True Gaming

I'm trying to find good gaming experiences for wife, who has some typical non-gamer traits, but also some otherwise hardcore traits. I find it hard to make sense of it, and I'm wondering if this is the right community to get some help and suggestions.

Past gaming experience:

• Sims 2: ~1000s hours on Sims 2. Loves the design of houses and villages, rather than the psychological experience of the inhabitants.

Which is where I thought that there has to be some experience out of the huge collection of games that can be fun. Luckily, being a fan of Harry Potter, Hogwart's Legacy ended up being a big hit, and great introduction to 3rd person and open world mechanics.

I've tried suggesting games, but none really sticked. Until...

• Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon..... not, my idea. She was bored, and picked it at random from the list of installed games while I was away for some days. Doesn't seem to mind the difficulty spikes or dying 60 times in a row because of movement mechanics. And, it's not like I'm coaching. This is all her. I would never have thought to even suggest this game.

So, I need some help with finding suggestions, since I'm apparently a bit clueless. These are some constraints:

• ADHD and very easily bored. RDR2 would be a great recommendation, except that the game is very tedious. It might work if one got hooked, but, I doubt it'll happen. Hogwart's Legacy got past it by the setting and world building. Horizon: Zero Dawn on the other hand is an absolute no-go.

• First person mechanic might be a challenge. 3rd person works a lot better. Not entirely sure why.

• Competitionist to a fault. Hogwart's Legacy was 100%-ed beyond what the game was able to properly track. If a game hooks, it hooks deep.

• Not a fan of gore, horror, and zombie themed games. Or in general enemies who look like they are having a bad time.

• Probably not a fan of complex game systems if one is forced to understand it. (AC6 just.. let's you fly around and shoot things, even though you really should understand all of it). It's fine to sneak in game systems after getting hooked, but not as a prerequisite. If that makes sense.

• Strategy games and turn based games are probably not a fun time.

• Likes pretty worlds, but not a fan of artsy 2d stuff like Gris, or the many platformers of that type. Maybe Ori might be pretty and cute enough to work. It's a weird balance.

• Playstation 5 is what is most readily available and perhaps more importantly, low effort. Though PC could be an option.

• Doesn't mind a challenge that would be frustrating to most people, as long as one can get back into the action immediately. She doesn't have "gaming skills", and it's fine to be punished for it, but not with tediousness. For example Hollow Knight would be a game that is 99% getting to a boss and 1% getting killed by the boss. Not very fun. So the game design also matters. Demon Souls would have this same issue. Checkpoints in AC6 is probably a big element in why that game seems to still be fun.

Edit: some more constraints

• English is not a first language. So it's a somewhat higher threshold to get drawn in by text based storytelling.

Here is what I've thought so far might be good games:

• Monster Hunter: Probably amazing if one gets past figuring out all the mechanics. I haven't played this myself.

Hm... and I'm a bit out of ideas. Suggestions?

It's a common issue at this point: a game releases, gets years' worth of updates and DLCs, and then eventually the developers move on to developing a sequel. The sequel comes out and... the depth and amount of content is nowhere close to what players have just been experiencing in its predecessor. The sequel may have many of the quality-of-life features that didn't arrive in the predecessor until later updates, but it simply can't launch with a full game's worth of content plus years of DLC's worth of content. It only gets worse for games that support modded content, too, because they'll have years' worth of mods on top of the developer-created content.

We've seen this a lot already: the Civilization series is infamous for the sequels not living up to their predecessors until they've had years of support themselves; Crusader Kings 3 was seen as lacking in long-term replayability for passionate fans of the series; Destiny 2, upon release, was seen as shallow and sparse compared to the first game; and, recently, Cities: Skylines 2 developers spent the lead-up to the game's release trying to reel in expectations because they didn't want fans to expect the game to have comparable amounts of content to everything that's available for the first game after eight years of post-release updates and DLC.

To compound this, many of the games that benefit from extensive post-release support are less story-focused games. They often offer a mechanical foundation and a sandbox wherein players can create their own experiences, stories and lore - Civilization has no plot, nor does Cities: Skylines or Crusader Kings. They're similar, in fact, to tabletop RPGs - like Dungeons & Dragons - in that sense. And they share another issue with tabletop RPGs: sequels sometimes just aren't necessary. When there's a new story to tell in an existing world, or for an existing character, it obviously makes sense to make a sequel and tell that story. But if the game is more of a mechanical foundation that's already sound? Well, major overhauls to that foundation are a reason to make a sequel, but sometimes it can just feel like "reinventing the wheel" for the sake of releasing a sequel, not because it's necessary or because it improves anything.

