to see this becoming the new PC thang.

/rage
(seriously, open your Steam app on your smartphone right now and feel where I'm coming from)

83 hours into DA:I and still got 3 huge areas to explore. Loving it. Can't wait for The Witcher 3 either. Luckily not all devs resort to the low-effort-big-cash-in shite Steam is swamped with these days.

Weird. I feel like you're me. Same feeling about Steam and I'm at the same point in DA:I as you and loving it. Weird.

Somehow read over this post last night (it was 4AM :P). Feels good to see I'm not the only one who feels this way about Steam! Funny how I'm stepping on people's toes here, obviously. Obviously, we can all have our opinions as long as it's not in conflict with others.

I just hate these half-arsed, simple games -- and for the record, I'm comparing it to stuff like DA:I, The Witcher, Wolfenstein, Skyrim etc. There's PC gamers here who act like this and that relatively simple indie-game is their wet dream come true, yet try their hardest to bitch about everything a big fish releases simply because it "can take the beating" (learned that much from earlier threads). Silly. There's this little and maybe irrational fear inside me other devs will catch wind of this thang going on, and maybe in a few years all we have is Wastelands, Dungeon Defenders and side-scrolling survival sims. While all these kinda games are fun in their own way, there's one thing they can't deliver and that's immersion, which is why they leave me as cold as ice.

The fact that you consider Wasteland 2 "simple" or "half-arsed" is downright absurd. There's nothing simple about it. It's a 80+ hour CRPG with tons of meaningful choices. Having completed both it and DA:I, I can safely say that the quest design in Wasteland 2 was way more interesting than the quest design in DA:I.

No, the only reason you'd ever classify Wasteland 2 as simple or half-arsed is because of its presentation. If the only thing you care about is presentation, no wonder people are offended by your comments. They come across as incredibly ignorant and shallow.

What the hell? Unless something changed, why are people BUYING Dungeon Defenders 2? Isn't that game going to be Free to Play on release still? The 19.99 is just for beta access + developer support, as far as I understand it.

Stop buying Betas, humanity.

InBlack wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 08:32:

Quinn wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 08:08:
What you are talking about is immersion for sure, but not the kind of immersion I'm talking about. I think it's comparable with doing a jigsaw puzzle and reading a good book. Dwarf Fortress gives a form of immersion similar to doing a jigzaw puzzle while The Witcher gives a form of immersion similar to reading a good book. I only care for the latter form. It's literally the one and only reason I play games.

You might not like Dwarf Fortress (and I dont either) but that doesnt mean that some people dont find it immersive. They might grow attached to their little dwarves, they might even imagine a huge setting in which their fortress resides, and even invent a back story for themselves and make up their own story. Its all down to imagination and how well the game is crafted. For them Dwarf fortress IS like reading a good book.

Anyway my point is that without good gameplay elements and an accessible UI a game can VERY EASILY break any and all immersion. It doesnt matter if the game is an indy, or a triple-A title.

Dwarf Fortress is great, but it's be a lot more immersive if the UI isn't bollocks and they got someone decent to do a standard tileset for it.

I'm having a blast with Far Cry 4, it is a great follow up to FC3. The latest patch finally addresses the mouse issues which was my sole complaint. The amount of unscripted hilarity I've encountered is pretty crazy, I wish other Ubi games could have open worlds this zany.

Dmitri_M wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 08:42:
Those analogies are flawed

Quinn wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 08:08:
while The Witcher gives a form of immersion similar to reading a good book.

High budget AAA titles provide immersion in the same way a hollywood blockbuster does. Visually. Loads of luscious visuals. You're immersed superficially.

Quinn wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 08:08:
Dwarf Fortress gives a form of immersion similar to doing a jigzaw puzzle

Dwarf Fortress requires a level of imagination to enjoy. The systems and control you have go beyond what you can experience with a closed world dominated by high end but mostly static visuals. The systems can transcend what amounts to walking around inside a menagerie of pretty things.

The majority of recently released titles that flaunt immersion are really just FPS titles with stats and scripted events. Whether it's Watchdogs, GTA or Skyrim.

Graphics are the safest route to "immersion". But for some it's a shallow immersion. Immersion that starts from the gameplay design up that isn't limited to FPS/third person adventure gameplay goes beyond most of the AAA output at the moment.

Well said.

Those analogies are flawed

Quinn wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 08:08:
while The Witcher gives a form of immersion similar to reading a good book.

High budget AAA titles provide immersion in the same way a hollywood blockbuster does. Visually. Loads of luscious visuals. You're immersed superficially.

Quinn wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 08:08:
Dwarf Fortress gives a form of immersion similar to doing a jigzaw puzzle

Dwarf Fortress requires a level of imagination to enjoy. The systems and control you have go beyond what you can experience with a closed world dominated by high end but mostly static visuals. The systems can transcend what amounts to walking around inside a menagerie of pretty things.

The majority of recently released titles that flaunt immersion are really just FPS titles with stats and scripted events. Whether it's Watchdogs, GTA or Skyrim.

Graphics are the safest route to "immersion". But for some it's a shallow immersion. Immersion that starts from the gameplay design up that isn't limited to FPS/third person adventure gameplay goes beyond most of the AAA output at the moment.

