I've been a fan of the farming/life sim/role playing/cozy games or however you want to label these games since I was a kid and my older brother brought home a new game for the Nintendo 64: Harvest Moon 64. Over the years, I played several titles in the series through the Wii/NDS era, before my tastes changed, and I found myself playing more online games with my friends and just less gaming overall.

Stardew Valley releasing was a huge event for the genre and I do greatly enjoy the game (even though I've yet to finish a play through as I keep restarting after taking a break from playing) as it captured the feeling of the early Harvest Moon games really well. It also got me to start the habit of having an N64 emulator and a copy of Harvest Moon 64 on practically every device I own.

There have been some recent remakes of older games, specifically Friends of Mineral Town and A Wonderful life, but I didn't enjoy the art style and some of the changes made to the games, which ended up with me not picking them up.

I was curious if anyone else was a fan of the series (or one particular game in the series), or if there are any recent games that you felt are great in this genre.

I was reading the recent post about strategy games, and I'm still astonished to see for how many hours (at least hundreds, often 1000+) people are playing these. I'm guessing that in these cases, all your gaming time is exclusively taken by that single game.

So, do you have (or did you have) games, or series, like that? Do you play solo or multi? What compels you to spend so much time on a single game? How do you feel about it?

Command and Conquer Generals Zero Hour:
It has a very active community and there are lots of tournaments. Matches are very intense and fun.
Europa Universalis IV:
At this point of my life, I can say I am almost super pro at this game with thousands of hours 🥲

I also want to get into Red Alert and Star Craft series but I find them super complicated for some reason lol. Maybe I lost my game learning skills at the age of 29…

So Assassins Creed Shadows released this week, and so far the discourse surrounding the game is really all over the place with lots of good and bad reviews across the spectrum. I was a big fan of the Assassins Creed games from 1-3, and then I skipped the PS4 console generation so I didnt play any of the more recent ones. But this new one is about ninjas, which is rad, so Ive been following news about the game.

One thing I noticed, which is the main thing I want to discuss, when seeing clips of the game online is the focus on sword combat, and more specifically open combat. I dont know if this is a thing that became more of a focus in earlier games like Valhala or if its more a response to the success of Ghost of Tsushima. Im wondering if anyone else has thoughts on how the role of combat has evolved as the series has advanced.

In my personal view, a ninja assassin game should have minimal focus on direct combat. The ideal way an assassination should go is something like this:

1. Do some early missions to gather intel or do prep work

2. Take on "the approach" to your target, which will involve a combination of parkouring over rooftops and stealth kills to remove guards. Your efforts in step 1 will make this easier or harder.

3. Get into position and wait for the right moment when the target moves into the right place

4. Spring your trap, whether that be pouncing on them with a dagger or setting off an explosive or whatever

5. Drop a smoke bomb, disappear into the shadows, maybe jump off a rooftop into a haystack for good measure

When pulled off correctly, it should be like you were never there. Aside from the dead guy. If you are getting into a direct head on confrontation as a ninja, you have fucked up at ninja. To this end, I feel that in a stealth assassination game open combat should be more of a penalty for when you screw up and get caught, not part of the core strategy.

Looking back at the early games, this concept was applied in AC1. Getting into a fight with a Templar was pretty difficult and tedious. You didnt want to get stuck doing it, and if you did it was often better to just run. The times you were forced to fight head on it felt like you were trapped in a dire situation that was not to your advantage, so it was a good way to apply pressure to the player to make a scene seem tense.

In AC2 the combat was reworked and became significantly easier. I actually really like the way it was implemented. Technically you can get away with just hammering away at most weaker enemies until you break their guard, but the combat really shines when you fight defensively. If you focus in dodging and counter-kills, big fights become a thing of beauty. Ezio dodges and weaves effortlessly through the crowd, doing a slick spin slash every so often to slice a bad guys neck. Its all very stylistic and elegant and graceful in a way that makes Ezio look like a badass but is still very evocative of the idea of a master assassin.

And then AC3 is fine, I don't have a ton to say about that one.

Returning to Shadows, when I look at clips of people playing the game there is a lot of sword combat. The combat seems to often follow a pattern where the enemy will perform a fixed attack pattern with visual indications like a colored aura around their weapon, which the player must mitigate through precision by either dodge rolls or parrys, after which there will be a pause during which the player can whack at the enemy a few times and reduce their health bar. Repeat a couple times until they are killed. I think it is specifically the hacking away at an enemy like you are taking a machete to jungle foliage that I dont like about this. Whittling away at an enemy who just tanks it and soaks up damage feels decidedly un-assassiny to me.

Now, if open combat is intended to be a big part of the game then I can see why this is the case. You cant make every enemy a long drawn out chore like AC1 because if youre going to have to do this like a hundred times that will get old fast. And you cant do glorified quick time events like AC2 because itd be too quick and a major pillar of your gameplay will feel trivial. So I can see why this newer style of combat is being used, I just don't feel its a great fit for the genre.

What are your thoughts? Are you a fan of stealth-action games? Do you enjoy dodge-roll-centric combat? How would you want to see combat handled in an assassins creed type game?

I really love being able to see all sorts of stats -- number of games played, wins/losses, leaderboard rankings, even obscure stats.

I also love word, card, and puzzle games. Games like solitaire, for example, would be PERFECT candidates to lean heavily into the stats, but I just haven't been able to find a good one yet.

What are your favorite games in these categories? Bonus points if they have an emphasis on keeping records and stats.

I'm touching up a game with a dev who is getting their code ready for a FOSS build of their game. One of the more persistent bugs is something weird in the settings menu, where an option is focused and checked off, the text label disappears. Color override doesn't seem to affect the behavior, but if I go into the game editor and uncheck Clip Content and Follow Focus, the behavior flips and now it's focused and UNchecked text labels that disappear. I'm putting feelers out for advice on the usual haunts, and I thought I would ask here too.