It feels to me like a problem that will only become more and more pronounced as more games opt for live-service models or extended post-release support, too. Can anyone think of any examples of games that had extensive post-release support through updates and DLCs where a sequel was then released that wasn't seen as disappointing or a step backwards?

Capcom Exec says Videogames need to be more expensive

Just thought it might be interesting to get a conversation going around this topic. Obviously it's stirred up a lot of opinion.

What's your take on it?

Its been a while since we had a new entry of the famous Dark Souls or Bloodborne Formula, but its here and it is good. What I can say to you without spoiling is that the story is the highlight which for this type of game, is never the case.

For those that didn't catch the last Direct, Super Mario Wonder has announced that it will feature two different kinds of online multiplayer, both very different to local multiplayer - one where you can see "ghosts" of other players currently online on a given level, which can't interact with you directly but can give you specific aids (such as reviving you when you lose a life, setting a checkpoint for you to revive, or handing you an item); and another where you can make rooms with your friends... but still can't interact directly with them, only allowing for speedrun-styled races. Sure it's a letdown to not be able to properly interact with other players online in the same way that you can do offline, but the problem is that the alternative has already been attempted... and the results are catastrophic.

Remember Super Mario Maker 2? It included a mode where players could join an online room, whether with friends or strangers, to play courses among themselves. It's also infamous for the constant slowdowns that players experienced during the courses. Why was this happening, you may wonder? Well, because the players needed to synchronize their state between each other, and since the game was not designed with modern network tools in mind such as rollback (which would probably be too heavy for the Switch), the only way to ensure everyone was on the same lane was to wait for everyone to receive the input data from all other players. And in a game with up to four players at a time, things are absolutely going to get messy.

And that's why the current online implementation of Super Mario Wonder is a decent compromise. If players are ghosts that can't interfere directly in the state of other players, that means that no synchronization of data is required, and a ghost can lag behind real-time as much as the network forces it to without needing to pause the game of all other users of the lobby. Sure, it's a shame that Nintendo still doesn't use rollback in the year of our lord 2023, but let's face it, the Switch was not the best of class back on release date, and nowadays even a smartphone has more memory and processor speed. That means that implementing rollback netcode into the game would require major gameplay sacrifices (such as capping the frame rate and the amount of items on screen, for example) in order to fit the limited capabilities of the Switch. If the choice was between having limited interaction between players and running at half the speed in the worst case scenario, I think Nintendo chose right.

This copies a post by grailly on Reddit.

Most games have adopted popular RPG mechanics and it's widely accepted that "everything's an RPG now". RPGs are also some of the biggest and most popular games around.

I'd argue that Puzzle Game mechanics (aka puzzles) are even more widespread than RPG mechanics throughout the media. However, Puzzle Games themselves are pretty niche and basically never get any big budget titles. This gets more surprising when realizing Puzzle Games are very popular; Tetris might just be the most recognizable video game, Portal (Portal 2 might be the only AAA puzzle game?!) is insanely beloved, wordle took the world by storm last year, sudoku and crosswords are still in the newspaper every day, Candy Crush...

Why do you think Puzzle Games are relegated to being indie or AA?

I thought about it a bit and came up with some unbaked responses which I hope you will add to:

• People want to kill stuff in AAA games. To which I answer, can't we kill stuff in puzzle games?

• There's little point to making Puzzle Games more expensive. Would having The Witness or Talos Principle pushed to AAA status make them any better?

• "Puzzle" is a recessive genre. Add anything to a puzzle game and they aren't considered puzzle games anymore. So making a AAA Puzzle game will basically remove its Puzzle Game consideration. Puzzle + exploration = adventure. Puzzle + fighting = Action adventure. Puzzle + story = walking simulator, etc.

Hello! Back with another round of musings.

Exoprimal has been my not-Diablo game the last few days and I have to say, I am impressed. It has my attention despite being a flagrant GAAS-model/wanting me to open my wallet so badly.

The game is a little thin at times and running around in your exosuit doesn't "feel" quite as amazing as flying in Anthem or piloting your titan in Titanfall, but the wide range of exosuits + customization definitely shores up some of that.