Quinn wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 08:08:
What you are talking about is immersion for sure, but not the kind of immersion I'm talking about. I think it's comparable with doing a jigsaw puzzle and reading a good book. Dwarf Fortress gives a form of immersion similar to doing a jigzaw puzzle while The Witcher gives a form of immersion similar to reading a good book. I only care for the latter form. It's literally the one and only reason I play games.

You might not like Dwarf Fortress (and I dont either) but that doesnt mean that some people dont find it immersive. They might grow attached to their little dwarves, they might even imagine a huge setting in which their fortress resides, and even invent a back story for themselves and make up their own story. Its all down to imagination and how well the game is crafted. For them Dwarf fortress IS like reading a good book.

Anyway my point is that without good gameplay elements and an accessible UI a game can VERY EASILY break any and all immersion. It doesnt matter if the game is an indy, or a triple-A title.

Quinn wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 08:08:

It's pretty easy to ignore games you don't care about [on Steam].

For gamers like me, it's honestly not that easy anymore.

I sincerely hope the number of 'gamers like you' is decreasing then. We need less people who can't properly navigate a simple application like Steam in the world of gaming.

Jerykk wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 05:34:

Quinn wrote on Dec 14, 2014, 22:35:

Slick wrote on Dec 14, 2014, 21:04:

i understand that you can't risk 50 million dollars on a new ip that might flop, but it's because of that type of risk-aversion that steam is filled with all the indy stuff.

A scary truth. Not scary to everyone, sure. Many people love all the kind of different simple shit that's getting released almost daily and that's completely fine. For gamers like me, who really only play games for immersion, it's a big facepalm situation. [Most of the indie shite you see the moment you open the steam store, whatever the genre] is getting more popular every day, yet I've tried enough to know immersion isn't their selling point. Ironically, if I'd ever touch my dusty PS3, it would be to play a game like most of said shite. I don't say it should all disappear. I just feel that the crap and non-crap ratio was less horrible in the past.

By "immersion," I assume you mean "big-budget presentation." Immersion isn't limited to a game's presentation. Gameplay is a huge factor as well. Dwarf Fortress is a perfect example of that. Horrible presentation but once you get into the actual gameplay, you're immersed as can be. Conversely, a game like CoD has a great presentation but the gameplay is so vapid and forgettable that it's essentially impossible to become immersed in the experience.

As for the "crap and non-crap ratio," it wasn't less horrible in the past. There were just as many shitty games out there, they just weren't on Steam. However, there were also a lot of great games that weren't on Steam either. It's pretty easy to ignore games you don't care about. I'd rather have that option than miss out on games worth my attention.

What you are talking about is immersion for sure, but not the kind of immersion I'm talking about. I think it's comparable with doing a jigsaw puzzle and reading a good book. Dwarf Fortress gives a form of immersion similar to doing a jigzaw puzzle while The Witcher gives a form of immersion similar to reading a good book. I only care for the latter form. It's literally the one and only reason I play games.

It's pretty easy to ignore games you don't care about [on Steam].

For gamers like me, it's honestly not that easy anymore.

Quinn wrote on Dec 15, 2014, 05:43:

Steele Johnson wrote on Dec 14, 2014, 20:12:

Quinn wrote on Dec 14, 2014, 18:28:
My god Steam is becoming a fucking mess. Indie & early-access & Free To Play garbage everywhere I look. I personally don't upgrade my PC for €1200,- every 3 years to play that weird arcady shite. Immersion, man. Some quality RPG stuff. No sidescrollers or random generating maps crap. Hate to see this becoming the new PC thang.

/rage
(seriously, open your Steam app on your smartphone right now and feel where I'm coming from)

83 hours into DA:I and still got 3 huge areas to explore. Loving it. Can't wait for The Witcher 3 either. Luckily not all devs resort to the low-effort-big-cash-in shite Steam is swamped with these days.

Weird. I feel like you're me. Same feeling about Steam and I'm at the same point in DA:I as you and loving it. Weird.

Somehow read over this post last night (it was 4AM :P). Feels good to see I'm not the only one who feels this way about Steam! Funny how I'm stepping on people's toes here, obviously. Obviously, we can all have our opinions as long as it's not in conflict with others.

I just hate these half-arsed, simple games -- and for the record, I'm comparing it to stuff like DA:I, The Witcher, Wolfenstein, Skyrim etc. There's PC gamers here who act like this and that relatively simple indie-game is their wet dream come true, yet try their hardest to bitch about everything a big fish releases simply because it "can take the beating" (learned that much from earlier threads). Silly. There's this little and maybe irrational fear inside me other devs will catch wind of this thang going on, and maybe in a few years all we have is Wastelands, Dungeon Defenders and side-scrolling survival sims. While all these kinda games are fun in their own way, there's one thing they can't deliver and that's immersion, which is why they leave me as cold as ice.

Dont worry Quinn, the thing that has driven game development for the past ten years or so was profit. The big AAA houses will always play it safe, so your large 'immersive' games are safe as houses.

I love immersive games, but my definition of what makes a game good or immersive seems to be much more different than yours. I for one expect a functional UI and gameplay elements that will allow myself to experience the game fully and not get frustrated or bored. A game becomes immersive when I forget that Im playing a game. A badly designed UI or a horrible console port breaks down that illusion pretty quickly in my case.