Godot version is 3.6, the only modification is that it uses Godotsteam.

I've had some ideas for a game simmering for a while now and I've finally committed to learning Godot to see what I can put together. I'm still in need of some inspiration, though, and I know there's a few folks around here who have made games. Complete, polished, sketchy, half-baked - doesn't matter! - I'd love to see what people here have come up with!

My parameters are

• Any kind of racing - F1, Moto GP, X games, rallycross, antigravity... you name it.
• No subscriptions
• I lean away from sim/management games... I don't mind some customization, but I don't want to have to choose from 10 different types of brake pads for best performance on each track.
• Combat optional
• If it makes a difference, I'll be playing with a controller, not a racing wheel.

[Edit: I should have specified - a modern racing game. I'm pretty versed on the options pre-2010, it's the new stuff I'm looking for.]

I originally wanted a rally game to scratch a hillclimb itch but I'm open to whatever now. Trawling through Steam has made my head spin though.

Previous racing games/series I've played and liked - Rallisport Challenge (really, if I could just play this again I'd be set), Wipeout 3, Road Rash, Ridge Racer Type 4, Twisted Metal 2, Jet Moto, Wave Race, Mario Kart, Sled Storm... OutRun! Showing my age here.

Somehow I've never really liked Need For Speed.

My kids and I recently picked up Deep Rock Galactic, and after playing a few rounds I feel a bit overwhelmed. I think either I'm just not fully accustomed to the game yet, or perhaps missing something.

Anyway, I thought I would ask the people of Tildes for tips and tricks. Anything you wish you knew earlier? Or maybe just some general advice for a new player?

Thanks much!

Let's list some great mobile games. Preferably ones you can pay for once and be done, or free ones that have microtransactions that you don't need to do to just play the game (e.g. Marvel Snap). Leave out pay for power or games that have "charges" to stop you from playing until you buy more or burn time.

Edit: Thank you everyone for your suggestions! I compiled a list here that is, I believe, mostly Android. If you're looking for iOS only suggestions it looks like Apple Arcade was recommended regularly and also user Recognition101 had a comprehensive list I will refer you to: https://recognition101.github.io/ios-games/

Here is the Android Games List:
-Square Enix re-releases
-Stardew Valley
-Monster Hunter Stories
-Disgaea series remakes
-Vampire Survivors
-Slay the Spire
-Shattered Pixel Dungeon
-Slice and Dice
-Bloons series
-Sproggiwood
-Pysol FC
-Lexica
-Mindustry
-Overboard
-Old PC Game ports like Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, SW:KOTR 1 & 2
-Hoplite
-Simon Tatham's Puzzles
-Rogue Adventure
-Cultist Simulator
-Mini-Metro
-Wordament
-Retro Bowl
-Antiyoy
-Marvel Snap
-Star Realms
-Wingspan
-Team Fight Tactics
-Battle for Polytopia
-Where's My Water?
-Underhand
-Badland
-Eat Me Please
-Z Origins
-Yellow
-Dawncaster
-Ollie's Arcade
-Orna
-Night of the Full Moon
-A Dark Room
-The Ensign
-Universal Paperclips
-Opus: Rocket of whispers
-Opus: The day we found Earth
-TerraGenesis - Space Settlers
-Sheltered
-Seedship
-Framed
-Plague Inc.
-Gravity Defied
-Magic Research
-Star Wars Galaxy of Heroes
-Peglin
-Civilization series
-Rebel Inc.
-Boom Beach
-Professor Layton Series
-Slay
-Ritual

This is primarily aimed at the younger folks here, but it can conceivably work for anyone.

Is there a game that came out from before you started gaming that you have since played and loved? An oldie for you, but still a goodie?

I’m curious because gaming has changed so much so quickly that a lot of older games feel like they almost require fond nostalgia to counterbalance their clunkiness. For others, they were sort of a “you had to be there” moment because gaming hadn’t developed fully as a medium so we players weren’t aware of their limitations at the time.

Without nostalgia or direct experience with them, a lot of their magic is gone.

Has anyone found that magic in a game even without the nostalgia? If so, which one(s). What made them resonate for you?

In particular, I’m interested in games that specifically aren’t remakes/remasters since those often modernize elements, but I won’t say they aren’t allowed for the purposes of the question or anything, since they’re also a very accessible way for modern gamers to access older titles.

Hey there! I've been modding Minecraft for a couple years now and recently have fallen down the rabbit hole of watching people play horror mods. I was curious if anyone knows any good YouTube series where people roleplay in a game with horror mods. Actual in-character playthroughs of games is a fascinating topic for me (think Neebs Gaming playing Subnautica), so I was curious if anyone knew any that involve Minecraft horror. Thanks in advance!

I just learned that I can use the Steam Link app (iOS link, Android link) to stream Steam games to my phone and tablet (within my home).

I have no desire to play M/KB or controller-based games on these devices (I already have a computer and a Steam Deck which can do those better), but I like the idea of playing some more casual stuff that only uses mouse input (in the form of me tapping the screen).

I'm thinking stuff like:

• Mobile game ports meant for touch input
• Point-and-click adventures
• Clicker games
• Anything else I'm not thinking of that could be easily played by tapping the screen

I'm interested specifically in lower-precision mouse-based games that would be comfortable to play on my relatively small phone screen (the device I'm most likely to use), though that's not a hard requirement. Anything requiring more precision I could play on my much larger tablet screen instead.

What games do you recommend?

I've mentioned a few times I'm working on making a tactical RPG engine, and I'm finally at the point where I'm doing the actual important part of determining turn order.

It's a harder design decision than I thought, so I thought I'd ask for opinions.

