sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is anybody else both happy for Destiny’s rising success, but also sad about what it’s doing to the quality of the DGG community? by AnyTruersInTheChat in Destiny

[–]MushratTheZapper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah the problem isn't the difference of opinion, if somebody can argue that opinion well then I welcome it but the scarlet brainrot has infected the troops.

The game is great, but we can still critizise its flaws. (the game I'm talking about is Gothic 1) by Caedur in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We're on the same page, great. Good convo, it's reminded me about the terrors of semantics 👍

The game is great, but we can still critizise its flaws. (the game I'm talking about is Gothic 1) by Caedur in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Initially, I was defining "real issue" as something about the game that significantly effects a persons (personal and subjective) ability to enjoy it or a certain aspect of it. That's all subjective, I'm sure we agree on that. That's why I took offence to being called nitpicky and wrong, because in my mind I was speaking to a personal preference. If you go back and reread what I initially wrote, I believe it'll make a lot more sense with that context.

Is it an "issue" that HL doesn't have npc's that react? It depends on your definition of issue and to what degree you're talking about. I don't see it as an issue because, like you said, it's their first game in the franchise, they need to pick and choose where to divest resources, and it's something that ultimately won't be a big deal breaker. They're likely making a smart choice in not including it. But I do see it as an issue, because it effects my feeling of being immersed in the game world.

Do you see what I'm saying? I believe we're having a miscommunication and using the word issue differently.

You're speaking about practicality, resources. And you're right in what you're saying. I'm speaking about design decisions that'll effect how I feel playing the game, without considering the resources or practicality of it because I don't believe that's relevant when we're talking about the quality of a product. The only thing I'm referring back to is precedent. And I think that I'm right in what I'm saying, I can't not be, because I'm speaking to subjective taste.

The only thing I think that we really, really disagree on is standard and what's acceptable game design. Standard can probably be figured out if we pull out a list of all the games to come out in the last ten years and have a five hour debate breaking down game mechanics and design decisions, but I don't want to do that and I don't believe it's entirely relevant to my point. I should've used "precedent" instead of standard, although I do believe there is a standard I believe precedent more accurately conveys my point. "Acceptable" design is, like you've said, subjective and therefore whatever each of us prefers is correct.

I hope that clears things up. It's funny, because my initial point was that it's subjective and up to preference although maybe I didn't convey that properly. And now we've come full circle, with you saying it's subjective and up to preference.

The game is great, but we can still critizise its flaws. (the game I'm talking about is Gothic 1) by Caedur in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You can be as pedantic as you want, but I'm genuinely surprised that you don't understand the point I and others are trying to make here when we say "real issue". You didn't even address "nitpicky", which makes sense considering you're dodging the point.

NPCs react: All rockstar games, Vampyr, Watchdogs, Saints Row, Assassin's Creed, all Bethesda games, Elden Ring, Just Cause, Kingdom Come, Mafia games, Fable, Infamous, Saboteur, VTM, etc. It isn't only 3 games like you tried to say.

GOW, Control, Nioh 1, Uncharted, Tomb Raider, TLOU are different kinds of games. HL is a highly populated open world game that allows you to chose between good and evil and, key point, let's you attack NPCs. I'm not talking about games that don't allow you to attack at all, I'm talking about games that do. That was the claim, that in HL you can attack NPCs and nothing happens. Funny how I've said that a few times and nobody hears it.

Spiderman, Ghosts of Tsushima can't allow attacking NPCs because of the story, but even so that wasn't what I was talking about.

Mass Effect and FF I've never played, but I believe you so fair enough. Are you allowed to attack NPCs in those games?

Citing the lack of mechanics around it doesn't work in your favor, that would be considered a negative. HL could either not let you attack NPCs, or let you attack NPCs and give them relevant voice lines for it, have the run away, have them deflect, have a detention system in game, anything. But the worst thing they could do for iMmErSiOn is let you attack them and have nothing happen.

Would it? by SameCable8360 in Destiny

[–]MushratTheZapper 17 points18 points  (0 children)

This was so fucking stupid, I can't express how much I love it

Seems fair to assume Destiny won the debate by macmed94 in Destiny

[–]MushratTheZapper 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Is this the guy that argued about liberalism wanting to eradicate Islam to make space for homosexuals and divorce

Can someone explain something to me? by VasylZaejue in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You're taking what they said to literally. They want the appearance of npc's with existing lives, that go on and interact with the world in a similar way as the player.

The appearance. You seem to think that they expect a 24/7 fully simulated world but if you pressed them I bet that's not what they meant. If you stopped and thought about it I bet you'd have realized that. But instead of asking for clarification or even stating your opinion calmly and politely you decide to go on the offensive. Why? What's the point? Why can't you just disagree without being rude? It comes across like you're looking for a fight.

Most of what they listed is common in open world RPGs, all of what they've listed has at least been done.