What I want to focus on however is the PvPvE format they've decided to go with. For those who don't know, Exoprimal is not just about beating up dinosaurs. You are actually racing as a team of 5 against another team of 5 doing the exact same missions. You progress through different challenges and each time you complete one, you see the silhouettes of the enemy team as they do their missions and the game notifies you if you are completing your objective faster or slower than they are. This constant update - both from the game's AI character Leviathan and from the silhouettes - creates a constant energy of go go go! that really enhances the game's tension. You can't just beat up dinosaurs, you need to work together to do it efficiently.

The game also randomly inserts story bits for everyone that will change up the level and challenges, keeping it incredibly fresh. One instance that really caught my attention (and drove me to make this post) happened to me last night. We were about 1/4th of the way through our encounters when suddenly some dialogue began and all of us were warped into one arena and a cutscene began. At the end, one gigantic dinosaur warped in and suddenly our enemies were our friends. We all had to work together as a 10-unit team to take this thing down. It was such an awesome way to be shaken out of "just doing missions." What's amazing is so far these major shakeups have happened once every 5-10 matches for me. While I'm sure I will soon encounter repeated events, I'm about 15hrs into the game and I haven't yet.

If they keep adding special missions/events/curveballs like this, especially tinkering with the PvPvE format, I don't see myself putting this game down for quite some time.

I’ve been going out of my way lately to find unique mechanics, UI’s, etc. that fundamentally alter and improve a game, to the extent that their removal would severely hurt the game and make it less effective/impactful/etc. To be clear this is less “unplayable,” so not something silly like “removing the right thumb stick from Halo.”

Instead, I think of how Immortality essentially “gamified” and simplified a movieola (35mm film editing hardware) to be the player’s interface with the game. The process of scrubbing through footage, marking favorite clips, cropping in on items of interest, “match cutting” (sort of), made for an incredibly immersive experience. Honorable mention goes to the music raising and lowering or shifting as I sped through or slowed down on footage - it created such a unique gaming experience.

What are some examples for y’all?

Before I start let me be clear that I am NOT talking about Zuckerberg’s “Metaverse” with a capital “M.” I am speaking of the concept writ large - aka a 3D/AR/VR/etc. "virtual world" akin to Oasis in the world of Ready Player One. This is incredibly boilerplate so if you are unfamiliar with the concept or want to know more I'd recommend reading more about it!

Arcade Paradise is a game where you slowly (and secretly) turn your dad's laundromat into a fully-fledged late 80's/early 90's-style arcade. It has a fun little story going as you move forward and a fantastic mix of short, medium, and longterm goals, all punctuated by a fun little sense of humor. It's a nostalgia trip for sure for anyone who lived through the arcade-era, complete with 35 arcade games you can play.

So to the actual point here: this game made me operate like I was playing Stardew Valley and Civilization again ("Just one...more...turn...") without the assistance of the actual arcade games. I really enjoyed a lot of the "cabinets" the devs put together but frankly it wasn't the games that kept me coming back. It was the laying out of my arcade, the little tasks to get the money I need for the next upgrade, the optimization of my pricing to get every possible penny I could to expand my floor and add more cabinets. Even seeing the completely non-interactive NPC's playing contributes, which is what made me also constantly go, "Man I wish my friends and I could chill here."

Prior to this game I never really experienced that sensation, but I then thought about my friend who designed all these social spaces on her island on Animal Crossing: New Horizons. She had this outdoor café she was so proud of in particular, and she always was inviting friends to join and run around there. I didn't really get it until I played Arcade Paradise.

I'm not really entirely sure what my question or "prompt" is for folks here, I just found myself musing on this subject and wanted to write up something about it.

We've all played them. Games that live long in the memory; games that dominate your every waking moment for weeks at a time and games that you'd replay over and over again if you had the time....

But what I want to know is this..Have you ever played a game that you loved, but had to work around the fact that one of the games core mechanics was just... kinda trash?

For context, I'm currently working through the excellent Bloodborne. I can see why it's largely considered the best one of those games, and potentially one of the best games released in the last decade.....at the same time I cannot abide the way the game handles healing and health vials.

What about you.

I'm old now. I've finally realised I get more enjoyment from watching someone play than to actually play the game. Why is that? Do you experience that as well?

Has there been changes to what games you choose to buy and play?

When Ghostwire: Tokyo released, it seemed like every online social circle I paid attention to panned the game. "It's open world, formulaic Ubisoft schlock, the gameplay is tedious and un-engaging, and the open world serves no purpose" was the general consensus.