I'm trying to make a game in the style of Shining Force, where the turn order is determined by a unit's status. There's quite a few games like that, but I'm wondering if that design is actually good. The thing that makes that style of game good is that they're actually fairly easy, and the "noise" of stat-based turn order, where you can't depend on a specific turn order, seems to make the game harder. Or at the very least, it closes the door on more precise tactics. I've had plenty of experiences where I thought a unit was safe because they had enough HP for one more hit, and the enemy ended up hitting them twice before their turn came up.

In reality, I'm actually pretty set on keeping this in my engine for better or for worse (boy, is it hard to resist expanding scope), but I'd be interested in hearing some opinions nonetheless

This thread is aimed toward discussing video game mods, whether that be major overhauls, more tame additions to what is otherwise still pretty much the base game, simple QoL stuff, tech demos showing off black magic the game's engine only begrudgingly accepts to let happen, mods you're making yourself, modpacks, or anything else that is related.

Fix an annoyance.
Take out a level.
Revamp a system.
Expand a world.
Etc.

Pick a game, any game, and tell us what ONE thing about it you would change, and why. It doesn’t have to be feasible or reasonable or whatnot. You’ve got a magic wand with one charge left.

Also, your goal CAN be to make the game better, but it doesn’t have to be! Maybe you want to make the game more challenging. More chaotic. More hilarious. More broken.

Entirely up to you!

Also, you only get one change per game, but it’s fine to talk about what you would do for more than one game.

Hey folks!

I've recently become quite enamoured with a game called Empyrion Galactic Survival, because as a science fiction author, it gave me a chance to build and fly some of the ships from my books. So much so in fact, that I went and started a YouTube channel in order to "sell" them to other players (they're all free on Nexus, the videos I made just remind me of car reviews so far lol).

Now, Empyrion only goes so far in scratching the creative itch, and I'm on the hunt for more of its I'll to build and experiment with. I'm looking forward to playing with Space Engineers 2 when it drops, but are there any others you can recommend? It needn't be constrained to space games either... I'm a fan of all things mechanical, but mostly those I can hot rod a bit and paint flames on.

As is the case with a lot of my questions, "intended for multiplayer" is as open as you want it to be.

It could be that it's a game primarily known for its multiplayer that also happens to have a campaign (e.g. one of the Call of Duty games) or it could be you playing Mario Party against yourself by trading off between your own controllers (we've all done something like this, right?).

Entirely up to you how you interpret the question.

Let us know what the game was, why you played it solo, and, most importantly, how that went for you. Did you like it? Did it give you a novel gaming experience? Were you able to work around any of its limitations? Would you recommend other people try it?

I like to play games, but lately I've been avoiding certain types because I think they are not good for my health. At least, they don't make me feel well afterward. For me, this is a particular type of game that requires a very high level of skill, concentration, and dexterity.
I noticed this years ago when I would play online multiplayer. After the game, I would feel extremely aggressive and I could tell that my blood pressure must have been much higher than normal.

More recently, I notice this on very difficult games such as Elden Ring, specifically the boss fights. After playing for a while I have the same feeling that I would have if I had just walked away from a near fatal accident or something. Then sometimes that evening I would have trouble sleeping.

I'm sure my physiology is different than other people. I seem to retain adrenaline/cortisol levels longer than most others. And I know that some people find the adrenaline high to be one of the main points of gaming. Still, I wonder if in general it isn't good for people to stress themselves like this when they aren't burning it off with physical activity.

I read about this online a little bit. There seem to have been some studies about it that were mostly inconclusive. Most of the findings are more interested in games being a substitute for more physical activity, so gamers may be more sedentary or overweight than normal.

Do you have any favourite videos / playlists (or the rare cases of writing with screenshots) where someone plays through a whole game while supplying their own commentary in an entertaining and/or informative way?

Heads up: the following is abnormally wordy even by my standards, and I'm the kind of person who regularly runs into the Discord character limit by accident despite the Nitro subscription increasing it. The underlying context is a set of two videos that by themselves reach almost 3 hours of runtime. I tried to sum up some of the main points enough that you don't strictly need to have watched the videos to follow while also not needing to slog through a play by play of the same video I recommended you to watch if you did. While I believe the subject is interesting, I fully understand if you don't have the time to dedicate to this. If you do and weren't scared away by the size of the scroll bar, feel free to read on.

Context

This all starts with the seemingly straightforward question in the title: How many Super Mario games are there? You would think it would be easy to answer given that this series is so massively impactful in video game history that to many it defines what a video game is. The truth, like most things, is a lot more complicated. jan Misali, who you might also know for their Conlang Critic series and various video essays on other deceptively complex subjects they find interesting, gathered data through a survey to collect people's answers to that question, and made a video on the subject. The video is about 45 minutes long, and that's only because they deliberately cut it short. The discussion that sparked from this video eventually led to them starting another survey at a larger scale with a revised methodology, culminating to a sequel to the previous video, this time with a two hours runtime, and it, too, was cut short. If you have the time to set aside for this, I would greatly recommend watching both videos as they're very insightful and most of what I have to say is commentary to these two videos (and doesn't even come close to covering as much as the videos themselves do).

What question are we even asking here?

Like all good debates on the internet, it starts with an ambiguity issue: What is a "Super Mario game"? In simpler cases, a video game series can be defined as the first game and its sequels and that's enough to establish an uncontroversial list. Things get more complicated when we look at an entire franchise especially one as massive as the Mario franchise, which contains a ton of video games, an even bigger pile of non-video game media... and works that blur the line. You can probably see where this is going, but I'll get back to that particular can of worms later. Focusing on the video games, among the entire franchise, the question focuses on the "mainline" series. That is what jan Misali refers to as the "Super Mario" series, distinguishing them from spinoffs and other games that are part of the franchise. You'll note that I specified "what jan Misali refers to as the "Super Mario" series", not "what the "Super Mario" series is".

