Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,686 profile views
  1. dumpster

    Gaming tropes that need to go away

    Games that don't let you save anywhere. Life happens. Theres a knock at the door, the phone rings. You go to the pub. Leaving the console powered up, sounding like a jet engine, throughout your unexpected visit, simply because the game won't let you save without going to a save room miles away. Also Resident Evil. There's a storage trunk next to almost every typewriter, so why do they force you to find and collect ink ribbons. All you do is put them in a trunk at the first opportunity. All it.serves to do is make every save involve sticking an item in the trunk to free up inventory space so you can remove a ribbon, then when you next play you need to put the ribbons back in the trunk before you start. Also, ever wanted to do something else, but cant save because you have no ink ribbons? Forced to play longer, hunting them down so you can save? Arses
  2. Sorry, again I'm being unclear. Mixing up three other points in my head. What I was meaning was that TF2 came at the same time as Battlefield, Mafia, Metal Gear 5, world of final fantasy, skyrim deluxe and so on. Most people haven't got the money to play everything they would like to play and one game emerges as the winner. Titanfall was a great game and deserved to do well but I'd be pretty confident that the reason it didn't find it's customer base is that there were too many other games competing for the money. It is hypothetical , but I'd wager that if all these games were shorter and cheaper, more games would get a piece of the pie, but if you commit to Battlefield, the multiplayer, DLC etc. will eat into your time way more than the games of 20 years ago would, and you won't get around to Titanfall until it's been deemed a failure, if at all. That's not the question I originally posed though and I'm all over the place with thoughts on this one. The whole world seems to have too much of everything these days, with too much TV, too much news, no-one can keep up. There was no reason for Titanfall to do badly but it surely harmed the companies responsible when it didn't sell well, and its been £4 on the stores recently. If all the games stopped with the DLC, the massive sprawling epic levels of 100 hour gameplay, maybe a typical gamer might have bought all the games that weekend?
  3. Does this create an issue where the perceived value of a game is reduced because the player didn't stick with it? For example, customer buys Red Dead Redemption 2 for £60. Plays to end of second section and stops. Then, when Red Dead 3 comes out, they say "no point in buying that, I barely touched the last one" Compared to: Red Dead 2 gets released with half the content of the game we know. Its £19.99 and is an impulse purchase on the shelf at Asda. Customer plays it to the end, finishes it in a couple of weeks of casual play, maybe returns to sections to 100% it, but ultimately can't wait for Rdr3. The issue of pricing in games is often discussed here, but there does appear to be a disconnected where people pay £60 for a game then give up a quarter of the way through it. And of course, if all games are these sprawling epics, players are less likely to buy a new game if they still have one on the go. We discussed on the forum the failure of TitanFall 2, which is bloody fantastic but seems to be the victim of a crowded marketplace. Could all three of the AAA titles that released on that same day have been succesfull if they were shorter and launched at £20?
  4. I'm not making that point very well, because I'm mixing two points together in a messy way. It just seems that devs are spending 2 years creating a mammoth, sprawling, epic game with collectibles , side quests, hidden bonuses, hundreds of challenges, then the trophy data shows a minority of people explore the game enough to justify it. However the earlier replies make me think that there's a discrepancy in those figures caused by players putting the disk in the player in error on their profiles. So maybe the figures are innacurate and the majority of players do play the majority of the game.
  5. There has to be something to explain why I still fire up Contra on the 360 and play from start to finish in about 10 minutes, and have continued to go back to it on an ad-hoc basis since 2006 when I bought it. Also I played it in the arcades when I was at school age. The whole game can be completed in no time, but it has endless replayability. Yet I haven't gone back to GTA5 since I completed the single player mode the first time, have no interest in RDR2, and I consider playing Last of Us occasionally but can't be bothered with that introductory couple of hours and so it puts me off beginning again. Even Resi7 is a hard one to get back into because even though you can speedrun it in about 90 minutes, that opening sequence with Mia, cool as it is, is about 20 minutes. As I walk over to the shelf and choose a game to play, I keep seeing Resi7 and I do want to give it another play through but I know I'll be watching unskippable cut scenes and slowly walking from animated sequence to animated sequence for the first 20 minutes, so I end up playing something else, something instantly replayable.
  6. So looking at other games, there does seem to be a 35 - 40% margin of error on most of them. That is to say, of all the games I own where there is an obvious "everyone should have this" trophy, about 35-40% of players have not awarded it, and the multiple profiles on one console issue may be the answer. It seems there is a flaw in the Playstation system - perhaps they should change it so that only the players who actually do play the game are included in the stats. Because as stated above, if someone loads your disc in error, they are contributing to the stats even if they don't start the game. As with the Resi Origins example above, the system thinks that 36% of players haven't managed to defeat the first zombie, where surely 100% of people who intentionally try to play it have done so. That still seems a high figure, although I guess Resi has two games on it, maybe a number of players are working their way through Resi Zero and haven't started Re:Make yet. Of course, the issue is that this affects the rarity of all trophies and achievements, because if your Platinum trophy was only reached by 1% of players, that too is affected by the 40% of players that never actually started the game and had no chance of getting any of the trophies.