Due to these criticisms, I held off on buying the game, despite its appealing aesthetic.

Only upon purchasing Humble Choice last month did I finally get to playing the game -- and I must say, it is an incredibly entertaining expose on Japanese culture, with beautiful vistas, terrifyingly trippy set pieces, a dynamic world, a unique (albeit flawed) combat system, and a story that engages the player to some degree.

To get the PC Master Race stuff out of the way, this game is very well optimized.

Yes, the game does suffer from Ubisoft syndrome; there's a lot of busywork, and the payoff for said work oftentimes feels trivial. At the end of the day, though, the game's universe is more than enough to keep it going. Japanese dialog being the preset heightens immersion, and invariably removes any flaws a non-English speaker might have with the voice acting. The world is dense and rich with collectibles that provide a further glimpse into the world, instead of merely being tat that sits in a codex forever. Sure, some of it is absolutely tat (looking at you, capsules and Hachi graffiti), but audio logs, newspapers, community notices, hastily written texts and letters, etc. give you a glimpse into the minds of those who were spirited away due to the antagonist's malign and selfish ambitions.

In addition to the engaging lore, the world's design itself is remarkably beautiful. Vibrant colors present themselves across the digital billboards of Shibuya. Iconic and beautiful landmarks are found at the corner of every block. Depending on what happens in the story, the environment and lighting of the open world can change completely, almost transporting the player to a different world. Side-quests, while being rudimentary, provide an engaging insight into the various spiritual abominations and eccentricities present throughout Japanese culture.

The story missions do a great job of utilizing the environment to convey feelings of dread, desolation, and futility. During story sequences, the environments shift in captivating and psychedelic ways. It is awesome seeing the ways in which entities toy with your environment. This function also carries over to the open world as well, to a lesser degree.

And the story itself is engaging enough, with characters and motives that unfold at a consistent pace as the game goes on.

Yes, the game suffers from Ubisoft syndrome. There is a remarkable quantity of useless collectibles -- but nobody is making you go after this stuff! If you feel bogged down by the mechanics, then don't engage in them. Odds are, you'll be fine. I've been playing through the game on Hard, and while I have engaged in a vast amount of the side content, I'm nowhere close to being a completionist, and I still find the game to be very easy. Open world activities give you substantial quantities of XP, but the skill upgrades are largely trivial when it comes to the resilience of the player and the damage they can inflict upon enemies. Certain abilities are effectively essential, but most are just minor enhancements to the player's skills. As far as I know, the groundbreaking abilities are unlocked through story and basic gameplay alone.

The game demands time from the player, and I can understand why that might be a turn-off to busy people. But not every game has to be playable in short, 30-minute bursts. I don't know why you would commit to an open-world game if you don't have the time to play it, anyways. Not every game has to be built around your schedule.

I've left out some criticisms, so I'll briefly encapsulate those here: Rooftop traversal is samey and often (but not always) pulls the player away from the rich world around them. It is weird that so many of the enemies you face bear a resemblance to one another. The plot provides a very convenient justification for the lack of unique NPC's, and NPC's altogether. Default mouse settings are absolutely abysmal. If one lacks restraint, the open world activities could certainly become exhausting. The economy sometimes feels too forgiving.

Ultimately, though, I think it's important for people to realize that not every game has to push boundaries. It's okay for a game to use familiar systems, and it's okay to build a unique combat system and world around said systems.

I've found myself consistently interested in what's around the corner. If I'm drained after a long day of work, the game provides mindless fun, and I appreciate that.

If you've played Ghostwire: Tokyo, what are your thoughts?

If you'd like me to expand on any statements I've made regarding the game, I'll gladly do so.

Hope you found this account entertaining and/or enlightening.

Hey there, I wasn't familiar with this community before, but looking around right now. Are posts here meant to be more in the essay format that I'm seeing so far? The longer-form discussion prompt seems like a really interesting idea, if that's what this is all about.

#truegaming

I briefly talked about this on the tg discord. I'm new to Kbin, very excited to be here :D

So I am an Overwatch diehard fan. As we know, the franchise is going through a big struggle keeping fans while angering everyone frequently alongside. Hell, the latest episode of Death of a Game discussed Overwatch 2 regardless of the fact it is not shutdown yet.

I went through a few weeks of grief about the franchise fearing the worst for it, as a diehard fan would.