Multiple-choice confusion

Using the video runtime as a yardstick, we are 2 minutes into the first part, and there is already a binary tree's worth of debate, and it's only getting bigger from here: the existence of a mainline series as a separate entity from the overall Mario franchise is commonly accepted, but not unanimously. Among those who do agree, there is disagreement on the scope of the mainline series (with how gargantuan the franchise itself is, even the spinoffs have their own spinoffs, and it would be a perfectly reasonable take to consider some or all of them, such as the Mario Kart games, as a core part of the series). Among those who agree on the scope, there is disagreement over what the first game of the series is (do we start at Super Mario Bros? Mario Bros? Donkey Kong? The Game & Watch series?). In order to keep the video at 45 minutes and not 45 hours, jan Misali picks one definition they feel is reasonable among others: the Super Mario series is one distinct series among others in the franchise, made up of Super Mario Bros. on the NES and its sequels, which are mostly platformer games. With this baseline established (even if the survey doesn't 100% agree), how do we figure out which of all the Mario games are the sequels to SMB1? There are many methods to go about this... And not only none of them converge to a single answer, they all diverge in different ways. Let's start with the most direct source of data jan Misali had access to as a direct result of the process of making the videos: the surveys.

The one thing we can agree on is that no one agrees

jan Misali isn't just presenting their own thoughts on the matter, they're also analyzing the data gathered from a survey they made before recording both videos. The first one merely presented you with a premade list of games and asked you which of them you considered to be a Super Mario games, and the second one goes more in depth but still had the same overall goal. If there was any sort of consensus (assuming the survey wasn't sabotaged or otherwise flawed enough to distort the ability to interpret the data to the point of uselessness), you could derive the broadly accepted list of Super Mario games from looking at the most common answers to the survey, right?

If you interpret "the most common answer" as "which games people overwhelmingly (>95%) agree are part of the series", the survey gives us Super Mario Bros, Super Mario bros 3, and Super Mario World (by the time of the second video, the second survey added Super Mario 64 to the list, as well as Super Mario Bros. Wonder)... which almost anyone who has an opinion on the subject would agree is a grossly incomplete list. If you interpret "the most common answer" as "which is the list that the most people agreed is the full list of the Super Mario series", you end up with a much more complete list of 18 games which by definition is what the highest percentage of people answering the survey agree on. You could consider it the survey's overall answer to the question... except the percentage in question is less than 2% (although in the second survey analyzed in the second video, this same list, with the at the time newly released Super Mario Bros. Wonder added, actually stood at just above 5%. Closer, but still very much a minority group within the survey). Almost everyone who answered still disagree to some degree with that answer. While there is plenty of insight to be gained from the data (including regarding the limitations of the survey itself), it also conclusively establishes that public opinion (or at least in jan Misali's audience) doesn't have a truly agreed upon answer to this question.

Hang on, let me call my uncle at Nintendo

So, we have an answer, but not the answer, and even worse (...or better, if you like analyzing seemingly trivial arguments that secretly hide a rabbit hole of semantics, linguistics and cognitive science) the only thing we can say about "the" answer is that it cannot exist. So let's try finding more answers by going from another angle. If we learned anything from politics, it's that an answer derived from polls can absolutely be wrong, so it makes sense to consider that there is an authoritative source that can give a definitive answer over public opinion. The most obvious lead would be Nintendo itself, the owner of the IP... except that instantly fizzles out because while Nintendo does provide a list of mainline Super Mario games on their website, the one they give you isn't the same depending on whether you ask Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Japan. We can also look at what Wikipedia deems to be the list of Super Mario games, which naturally is different from both Nintendo US and Nintendo JP's list, and on top of that is arguably inconsistent with itself: the page's release timeline lists Bowser's Fury as an entry like the others, but the infobox that redirects to the various Mario games under the "main games" section lists it between parentheses as a sub-entry to Super Mario 3D World, the same way it lists New Super Luigi U as a sub-entry to New Super Mario Bros U which the release timeline in turn omits completely. There are rational reasons to do it this way which I won't go into since jan Misali explains it in the videos themselves, but technically that means Wikipedia doesn't have an internal consensus either. The Super Mario wiki, while unaffiliated with Nintendo, is also a good candidate for an authoritative source, which gives you another, different, answer. We could go on, but let's stop here and conclude that, once again, there is no agreed answer.

Give me your argument and I'll tell you why we're both wrong

Neither polling the public nor going by the authoritative sources have given a concrete answer, which leaves us in front of the semantic rubble trying to piece back a coherent understanding of the Super Mario series. Not to try and find the Correct™ answer, we've already established there isn't one, but it would give us valuable insight as to why no one can agree to a specific answer in the first place. jan Misali spreads this approach over both videos as they give their reasoning from various angles. They deliberately haven't gone over this exhaustively, and neither will I (not that I would be able to), but I do have thoughts I'd like to share based on their observations... Which yes, means I've written 1,5k words establishing the base around the videos I want to talk about despite operating under the assumption the reader has already watched them before going over my own thoughts. I'm certain I could have been more concise, but I felt this was necessary so that this post could stand as a coherent chain of reasoning and not a completely disjointed rambling that won't make sense to anyone who hasn't made the significant time investment that fully watching the video essays represents, and still not make sense to most who did (and if I misunderstood something critical, someone reading this can point it out from my attempt to lay out the context rather than after 12 confused replies down the thread). I'll try and tie my thoughts together in broader parts with increasingly silly titles.

"Home console purism"

I will start by addressing this not because it's the most important (if anything it's the least important detail I have something to say about) but because it lets me introduce a talking point I'll reuse later. Something that jan Misali mentions early on is what they call "home console purism", defining it as the belief that the mainline Mario series, as a rule, cannot include handheld games. While they don't explicitly state this at any point nor do I have a specific reason to believe implying it was their intention, it somewhat came off to me like bringing it up as a flawed argument just to dismiss it, especially after it was brought up again regarding Super Mario Run as a comparison to the belief that mobile games "don't count". If you leave it at that, I absolutely agree that it's silly to exclude a video game for that reason, especially with the Switch blurring the line. After thinking about it, though, while I'd still disagree with using it as a reason to exclude a video game from a series in this specific case, I think it deserves to be looked at in more detail.