  7. I never even considered that. What a good answer, cheers.
  8. Gaming has always been a one way activity. If you bought a million copies of an Amiga game and threw them in the river, the publisher would think they had created a popular game. They wouldn't have any specific data that anyone was actually playing or enjoying the game they had spent years creating . Trophies change all that. Not only can you see people are playing, but you can see a factual analysis of how the game is being played. I'm really interested in seeing a developer or publisher point of view when it comes to analysis of the data trophies provide. Specifically I find it weird when I am awarded a trophy that you cannot avoid earning through normal play, only to see that the trophy is classed as rare. Today, I started the Resident Evil Origins double pack on PS4. I began the first game and shot the first zombie, which involved about 2 minutes of gameplay. I got the "first kills are special" trophy which is common, with a score of 64.8%. What this suggests is that 35.2% of players have never defeated a single zombie in this game. There have been many unusual examples in other games too. In Evil Within 2, only 71% of players have killed 30 enemies, which suggests a huge proportion of players barely played to begin with, but also only 64% of players killed 60 enemies so you can see in almost real time how quickly players are quitting the game never to return. I killed more than that in my first go. In Shenmue 2, half the players never did an arm wrestle, half never learned even one fighting skill, and 36% never even got their bag back after it is stolen at the very start of the game. That's data that the devs would not have known when the game came out on Dreamcast but surely that comes as a shock to them now they know. Would they have spent that much time and effort making their real world environment if they knew half the players would run straight past it? In Pacman Champ Ed 2. Completing level 1 gets you an ultra rare 5% trophy. 40% of players have never Fulton extracted an enemy in MGS5. What does all this mean? Do video game rentals make up 40% of the market? Do in store demos skew the results that much? If a game has a "completed level one" trophy, what kind of expectation do the publishers have that people will achieve it? Games are bigger than ever, and have budgets that dwarf those of say, an Amiga game. But is it worth it? It seems that in Resi 7, 35% of all players never even shot one statue, never mind tried collecting them all. Would the game be any better or worse if they never bothered putting those statues in at all? You can pick up and use Stimulants which can really affect your gameplay if used correctly, but 47% never used them. Only 38% completed the game on Easy. Could games be more profitable if they were sold at a cheaper price and were half as long? The game is filled with cool ways to do stuff which seem to be totally bypassed by half of the audience. The reason all this interests me so much is that personally, I don't have the time (and more recently the interest) to play these sprawling epic games. I really enjoyed The Last Of Us, after a friend told me that it gets really good after the first 4 hours, but today I'm not sure I can be bothered starting a game when I know it's going to be such a massive time sink. So many new games have massive worlds, online play, DLC content, and if you devote 100+ hours of your life to completing Call of Duty, you probably won't be playing Titanfall 2 or Battlefield which launched the same weekend. The notion that games are too big and too time consuming is personal opinion , but trophy data seems to back this up, providing evidence that even if the game is selling well, potentially a massive number of those customers didn't get round to playing it. You could sell a million copies of your game, and assume a sequel would do just as well. Then you look at the trophy data and see that despite the good reviews no-one played past the tutorial. I'm assuming here that achievments and trophy data is used by the publishers, so I'd love to know how they use it. Do they worry when they see basic trophies being missed? What's a good percentage for completing a game on normal difficulty? How does it feel to spend 2 years creating a game like Evil Within 2 only to find 35% of your players quit before they had killed 60 zombies? How does @CrashedAlex feel about 52% of players not even managing to chain 2 burnouts together in Burnout Paradise, or 15% not having done three takedowns? Was it worth all the time to include paint shops, when you can see 40% of players have never even driven through one once (only using this example because I know you're a developer, I love Burnout games, and spent ages on Paradise). But does data like this affect decisions for future games? Does this provide evidence of games being too big, and will publishers perhaps move back to making games more completable? I'm playing Devils Advocate here, but I think I got a lot more enjoyment of, say, Metal Gear Ground Zeroes, than I did with Phantom Pain. They were both fantastic games but GZ just felt more manageable, more contained, didn't have any long walking sessions, and felt more fun as a result. Genuinely interested in this as a topic. Hope someone else is because I typed loads there.
  9. dumpster

