Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)PA
Posts
6
Comments
1,144
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Shhhh, its just the lazy devs who also work super hard to make it terrible. /s

    Everyone thinks their game of choice has bad match making, but it's just salt most of the time and doesn't pan out when actually tested and measured objectively. If match making was perfect they would win 50% of the time, but perfection is impossible because the system can only work with the players online right now. Those players aren't equally good every day, either, nor are they equally good against all other players, or on all maps. It's a moving target.

    That doesn't even touch on cross play, or premade teams, which further complicate it.

  • You nailed it about the gameplay in your guess. It was very cutting edge when it came out. The animations on the plasmids were especially memorable I recall. It's interesting to hear that part doesn't hold up so well.

    I'd highly recommend you play 2 as well. It's quite different but I thought it was the best of the series gameplay-wise.

    If you like the setting I would also recommend you go on to play BioShock infinite and specifically the DLC for it. I won't say why, and I recommend you go through the base game first (very cool in its own right), but the DLC is really going to tickle your fancy I think.

  • The first one, the icy one, is just alright. It gives you another area basically that's about as much content as the 5 base game areas. The new one the iron rig is pretty fun, though I thought. If you really like dredge I'd say get both.

  • One example I like is Dredge. If you took away inventory management from that game, you would basically destroy its whole economy and progression system. It would also get rid of the interesting way they make having tons of equipment mean you can't carry as much at once, creating a tradeoff.

    I think one thing people get mixed up is the limitation side of a limited inventory -- which is often a good thing for creating choices, tension, and pacing -- and the physical action of sorting and arranging an inventory. This second one is a perfect place to streamline in my opinion because while the limitations on inventory create meaningful choices, having to spend a while rearranging your stuff to fit something in is very rarely good gameplay. You might already be making this distinction, but I wanted to clarify that just in case.

    Inventory size/weight capacity is essentially a resource to manage, and I'm a big proponent of resource management in games (and this is coming from a designer who tried to get rid of and streamline resources for years -- it has some major downsides).

  • That's interesting about the stamina. I agree that having to constantly start and stop sprinting isn't a great solution and it's never felt quite right to me either. The only games where it feels like it adds anything are ones where running out is dangerous. For general exploration it's kind of a chore.

  • Great points! I think you're spot on that a streamlined RPG would benefit from easy inventory management. I'll have to learn more about the armor and weapon system you talk about cause I'm curious to hear how it works.

  • They are, you're correct. I don't think it would work in every game either. Inventory management can be a powerful tension and choice device and getting rid of that isn't always a good thing.

    Extreme inventory QOL often just turbo charges hoarding behavior and makes individual items feel meaningless. Just pop it in the bag, who cares, it's all weightless anyway!

    Don't get me wrong, sometimes easy inventory is great, but I think inventory management gets a worse response than it deserves a lot these days.

    /rant