Gatekeeping or shifting perspective?

The least charitable interpretation of this argument is that handheld and mobile games are deemed to not be worthy of being included alongside the "real" games released on home consoles or PC, usually with a side of implying that you're a "fake" gamer if you play them (not to mention the higher layer argument from the same basis that also excludes any console games, leaving only PCs as the "true" gaming platform and everything else as lesser toys for kids) which can safely be dismissed as elitist gatekeeping. However, from a perspective of classifying games within a series, there is a much more sensible way to approach this argument.

The "Call of Duty on the DS" problem

Nowadays, between the handheld PCs like the Steam Deck which can give desktop PCs a run for their money in terms of specs and the Nintendo Switch that refuses to be classified as a dedicated home console or handheld, the distinction would look a lot sillier, but the handheld game market used to be closer to an isolated sub-segment of the overall video games market than a fully integrated part of it. Disregarding the whole "exclusive releases" circus, faithfully porting a PC game to a home console was generally agreed to be feasible. Handheld consoles were another matter entirely. Most (all? was there a handheld notable for outperforming contemporary home consoles?) of the time, handheld consoles had vastly inferior specs to contemporary home consoles and computers making faithful ports of a given game to them a pipe dream if the game was too resource intensive, and a tendency to have a much more varied control scheme than you'd expect from home consoles, sometimes to the point of "porting" an existing game requiring restarting the game design process from scratch.

You've gotta hand it to the Need For Speed DS game devs, they certainly tried to make them similar to the other platforms

Where this starts mattering in this context is what this means for releases within an individual game series, and how game studios would treat developing a given entry for each system. Some just stuck to only home consoles or handhelds, some would aim for the best compromise between having a unified experience for a given game no matter which device you were playing it on and leveraging a specific console's unique features, some would confusingly release games under the same title on different platforms but actually make them completely different games (even Nintendo themselves are guilty of it!), and, most relevantly, some would deliberately make handheld games stand out from the home console games as a sub-series.

Why this doesn't really matter here, but the point I'm building up to does

This outlook makes a lot less sense if you look at the Super Mario series in a vacuum, which, as a mainly platformer series, struggles a lot less with making a handheld release that convincingly fits the vibe of the home console releases than other genres might (in no small part because designing a 2D game makes just as much sense as it does in 3D for this genre, making the specs gap between handheld and home consoles a lot less important), and as a first party franchise, Nintendo isn't going to be blindsided by a new console's weird features like a third party studio might since they're the ones making the console... But if you consider the market in general across the years, siloing the home and handheld side of a given series as two separate entities, with the home console being granted the "mainline series" role was a very real phenomenon. If you start from this premise and look at the Super Mario series which debuted on the NES, it makes sense to apply the same framework and say "None of the handheld games are part of the Super Mario series, they're part of their own series". I would still disagree, but it's definitely a lot more sensible to base it on past observations of the market than gatekeeping.

The Super Mario release timeline needs its own timeline

To elaborate, I would find this argument a lot more convincing back when the DS (which was so atypical that even porting a game from another handheld to the DS' bespoke dual screen and touch screen setup was a non trivial affair, let alone the home consoles) was the current-gen Nintendo handheld than now where the Switch 2 (a console with a mostly conventional control scheme and powerful enough that porting an arbitrary PC/home console game to it without visibly changing anything about the game makes just as make sense as any other platform) is about to come out. And with this I'm finally arriving to the talking point I wanted to introduce. If the evolution of the broader market can affect the validity of someone's criteria to determine which games are (or aren't) part of the Super Mario series, then we can generalize that to the following: A game can be (or no longer be) considered part of a series depending on when you ask even if absolutely nothing has changed about the game in isolation.

Sure they're all a Mario game, but which one is THE Mario game?

One thing that jan Misali picked up on from the original survey is a major ambiguity that made answering (and therefore interpreting the resulting data) harder is the remakes, remasters, enhanced versions with their own release, and other related weirder cases. These games range from almost completely identical to previous releases to non-controversially a variant of the same title but still different enough to provide an experience meaningfully separate from the original title, to different enough they're arguably not the same game, adding a dimension to the answer that makes enforcing a flat "yes" or "no" choice less useful. This is why the survey that led to the second video made it possible to call an entry a "mainline Super Mario game", a "major spinoff", a "minor spinoff", "not canon" and finally "not a Mario game" (and "unsure", just in case) at the same time as you answer whether you think the title is a distinct entry in the series (or you're unsure), to be able to clarify the general sentiment that if a game saw more than one release under different versions, they can all be acknowledged as an incarnation of that game without making each individual release an entry to the mainline Super Mario series of its own. This allowed the answers to be more nuanced, but this by itself doesn't help answering the original concern: if multiple releases can all be the same game, and that game is part of the series, can more than one of these releases be called a "distinct" entry? If you think there can't, which one is it? And this last question is what I'm going to focus on for my next thought.

Mario games are temporary but Doom is Eternal

Forced reference aside, let's look at other franchises for comparison. Doom Eternal, originally released on PC in March 2020, got a Switch port later in December that year. Thanks to skillful optimization allowing it to somehow run on glorified 2015 Android tablet hardware, this port is faithful enough that I don't think it would be controversial to call it the same game as the PC release compared to, for example, The Sims 2, where while a game named The Sims 2 was released on the Nintendo DS, it is so radically different from the PC release that I would consider it an entirely separate game (and for that matter not a part of the mainline Sims series, but I'll put away that thought before I completely lose the plot). If I asked "Between the PC and the Switch release of Doom Eternal, which is the main release?" and we assume "both" isn't considered a valid answer (which is itself debatable) I would expect the natural answer to be the PC release simply because out of two functionally equivalent releases of the same game, the PC release came first. Similarly, if we consider, as a general rule, that there exists one, and only one, release of a given game that embodies a distinct entry in the mainline Super Mario series, with any other release not counting (while still accepting that they're a version of that game), the earliest release being the distinct entry makes intuitive sense. After all, they're the original version of the game. If it could be of the future ones it would mean a release could stop being the distinct entry in a mainline series despite nothing having changed about the release itself, which doesn't make sense... right?