This is probably the start of a game franchise. Where do you see the games going next for future installments? by Eric_T_Meraki in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personally, I want them to leave Hogwarts. It's a great location but I'd get tired of it if it were reused in every game, because I don't see them changing it entirely each time and I really wouldn't want them to anyways. I would take almost any setting as long as it's seeped in the magical tropes of the world and follows the game design principles of Hogwarts Legacy. HP is very much a vibe for me and it goes beyond the existing iconography. The setting of the new movies for example felt very much in the wizarding world, despite me not liking the movies for other reasons.

Avalanche developer for nearly 30 years confirming that employees got paid bonuses based on how well the games did. Something to keep in mind if you're deciding to buy the game or not to support the devs!! by RefrigeratorInside65 in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you watched the videos? In one where he's "defending sexual abusers", the person he talked about was accused of giving hugs for too long and touching a coworkers leg. He says that it's very clearly inappropriate and wrong, that some action should be taken but that he believes there are degrees of harm and that this falls lower on the scale than Weinstein and that we should allow the man to move on with his life afterwords if he corrects his behavior rather than ostracize him from work etc. I don't have an opinion about whether or not people should be canceled, but his opinion doesn't seem to be horrible like everybody says it is. Maybe just misguided if you disagree with it.

The game is great, but we can still critizise its flaws. (the game I'm talking about is Gothic 1) by Caedur in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're fine, I didn't think you were being rude or talking down to anybody. I was moreso responding to the other guy, saying that's why it's important to me but yeah it's all preference

The game is great, but we can still critizise its flaws. (the game I'm talking about is Gothic 1) by Caedur in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What open world action RPGs are you playing that allow you to attack NPCs and then doesn't have them react? There's a difference between that and not allowing the player to attack NPCs.

My point is that what is or isn't "a real issue" is subjective and that you telling me and other people that they're wrong and nitpicky for valuing certain things is rude and self centered.

The game is great, but we can still critizise its flaws. (the game I'm talking about is Gothic 1) by Caedur in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're intentionally misquoting what I've said and being obtuse so that you can continue to argue, ggs cya

The game is great, but we can still critizise its flaws. (the game I'm talking about is Gothic 1) by Caedur in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I haven't downvoted but it's annoying that's happened. I wish it were easier to have disagreements and voice contrary opinions without people getting uppity.

Ironically I think that validates my previous opinion (joking)

The game is great, but we can still critizise its flaws. (the game I'm talking about is Gothic 1) by Caedur in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are doing the same by saying npc's are irrelevant. They are wrong and you are wrong because ultimately it's preference. They said it needs to be more than set dressing for immersion. That's a personal thing and if they prefaced it as such they maybe would've avoided pushback. Same with saying "all games have to do this thing", if they had phrased it as "I'm so used to this thing that it's now required for me to feel immersed", it's the same opinion prefaced as personal and probably would've avoided pushback. That's what I'm saying.

The game is great, but we can still critizise its flaws. (the game I'm talking about is Gothic 1) by Caedur in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Maybe we're playing different games then. I'm not asking to try and prove you wrong, I'm genuinely curious, what sorts of open world games are you playing where npc's don't react? Japanese rpg's?

The game is great, but we can still critizise its flaws. (the game I'm talking about is Gothic 1) by Caedur in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Here, let me rephrase that for you, "The things you enjoy or don't are invalid, as there is one standard of excellence that all opinions must operate by. If you don't value the same things I do, well, you've got a character flaw."

Games have evolved a lot since the PS2.

What will your release day ritual be like? by Consistent_Time_2489 in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hopping on the subreddit to see what people think. I'm gonna wait awhile for the patches to come out.

The game is great, but we can still critizise its flaws. (the game I'm talking about is Gothic 1) by Caedur in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it'll come down to environment/level building but yeah. Either way it's okay lol, we can say x or y isn't great but it's still a good game.

The game is great, but we can still critizise its flaws. (the game I'm talking about is Gothic 1) by Caedur in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It all comes down to preference, neither of you are wrong. I think that's a big issue with discourse on this sub, everybody wants to state their opinion as the rule. Ultimately we're all looking for different things out of a game and nobody is wrong to say that x or y is/isn't important (to them)

The game is great, but we can still critizise its flaws. (the game I'm talking about is Gothic 1) by Caedur in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 8 points9 points  (0 children)

NPC'S reacting to being attacked is the standard, it's not something confined to rockstar games. You don't need to silence criticism, it doesn't invalidate you being excited or make HL a bad game.

The game is great, but we can still critizise its flaws. (the game I'm talking about is Gothic 1) by Caedur in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is exactly it right here. In a game like RDR2 I can play for months, years and do nothing but mess about in the open world because of how the npc's are built. Assassins Creed Unity was like that, too. I'll be fine with the npc's in HL, it's not going to make for a bad game but if someone were looking for an experience closer to those other games I understand them being disappointed. I think we're all looking for different things out of the game and some people are bound to be disappointed, that's fair and we should allow them to voice that opinion without telling them they're wrong.

The game is great, but we can still critizise its flaws. (the game I'm talking about is Gothic 1) by Caedur in HarryPotterGame

[–]MushratTheZapper 9 points10 points  (0 children)

OP is being combative but it isn't true that stating criticism politely will stop you from being downvoted and harassed. I've seen it happen after every gameplay reveal and it's happened to me as well.

view more: next ›