Today, Blizzard announced Genesis, a 3-part animated mini-series on YouTube with about 18 minutes of total runtime. I am cautiously optimistic and believe, despite the length that this could be the first step towards OW's redemption arc, if ever.
the first part's premier page in question

As told on the title, OW2's current controversies is akin to what Marvel was going through in the 90s. Due to constant mismanagement, terrible sales and quality of the comics on top of a declining population of readers Marvel was on the line of filing for bankruptcy in 1996. in 1998, Marvel opened up a movie studio as we know today as "Marvel Studios". Obviously, Marvel went from bankruptcy to the highest grossing film franchise of all time by a long shot.

Overwatch 2's current state is very similar IMO. awful mismanagement of the game, declining playerbase and just like comics in the 90s, live service video games are going quite downhill, with many shutting down in 2023 alone.

What Overwatch needs to succeed and gain trust back is not to make the game better, it'll need more than that. Marvel saved itself with film, tv, animations, merchandise and games alongside the comics. Overwatch shines brightly from the animation, art, characters and narrative work and can carry itself with these talents alone.

A change in direction to a more narrative-focused, character-centric multimedia franchise, not just a team-based FPS could bring in new fans and most of all, make the angry mobs realise the worldbuilding of Overwatch is quality. League of Legends is huge now that they released Arcane and Riot Forge, with a MMORPG and Fighting game on the way. There just needs to be many more ways to appreciate the IP Blizzard has crafted than a heavily-monetised team-game.

Could Blizzard turn Overwatch around this way? is there any hope for the game itself by allowing the world to shine? is it doomed otherwise?

I'm sure we've all played at least one survival game at this point, right? Minecraft. Valheim. Subnautica. Project Zomboid. ARK: Survival Evolved. Don't Starve. The list goes on.

So what makes something a "survival game"? Well, surviving, of course! The player will often have limited resources - food, water, stamina, oxygen - that will drain over time. They will have to secure more of these resources to survive by venturing out into the (often hostile) world, while also collecting other resources in order to progress.

Survive and progress are the two key objectives here. What progressing looks like can vary from game to game. Some are sandbox games where you set your own objectives. Some have technology trees to work through. Some have stories. All of them have some kind of balance between surviving and progressing. Too much focus on moment-to-moment survival and you'll never feel like you're getting anywhere; too much focus on progression and the survival mechanics feel sidelined.

I'll start with the latter. Minecraft is a perfect example of this, I think. For the first hour or so in a brand new world, surviving will be something the player has to focus on at (almost) all times. Food will feel scarce, enemies will feel scary and you really have to focus solely on survival. But then, after a while, you'll reach a point where you're got plenty of food and don't have to worry about it any more. You'll have decent armour and weapons so fighting monsters isn't risky at all. The survival aspect of the game becomes something you only really engage with when you're forced to - because your hunger bar is empty, because a monster is attacking you and you want it to go away - but it's more of a tedium than a system that's exciting or interesting to engage with. In fact, the more you progress (whatever your version of "progressing" is - building cool things, exploring, etc), the less engaging the survival aspect of the game generally is.

And on the flip side, you have something like Don't Starve. The game is all about survival, with the goal largely being simply to survive as long as possible, with very little in the way of non-survival progression. To its critics, this is to its detriment; the player rarely feels like they're making much progress, just prolonging their suffering. This is, of course, the tone the game is going for, but it doesn't make for engaging gameplay for many people. It doesn't have something they can get invested in - there's no reason to survive.

I've largely been talking about the negative aspects of survival mechanics so far, but I do feel they can have positive, interesting aspects to them as well. They can add to a game's immersion, for one. They can certainly make for great, personalised stories, too; not tailored narratives, but the sort of individual, one-off experience in a sandbox game that you remember. For example, you didn't just build a simple house...

You went on a dangerous journey into the forest to the west to get some wood. You'd just finished chopping the last tree you needed when a wolf pounced on you. Lucky you'd found that old, manky leather armour earlier, eh? You managed to kill it (with your bare hands after your spear broke) but you were losing blood and had to limp back to base with your lumber. You didn't have any medicine so you fashioned some from some plant fibre you'd collected - not ideal but it stemmed the bleeding for now. And at least you had enough wood to get some walls up around your cabin.