What's in a name?

Time to bring up that one point from earlier: there's nothing inherently preventing the status of a game release as a mainline series entry from being affected by external factors. Quick disambiguation note: I've been using the word "release" in the context of video games being made available for purchase, but the word "release" can also be used to mean a software update, no matter how minor. Video games also being software, this distinction is now going to matter. To avoid confusion, I will only use the word "release" to mean a game being made available to purchase and refer to a new software version for an already released game as an "update". With this cleared up: before internet connection became a standard feature in consoles, the general expectation was that releasing a game meant permanently locking down the state of its software. Game companies would not want to update a game between releases and end up with different versions of a physical game in circulation if they can't ensure that the customers would get the most recently updated copies as it would inevitably confuse players, so it would only be considered for truly major issues that weren't caught in time for the release. As broadband internet came into the picture, it suddenly became a lot less important to make sure the game stayed the same after release as you could simply get the customer to upgrade their game over the Internet. This quickly became standard operating procedure for PC games, with consoles catching up a bit later, including Nintendo's. And with it, came the practice of content updates over the lifecycle of a game before the next release.

Dragonborn... reborn?

Even if the individual updates don't change the game to a meaningful degree from one update to the next, as they pile up you can eventually end up with a wildly different game than what it was when it originally released, even if it's supposed to be the same entry into its series. If you agree that the release you accept as the distinct entry of its mainline series can change its characteristics over time, wouldn't it make sense to also agree that which release of a game you consider to be the distinct entry of the mainline series can also change over time? Let's turn to another series as an example: The Elder Scrolls, and specifically Skyrim which is infamous for its amount of re-releases. It is at the time of writing the latest game in its series, and has been since 2011... but is the by now almost 15 years old original release really still the main entry in the Elder Scrolls mainline series? As far as Steam is concerned, the game you can purchase if you search for Skyrim on its store isn't the original release, nor is it even the Legendary Edition release from 2013, but the Special Edition from 2016 (while also letting you buy the Anniversary Edition as a DLC to the Special Edition). With the original release no longer being on sale and the more recent Anniversary Edition being classified as a DLC rather than a "proper" release, it would make sense for me to call SE the "distinct" entry representing Skyrim in The Elder Scrolls over the original release. Is there an instance of this happening in the Super Mario series? It would be a huge stretch, but you could argue (although frankly I wouldn't agree) that Super Mario 64 isn't a distinct entry in the Super Mario series because you consider the Super Mario 64 DS remake to be the "true" entry in the series. Sure, claiming that Super Mario 64, the first Mario 3D platformer isn't a mainline Super Mario game sounds ludicrous, but so does "Skyrim (2011) isn't a mainline Elder Scrolls Game but Skyrim Special Edition is" and I did consider it a plausible argument. A slightly less unhinged instance would be to consider New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe to be the representative entry in the mainline series over New Super Mario Bros. U.

Strictly defined criteria and their pitfalls or: why is a sweater a Super Mario game?

By this point I've highlighted ambiguities over the meaning of pretty much word in the question "How many Super Mario games are there?".

• How many: No consensus on the number of games in the series, let alone which ones they are
• Super Mario: No consensus on what makes an individual game part of the series
• are there (present tense): No guarantee that the list can stay consistent with regards to time, in either direction

There is one left to achieve total semantic obliteration: games. This was inevitable, really. How could you overanalyze this question and not bring up nitpicking over the meaning of the term "video game" itself? jan Misali has already done most of the work for me, as part of the second video involves them mentioning that attempting to derive an appropriate list of mainline Super Mario game solely from an objective definition while is doomed to fail. Whatever the approach, you will always be working with an unstated semantic "guardrail" of some sort that cannot be comprehensively worded into the definition. The first basic example they give is "Anything with 'Super' in the title is part of the Super Mario series." Under any reasonable context we know what is meant by "anything" but without it, this definition includes infinitely many things that very obviously aren't Super Mario games. But even progressively narrowing it down to something that sounds sensible will still leave a semantic hole that includes something absurd. This culminates into the following bit:

So, maybe you can use this "has Super in the title" method as a starting point and add more stuff to it until it becomes a useful definition. And, in the comments from part 1, many people have tried to do exactly that. And very often what they come up with something like: "The Super Mario series consists of the games developed by Nintendo for Nintendo consoles that have 'Super Mario' in the title, excluding RPGs, party games, Mario Kart, sports games, and reissues of previously released Super Mario games."

At which point jan Misali unleashes their inner Diogenes and reveals what I've been hinting at in the header: Behold, a man mainline Super Mario game! However, while I'm all for leveraging semantic technicalities for the sake of comedy, I think this is a part where jan Misali loses the plot a bit. Even accounting for a VERY permissive understanding of what a video game is, I don't think I am a teacher: Super Mario Sweater plausibly counts as one. Obviously knowing the incoming storm in the comment section, they supplied the following definition for a video game: "interactive software with a visual display for the purpose of entertainment". I agree that if you accept that's what a video game is, I am a teacher: Super Mario Sweater is in fact a video game. What I don't agree with is that the definition itself is accurate enough.

