For those of you that have been trying out different demos, have any stood out to you, good or bad? What's been your general experience with Next Fest, and how does this stack up to years past?
My friends and I have been striving for the perfect score of 13 in Just One, and there's almost always one or two cards which make it seemingly impossible unless you're very lucky.
Just One if you're unfamiliar, is a game where your teammate wants to guess a word -- and you each independently give a one-word clue, "Donkey", "Dreamworks", "Ogre". If two or more players write the same word, all those clues get hidden -- so your clues can't be too obvious.
The words vary absurdly in difficulty from words like "Wine" and "Snake" where you can basically break the game by listing wines and snakes -- to words like "Mexico" and "Strawberry" where you can come at them from a few directions. ...But about 10% of the words are things like "Grotto", "Couscous" and "Ramses" where honestly, you could possibly sit down with someone for 30 minutes describing them in excruciating detail, and they might still not come up with those particular words. Could you describe "Couscous" to your 10-year-old nephew who lives on Chick-fil-A and Mcdonalds? Could you disambiguate a "Grotto" from a cave, cavern, bunker or lair? Sometimes it's a vocabulary thing but more often, it's just words with a lot of synonyms.
I call these "land mine" cards and I'm curious if anyone else has noticed this phenomenon. Have any of you gotten a perfect score in Just One? If so did you randomly dodge these land mines or did you overcome them with a really perfect clue?
I've been interested in getting into it for the last few years but haven't managed to get started, no one I know personally is into it, and within online communities I'm a part of I sometimes miss dates for campaigns, often due to my work schedule.
I originally asked this three years ago and got some great responses. Now that we have a lot more users active here and we're living three years in the future, I'd love to ask it again and see what comes up!
I'm interested in hearing about games that exist off the main map of gaming: games that I can't buy from any of the common storefronts and games that aren't easily playable through an emulator.
Examples of things I'm interested in hearing about:
Tell me about the game(s) you know of and what makes them noteworthy.
Hello Tildes board gamers!
I got a 3D printer last year, and over the last few months, I've started printing organizers other people have designed from Printables and Thingiverse, especially for games with poor provided organization or lots of tokens and cards... however there are a number of games I have where people haven't designed a good organizer, or the ones which exist are lacking in some way (don't fit my boxes, missing boxes for expansions, only support all the expansions, etc)
Does anyone have tips on getting started with designing my own? I've got some very basic 3D modeling knowledge, but my primary strengths are as a programmer, so leveraging something like OpenSCAD would be ideal. I saw the boardgame insert toolkit, but it seems relatively basic - there are lots of convenience features I'd love to add as well (like curved walls for token holders to make it easier to get tokens out). Is that a good place to start, or should I look elsewhere?
Even just some ideas about tolerances and/or tips for how to size sections for cards would be super helpful.
Whether it be team comps, strategies, or even a nifty thing about a hero. Who are our competitive Overwatch players who might be missing a place to chat about it?
Have you played any games yet? What army have you been running and what are your thoughs so far?
My Lenovo laptop and Dell desktop have subpar specs on them, so playing a AAA game from the last decade is out of the question. They struggle to run Team Fortress 2, BioShock, and Minecraft at 30 FPS, but 1990's boomer shooters and some indie titles play fairly smoothly. Here are some of the games that they can run:
Any suggested games would be greatly appreciated.
Consider
How long would it take a player to earn an their success given 1 attempt/minute?
The answer for (a) is "infinity" which the community rarely accepts. It is possible (though unlikely) for someone to fail forever, they can. The answer for (b) at most 100 attempts (100 minutes).
Developers can describe (a) as the average player will succeed after a little over an hour (~69 attempts). However the 99th precentile takes about 7.5 hours... and the unlucky 1%? Longer. 1 hour and 7.5 hours aren't in the same ballpark.
Anyone have a solution to cut through the mathplexity? Decisions in their own game design or what they've seen others do? I simply have pities when the odds are worse than 1 in 5 or relegate (a) style probabilities to combat systems (non-reward).
I used to like Command & Conquer and similar games, but these days I find it stressful and too fast paced.
I want some recommendations of turn based games that does not have a steep learning curve like Hearts of Iron but it's not too simple like Advanced Wars.
It needs to be for PC and run on a Ryzen 3200G laptop.
With all the new people running around, thought it be a good time to ask what everyone uses for gaming...
Are you a console convert?
A portable gaming pro?
Desktop diehard?
Lifelong laptop leaderboard-er?
Teak-tabletop-till-you-die?
Archive level retro-gaming repository?
Custom collectible card game covers?
Tired of my poor attempts at alliteration?
So right now I'm about to finish persona 5 strikers and I'm not sure on what to play next. This are the possible games (nintendo switch):
Would you like to help me choose? Please
For example, Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett has forever changed how I roleplay dragons.
I'm going on a camping trip soon. I've loaded up my eReader with books from Appendix N and am looking for other grist for the mill. Mainly looking for books at the moment, but feel free to suggest other things.
In gaming discussion, rumors are very prevalent and powerful. Some rumors keep coming up over and over again and just won't go away despite never revealing themselves.
What gaming rumor do you feel like has been around forever and just won't die?