That's the kind of story made out of mundane events (well, "mundane" when it comes to video games anyway...) that you can only experience in survival games. Because in a game where you're not as invested in surviving, that sort of situation has far less impact. This leads nicely to my next point: there needs to be a cost to not surviving. The steeper the cost, the more invested in survival the player will be:

• the ultimate "cost" is a hardcore world/character, where the player loses all their progress if they die. I personally find this a little excessive, especially in games that are often already on the grindy side.
• a lesser cost is perhaps losing some XP, or losing all the items your character was carrying at the time. It's a great motivation to avoid death, but it isn't too punishing. It's nothing you can't bounce back from, at least.
• an interesting mention here is games like Rimworld or State Of Decay 2. You control a community of characters, each one having different stats and attributes. If a character dies, their death is permanent. It sucks, and it's almost always a major setback for your colony. But it also makes you really value each character's survival. And a character dying becomes part of your story in the game. It's woven into both the gameplay - you have to figure out how to adapt going forward without that colony member - and the history of the colony.

If there's no real cost to not surviving, there's no real reason to engage with the survival mechanics in the first place. None of it matters. If you can die, but 30 seconds later you've reloaded the game and can just carry on from where you were, can you really get that invested in the survival mechanics in the first place?

So what's the right balance? It's hard to say - it depends on the game! How deep and complex a game's survival mechanics are and what its progression looks like definitely affect what will feel right. But I think that, if a game is going to include survival mechanics, there should be an effort to make them interesting and rewarding (if not fun) throughout the entire game. If they can't be interesting and rewarding, players shouldn't be made to engage with the mechanics at all, and it should just be a problem that players can solve instead. And there needs to be more to the game than just surviving. There needs to be goals available - narrative, creative or otherwise - that give the player a reason to survive.

The process of surviving itself needs to feel interesting throughout the duration of the game. You need a reason to survive (something to work towards) and you need a reason to not die (some form of cost or punishment).

So do any games actually manage all this? I'm not sure... Subnautica probably comes the closest for me, personally. It does a great job of constantly pushing you to progress, but the more you progress, the more scary things get and the harsher the conditions you need to survive become. The survival mechanics are not just relevant but central throughout the entire game, but you rarely feel like they take too much focus away from the rest of the game.

I'd love to hear your thoughts!

A comprehensive mapping of old subreddits to new communities.

Should I post next about why I think AC: Odyssey has the best stealth in the series or why I end up replaying Paper Mario every few years?

#truegaming

Hello all! This is my first (non-test) post. I've wanted to chat about this subject for quite some time after I had a revelation while playing Mass Effect: Legendary Edition. I discovered that I am a sucker for romance in video games. Romantic love, sexual chemistry, what have you. I just really enjoy seeing budding relationships or participating in them as the character.

Watching the progression of Liara and Shepard's relationship across the 3 games really hammered this home for me. There is something deeply poetic about watching a human who has ~100 years to live have to choose how to balance the biggest decisions and weight of the galaxy fall and love with an Asari who has ~1000 years to live. Liara is basically a a young adult in her 20's by Asari standards when you meet her, but has already lived more than twice as long as Shepard.

Their relationship dynamic is one where Shepard is helping her navigate day to day life in some ways, while Liara is constantly expressing and venerating the depth and breadth of history, the galaxy, and beyond. In some ways she's a reflection of the scale of what Shepard is dealing with, while Shepard is reminding her in some ways to live here and now, on the land she stands on. The way this dynamic plays out and buds into what to date is probably my favorite romance I've experienced in gaming.

Anyway, I just wanted to get some thoughts down and spur some discussion. I'd love to hear what others have enjoyed/experienced, or maybe you disagree with my take lol

Glad to see this community moving over. I'm a lurker but I always loved reading the discussion :)

#truegaming

Okay. If you could play any videogame again for the first time, what would it be?

It seems that I am less and less interested in new games and am happier playing older games on emulators. I still game a decent amount, but I don’t even watch gaming news for new stuff.

I loved Skyrim, but I am not even interested in reading about starfield. It just seems that it’s going to be an extremely involved game. But at the same time I’d have no problem playing through Skyrim again and to be fair I just played through tears of the kingdom.

Anyone else have this problem as they are getting older? I’m in my mid 30s btw.

what game is best

Hiya
Do we want to keep the community purely discussion based focused on articles (self-posts in kbin lingo), or do we want to also discuss news articles here as well? Microblog seems to be the primary place for text-only conversation on this platform, and there doesn't seem to be any community in the similar vein of /r/games that discusses industry news, so it could be nice to allow that kind of posts here.

#truegaming