My favorite video game is Tildes

jan Misali's last argument in the video in favor of IaaT:SMS being a video game is regarding the value of knitting as entertainment, which I'm not disputing, but that's not where I believe the issue with this definition is in the first place. IaaT:SMS does have interactivity, yes, and it was designed for the purpose of entertainment, but to me that is not enough to constitute a video game. For it to be one, the interactivity needs to be a necessary part of the entertainment, which isn't the case here. The interactive part, inputting your measurements, choosing a file and scrolling through the selected knitting pattern isn't the entertaining part. The entertaining part, which is knitting a sweater, requires none of the interactivity provided by the software; a completely non interactive slideshow of the various patterns would accomplish the goal just as well. And, while this was ultimately just part of jan Misali's overall point that you cannot bolt together a purely objective definition without relying on some level of unstated common sense, I think that point would have been better served by highlighting the holes in the provided definition of a video game itself than taking it at face value to poke a hole in the definition of the Super Mario series that relied on in the first place (not that this is even required, as jan Misali proceeds to show more examples of games that clearly wouldn't be argued in good faith by anyone to be part of the mainline series and are still noncontroversially video games, and then goes on to explore the ambiguities in pretty much every other part of the definition). You know what else counts as a video game under that definition?

• mspaint.exe
• Arch Linux
• Tildes
• Any movie DVD that features a menu
• BonziBuddy
• The Youtube video player
• The onboard widget display of the Logitech G510 keyboard
• Kangjun Heo's Rensenware
• A chat interface with an LLM whose system prompt instructed it to entertain the user without any further elaboration
• The firmware running on my pair of wireless earbuds (a LED counts as "visual display", right?)
• Twitch chat
• The YouAreAnIdiot prank website
• The Times Square ad billboards (yes, it's interactive, even if the controls are atypical)

You will note that even with my caveat, you could still argue that a lot of these still fit this alleged definition of a video game, so whatever a video game is, it's not just that. Instead of continuing this list and losing the plot myself for the second time in the process of writing this, I will point out that jan Misali's second video has been classified under the "I am a Teacher: Super Mario Sweater" game category, meaning that apparently Google agrees that this is in fact a video game. Shows what I know.

Video killed the Mario star

And of course, you can't cover debating what's a video game without also covering the video part. When people ask "how many Mario games are there", the video game part is implied, but there is definitely an argument to be made that being a video game is not necessarily a prerequisite to be part of the mainline Mario series, especially if you hold the belief that the Game & Watch games aren't actually video games (I personally do think they are, but it's debatable enough for jan Misali to not be fully sure, at the very least) but are still significant enough to be part of the mainline series (there is a Super Mario Bros. game in there, after all, and it's even a platformer!). This can also be further argued to include other media that aren't even games (if the NieR series can include stage plays, what's preventing the Super Mario series from including, say, its licensed movie?), though I personally don't have any non-video game candidate in mind to argue in good faith that they should be part of the series.

413 Payload Too Large

At this point I don't think I have much else to add that isn't basically paraphrasing jan Misali themselves, so I'll wrap up this post so I don't have to spend another day adding to it and proofreading, and I'm fairly confident that between it and all the other interesting points the video raised that I haven't mentioned there will be more than enough jumping points for discussion (and if I forgot something I wanted to add, I can always do that later). What are your thoughts on this? _{And did you realize before I pointed it out that I wrote over 5k words about the question without giving my own answer at any point?}

So, I got convinced by a KC fan to buy KC 1 cause at least it was only 5 bux so not much of my money was going to Daniel Vavre (and I'm sure there some other fuckheads working for KC since he's director and probably gets to bring in a few people to work under him). But I admit, I really really love the game. Even though I detest him, I have to admit he knows how to make a good rpg. In fact it is one of the best action based (vs turn based) rpgs I've played (I definitely think it rates much higher than Witcher and I even like it over Elder Scrolls).

But I'm not a patient person and I love what I'm hearing about KC 2 (other than the intro quest which with combined with who directed it, will really grate on my nerves cause I'll totally be focused on its treatment of women. Usually I just roll my eyes at that kind of thing or it doesn't even bug me much but when it feels like the director is actually condoning of this kind of behavoir it's different). But part of me is going to feel guilty if I cave and buy it. But, I'm weak (I eat meat and I totally agree with the fact it's unethical both for environment and for how they treat the animals).

Anyone else have a game (or that game) that they dislike the people making it but love the game and if you bought it, how did you resolve it with yourself?

Last night while my wife was going through my Spotify to pick a song to listen to while I was driving, she mentioned that 90% of my library consists of instrumentals. (Most of which are game OSTs) I find it much more pleasant to listen to, instead of song with lyrics.

Which made me wonder, there might be some hidden/not so hidden gems that I might be missing out on!
Please share your favorite game OSTs with everyone. (New gems, old gems! Either the entire OST or even 1 song of a game! we don't discriminate!)

Bonus point if it's on Spotify

What I currently listen to:

• Armored core 6
• Shadow of the Erdtree
• God of War: Ragnarok
• Nier: Automata
• Devil May Cry 5
• Celeste
• Scarlet Nexus
• Zenless Zone Zero
• Silent Hill
• Flipwitch (Which I understand to be an 18+ game, which I have NEVER played. I just happened to find the OST on shuffle and it got me addicted. Try the song "A Witch's Thoughts")
• Cult of the Lamb
• Fable
• Atelier series

What were your favorite games that you played, and why did you feel that way about them?

They do not have to be games released in 2024. Anything you played this year is fair... game.

Let's chat random tables, fellow game masters!

• What are the random tables you are using in your games?
• Which ones are the most useful for you?
• Are you rolling on them, or do you use them as prompts?
• Did a random table ever lead to an epic moment in your campaign?
• Are there any cool random tables you are holding onto and waiting for that one perfect moment in the future when they'll finally come in handy?

Imagine that your Steam account (or whatever other type of video games collections you have) gets permanently and irreversibly erased. Which of the titles you used to have would you then buy again without any hesitation?