Mirroring the other thread about Magic, I was wondering if there's any Yu-Gi-Oh! players around who would be interested in sharing their current thoughts on the game and history.
Hello everyone,
I have been craving a sort of game genre, but I'm not quite sure what it is or if it really exists as a genre at all.
It is a game with a lot of existential twists to it. I could call it Mystery though I feel it falls short.
The main story tends to be a complete upheaval of what we thought was the basic premise. Think of it like paradigm shift: the game.
They also tend to be games that you can really only play once. Lucky for me my memory is horrible.
So far I came up with these games:
Most of these have some kind of cycle involved in them, but I'm not sure if that's coincidental. All of them have you learn how the world works and it's never really what you first expected.
They tend to be light in battle, which is probably a skill issue bias on my part.
Honorary mention to:
Do you know any others? Or do you know a good match to this list?
What do you think kind of links all this? Feel like playing one of these games?
Title
Anyone that has been playing multiplayer games for a while must have noticed the recent shift when it comes to multiplayer games matchmaking trends.
Multiplayer games were no joke, they were hardcore, with high entry barriers where the more experienced players would dominate the field, and newer players were nothing but fodder for them. If you were new to a game you could expect to lose most of your matches for a while, but if you were to put in the effort, improved, learned the game and persevered trough, then you'd be rewarded by becoming the one to dominate the field instead.
Nowadays it's different, anyone can pick up a game, no matter how experienced they are, and expect to win roughly half the games they play. From newcomers to pro players, everyone seems to be relegated to a strictly forced 50% winrate policy. But how is that possible?
The focus in game design seems to have shifted from rewarding individual oriented play, to rewarding more teamwork oriented skills instead. The focus on teamwork has been pushed so far to the point where, if your team isn't putting in the effort, no matter how good of a player you are, you won't be able to compensate for your team lack of skills and they'll be the reason why you lose the match. There wouldn't be anything inherently wrong with this, especially in a team game, if it weren't for the fact that it really feels as if the better you get at the game, the worse your teammates get.
This is how they're able to make everyone's winrates hover around 50%. Sure if you lose too much the algorithm will start giving you better teammates, but if you win too much then the quality of your matches will be abysmal, leading to a point where all the good players get effectively punished and can never fully see the fruits of the effort they put for actually learning the game.
Players have expressed for years their frustrations against this balancing method, as many felt cheated due to losing too many matches due to factors completely out of their control, but so far nothing has changed.
This sort of matchmaking algorithm can also be used to impose certain "patterns" in the wins and losses that a player experiences while playing, in order to increase their engagement. A study from 2017 published for EA , goes to show how players are more likely to quit a game if they incur in specific win/loss patterns. For example, of the entire playerbase, 5% of them will quit the game if they were to incur in three losses in a row.
Here's an excerpt from the paper's abstract
"Current matchmaking systems depend on a single core strategy: create fair games at all times. These systems pair similarly skilled players on the assumption that a fair game is best player experience. We will demonstrate, however, that this intuitive assumption sometimes fails and that matchmaking based on fairness is not optimal for engagement"
This is just a window into what goes trough the developing process of a multiplayer videogame these days. The paper is from 2017 but troughout these years this approach to multiplayer games has been adopted and developed to the point where every single multiplayer experience, from PC to mobile to consoles, feels artificially crafted and finely tuned to keep you as hooked for as much time as possible to the screen.
This doesn't stop to win/loss patterns, another example would be gears of war, where the devs have admitted to make your bullets do more damage on your first match of the day, because their studies showed that people were more likely to play troughout the day if they were to win the first match they played. These same devs would later go to make Fortnite, which would go on to generate billions in revenue for years.
What are your thoughts? Do you prefer the modern take to make multiplayer games more accessible to everyone, or would you rather go back to the days where communities would develope more organically?
.
I've been seeing the mention of the game a lot lately, and I've seen many memes about it in the past week or so, I've never played the game so I don't know much about it, I'm guessing it's because of the new game that was released ? but why has it gotten so famous suddenly ?
I've recently been getting into Diplomacy (both face to face and online) and it's surprisingly fun, although requires some dedication. I'm wondering if anyone here has experience with the game or some tips for learning more in-depth strategy? It feels like online resources aren't that great or plentiful yet I'm having a hard time surviving against experienced players.
What I'm talking about are Pokemon that are given away in official events, which usually come in a Cherish Ball (after gen 4), have a ribbon, and were met in a 'fateful encounter'. I'm particularly interested in the H-Zoroark event distribution at the moment, because I love that Pokemon and the red color of the Cherish Ball matches it nicely.
Mostly just looking around for fellow traders to chat about cool shit we have, but I'm up for a trade or two if there's anyone interested!
I've lately exhausted most of my main library of games that would work well with an ultrawide monitor (mine being 21:9). I've been trying to find some new games to try or buy that utilize ultrawides to their potential. I think the default games that they're generally used are first person shooters given the FOV is comfortably wider and gives a competitive edge, but I'm looking for more creative utilization types.
An off-the-cuff example would be It Takes Two: It's still a gain in FOV, but it thoroughly improves the experience when both players can see more of their half of the game. Can anyone think of any other games where the whole ultrawide gets utilized well in either FOV, UI placement, or general design choices?