    Films with one set.

    Another vote for Dial M For Murder. A really great twisty story, very complex murder plot, but set in one apartment and with only 5 characters. Also The Invitation on Netflix is great , takes place in a house. The Party is also on Netflix. Takes place in 2 rooms. Nothing to Hide is great, on Netflix. Takes place around the dinner table. Time Trap is on Amazon Prime. Takes place in a cave. Fuckin' loved this one.
  10. dumpster

    Bad games transformed by patches and remasters

    No, the fundamentally broken parts were fixed with patches, and the shift to 60fps improves the feel of the game enormously. It was never a bad game, but was definitely a flawed and broken one. They've fixed that.
  11. dumpster

    Bad games transformed by patches and remasters

    Depends exactly when you played it. For me, Drive club has the best rain and weather effects of any home game ever. This was a prominent part of the pre-release publicity but when the game came out it was a buggy mess, with an online system that just didn't work and many of the promised features such as the weather missing. The patches came thick and fast, a couple of Gb here, a couple more GB there, and eventually an enormous patch that introduced the weather and extra content that was missing. DC is the best driving game of its kind (Its not pure arcade like Burnout 2, not pure realism like Gran Turismo, but a good halfway house in-between). The game today is a transformation compared to what's on the disk.
  12. dumpster

    Bad games transformed by patches and remasters

    Big fan of Burnout, but can't imagine playing Paradise without the option to restart an event. Glad that was put in before I'd bought it.
  13. dumpster

    Bad games transformed by patches and remasters

    Don't know what that means.
  14. dumpster

    Bad games transformed by patches and remasters

    I'm playing on a base PS4 and it is really great fun. Wasn't keen at all on the 360 in 2012, but I've played through all the characters scenarios over the past couple of weeks and loved every silly minute. 60fps makes a hell of a difference. On the 360 I'd say it was one of the worst in the series, but on Ps4 I'd put it ahead of 5 and just behind 4. I guess I'm not allowed to like Resi6 on this forum.
  15. Isn't Resident Evil 6 brilliant? I mean, seriously. It's second only to Resi4 in terms of action and sheer fun. It's delightfully over the top, the co-op is brilliant, the story is crazy, it's a blast. Of course, this is on PS4, running at a constant 60fps, with remastered graphics and patches built in. Reading the thread from 2012 shows a largely negative reception due to the floaty controls, weird viewpoint, murky graphics etc. But these have all been patched since release, and the combination of all these improvements with the PS4s upgrades takes what was a seriously disliked title and makes it one of the best in the series. This reminds me of DriveClub, which promised the world in previews, delivered a nice but basic racing game and all the promises of realistic weather etc were apparently lies. The online side was broken and there was much disappointment. Today, Driveclub downloads a 30Gb patch and becomes one of the best driving games ever made, with all the features that were promised. What games do you recommend that went from crappy to happy thanks to patches and remasters?

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.