Game designers of tildes, lend me your aid.

My BIL, the life-insurance salesman, has decided to splurge on this year's family reunion and he is renting a castle in SW Ireland next summer. I have been given the task of designing and running a murder-mystery game on one night for the ~20 people who will be staying there. Salient facts:

I refer to my inlaws as the barking and snapping (Irish surname)'s. Hilarious but sarcastic to a fault. They have little patience for depth or lore or much historical detail. This will most successfully be a game of nasty betrayals and sudden twists and turns.

There's something like 18 rooms in the castle, with extensive grounds. But alas we will be there at the beginning of July so there will most likely be a lack of atmospheric ground fog. I love a good outdoor setting, so I will most likely try to get people running through the woods and across the lawns.

The family loves their games and takes them seriously but I figure this shouldn't last more than a couple hours or they will lose focus.

I haven't conducted one of these before but I have plenty of relevant experience. I want to keep it simple with a streamlined and elegant ruleset... but it's important to also find a moment somewhere near the end to scare the living shit out of all of them.

What I have so far: Discovering the Dead Body kicks it off. A couple obvious clues and a couple less-obvious ones will get people haring off into different rooms.

Each "player" has two modes. If the lighting is normal then they are playing as themselves and actively searching for the killer. If the lighting, however, is blacklight and the person within wears a black veil then they are ghosts, and must share a clue from a list on a card. All players will be ghosts at some point, including the Dead Body. If they enter a room with blacklight, on goes the veil.

I want to incorporate the history of the locale, as well as that of deeper legends. I mean, it's fucking Ireland. But I don't want the Disney version. One of my most successful history videos is about ancient Ireland so I'd love to incorporate something of the actual historical record instead of just a bunch of Celtic fantasy bullshit.

Some will be drunk, some sober. All will be barking and snapping. Piling on some poor defenseless unfortunate (usually one of the younger aunts or uncles or cousins) is their favorite entertainment. Subplots that subvert that bullying dynamic are also welcome.

Have any of you created an experience like this? How did you approach it? What kinds of ideas does it inspire in you?

Hey everyone,

Growing up, I loved playing board games with friends and family—it was a big part of my life. Now, I’ve moved away, and my girlfriend and some of her family (who live with us) have zero interest in board games.

I’ve tried classics like Catan, Ticket to Ride, and Codenames, but they’re not into them at all. I’m really craving some board game time, so I’m thinking about branching out to more approachable games.

Does anyone have suggestions for games that are fun and easy to ease non-gamers into without scaring them off? Or maybe I’m just not starting with the right type of games? Any advice is appreciated, thanks!

Your Steam Replay for 2024 is now out!

If you're on the mobile app, hit Menu > New & Noteworthy > Steam Replay

Share your link (if you want to) or summarize your results. Tell us all about your most-played games, your year of gaming, and any other thoughts or highlights.

I started playing F2P when they first released it for OSRS years ago, and played some membership when I had GP for a bond back in the day. I'd been slowly working on my account for a few years and was transitioning my account to a new 2FA method when I had something come up at work and completely forgot about it (I would log in once every few months or so to poke around with my account). I came back to my account being banned for botting, and wasn't able to recover it.

I made a new account when Mobile was released, but only played a bit here and there. I mainly would watch people on YouTube with their snowflake ironmen doing insane grinds to get my fix. After chatting with my friends about it, I finally decided to start poking around again and am mainly merching on my F2P account to slowly save up money for bonds when I get some free time to play.

I was curious how many of you play OSRS?
Are you playing an ironman (by the way)?
How long have you been playing?
General OSRS things you enjoy?

My guilty OSRS confession was that I used to sell gold to kids in my school to pay for my WoW subscription (that I played during the summers). Looking back, I would have been able to afford a RuneScape membership year round and sold way more gold since its so much easier to make GP while you're a member.

In my comment on this thread, I briefly explained my grievances with modern minecraft updates, and said that my long-term world was on version 1.1 from 2012. Since then, I reset my computer and accidentally nuked that world along with the rest of the data I didn't care about. After a long while of kicking myself over having no backup (a problem I have since remedied, thanks for the backblaze suggestion @greg!), it's time to suck it up and start a new world. The only problem is that I don't know what version of the game to start the world on.

Obviously, I can update it later if I really want to, but I found myself loving the simplicity of 1.1 (one wood type, small but epic worldgen, simple biomes, etc.) and missing the comforts of later versions (crafting shortcuts, detailed settings, controller support for my steam deck through the likes of midnightcontrols or controllable). With this in mind, if you're partial to a particular update and it's feature set, pitch it here! I know this sounds weird, but I want to hear about why you like the version of minecraft you play, maybe there's perks of newer versions that I haven't thought/heard of.

EDIT: for anyone returning to this thread, I landed on version 1.12.2 for a two main reasons:

• It has good server & client performance (compared to 1.13 and 1.14, which are notoriously poor), meaning I can run a singleplayer server for cheap (paper, ~$3/mo for 1gb ram, runs basically perfectly) and have parity between my steam deck and PC. Steam deck basically sips power while playing, which is nice.

• It's about the time that I stopped paying attention to updates. Anything past the aquatic update is a blur, so I can enjoy the simplicity while still getting some good qol features.

This other topic got me thinking about all of the mods and modpacks that I've played over the years, some that have come and gone with versions of Minecraft past.

So I'm curious:

What are your favorite Minecraft mods?

I'm not going to be too restrictive here. It's ok if they are for an older version and no longer supported. I'll even say that server plugins (like for spigot/paper/bukkit) and datapacks are fair game here. Client side? Server side? QoL? Terrain? Entire modpacks? Doesn't matter! Post 'em if you've got 'em. :)

(Information about supported Minecraft version and direct links to the mod pages are appreciated.)