I often starts playing a game, then quit because it simply doesn't feel like a PC game to me. Sometimes it is because it is a console port, but not always.

I just tried playing VAMBRACE, and got stuck when trying to open a door. There was an "open door" icon right at the door, but clicking it had no effect. Turns out I had to press the action button, which was the E on the keyboard. What's more, all the icons in the game works like this, having assigned a key you have to press. With me having a mouse which is designed especially to click on things on the screen, this makes little sense. It reminded me of the way early homemade DOS games let you use keyboard input, typically in this format:
<P>lay <M>anual <Q>uit
Obviously, VAMBRACE was designed to be played with an Xbox controller. But the end result is a control scheme which grew out of fashion thirty years ago.

I quite hate the Xbox controller. That wobbly thumbstick are just so so uncomfortable, with the forward direction forcing you to move your thumb forward and slightly left in the most awkward of movements. Despite most humans having 10 fingers, the majority of actions are performed by the right thumb which have to move between 4 different buttons. In the Xbox controllers defence, it had to have the wobbly thumbstick as a replacement from WASD + mouse first person shooter movement. But this doesn't change that I'm never going to like this silly gadget.

I can't say exactly what the difference is between PC games and console games. There are of course the controls, keyboard and mouse VS gamepad, but I also feel like there are also some differences in the basic feeling of the game. A lot of consolish games feel a bit like a tech demo with some light interaction throughout, sort of like a rollercoaster ride.

This was something I liked about NOITA. It is designed for PC from the ground up. The aiming requires a mouse cursor, and the wand tinkering would be pretty much impossible without a mouse.

I just posted this as a comment to someone who mentioned Horizon Zero Dawn, but figured there might be more discussion if I made a new post for it, so here goes:


Are there any games that you have enjoyed playing without the HUD or mini-map? If so, which ones and why?


One of my favorite gaming experiences was playing Zelda BOTW in its entirety without any HUD elements, just using the game's scenery and story to guide me. I loved it so much that I tried doing the same in other massive open-world games like Skyrim, Fallout 4, The Witcher 3, and Assassin's Creed Origins, but found that they relied too much on small details or markers in the minimap. So instead of feeling more immersed and in-tune with the game world, I just felt more frustrated at not knowing exactly where to go or which specific person or item to click on without the game explicitly telling me. I'm sure it can be done, but I found it nowhere near as pleasing as BOTW.

I just recently picked up Horizon Zero Dawn and wondered if it could be played in a similar manner, without the map or other HUD elements, or if I'll end up needing some of them to know where to go or who to talk to.

I'd love to hear any other recommendations or thoughts on this matter.

What game mechanic, boss or puzzle in a game got you to give up?

For me it was a drivers license test in Gran Tourismo 2 on the Playstation. I was so into racing sims that I had a decent steering wheel and pedals set (like $80 in 1999). I even found a better coffee table to more comfortably fit it all. I had so many hours into GT1, various NASCAR entries, MOTO Racer, various Need For Speed games, etc.

GT2 had a system where you had to upgrade your license to unlock more tracks. There was one where you had like 15 or 20 seconds to slolem through a course and then do it in reverse. After hours almost every night for a month straight of getting to within .5 seconds of qualifying for the license to unlock more tracks I just couldn't anymore. I gave up racing/car sims for nearly 15 years until XBox heavily pushed Forza Horizon and I gave it a try.

It certainly didn't help that I had just recently been scarred from being stuck in a similar system in X-Wing vs TIE. There was a training mission where you had to take your X-Wing through a course with barrel rolls before you unlocked something (another ship or more dangerous missions?) that I was stuck on. After like 6 weeks of getting within a second or less to completion I finally found a cheatcode to bypass it. By then the damage to my enjoyment of the game had been done and I never did finish that game.

Now the topic may be inflammatory, so let me walk it back and say "in some cases" - let me explain;

Just got me this gamepad and I absolutely adore it - for folks not wanting to click on a link, think of it as a fancy SNES pad.

I got it as a fightpad and for that it is marvelous - and while I have no intentions of playing a 3d action game with it, I booted up some 2d indies and platformers to take it for a spin ... and realized that apparently, 6 buttons + dpad just aren't enough anymore.

Since when do you need to have a light and hard attack as separate buttons? And need an analogue stick on top of the dpad to navigate through inventory? The amount of "simple" games needing to use all the buttons on the modern controller - without a viable alternative - is ridiculous.

Yes, there are some workarounds but just wanted to vent.

I'm installing some random titles from my backlog (I have 800+ on my backlog through bundle deals, giveaways, etc.) and it's a crapshoot, not in my favor.

Thanks for coming to my TedTalk.

Edit: Yes I realize the modern controller is standardized to the "two sticks + pad + 4 face buttons + 4 shoulder buttons" design; what I'm saying is that while for some game that design is essential, a lot of other games use up all the buttons without a baked-in viable alternative, or worse yet, use buttons for the sake of using buttons!

As the games industry continues to grow there are many new things introduced which sometimes players don't like, but then overtime we either get used to them, while still disliking them (only a bit less maybe) or we realize "hmm, yes it's good to have this actually". Of course any such mechanic can be implemented very well or quite poorly. I'm not asking about specific implementations, but the mechanic itself as a whole.

Personally I can think of some quality of life changes that at first I thought are not needed or would make a game needlessly easier. When playing I would always try to go for full immersion, but overtime as I've had less and less time to be able to play in long uninterrupted stretches I've come to appreciate things like fast travel and quest markers and other features which would help resuce "wasted" time when playing.

I'm looking for some new rpgs to play and I'm interested in stories that they and act like tye player character is some clueless out of towner to basically act as an avatar for the player.

I feel like most of the gltimes I've seen this done its pretty hamfisted and doesnt seem like the interactions go right. I'm wondering if anyone has encountered good examples of this idea?

Currently, I've been playing board games which always have the same kind of (standard) mechanics (worker placement, card drafting, etc), which after a while, starts to feel kind of the same but what changes is the theme.

I'm looking for recommendations on board games which have unique mechanics. It could a completely new mechanic or simply a mechanic which already exists but then the game uses it with a twist.

For example:

• Trickerion use of worker placement but the workers have actually different values.

• Tzolk'in and the use of gears.

So recently I've been playing Destiny 2. After you launch the game you need to press "X" for the game to start loading (which takes multiple minutes, it's ridiculous).

I've seen this in other games and I never understood the point. Yes I want to move past that screen, load the game and play it. Do you guys know why game developers do this?

Rogue like elements are used by lots of games. I'm interested to know which ones you think work, which ones you think don't work, and why.

Feel free to interpret rogue-like however you want. In my mind I have procedural generation, perma-death option, and some kind of turn-based strategy.

I've been working on a plan for a local treasure hunt, but I could use some feedback. It'll be hosted through my youtube channel, and will most likely consist of a variety of hikes (some short, some longer, but nothing too crazy), some basic crypto, some cheesy poetry, and some treasure that I've made/will make as the prize.

So that's the nutshell explanation. I'm having trouble making decisions about some of the details. But first, let me go over some of the specifics I have worked out. My plan as of right now consists of the following:

• 5 hunts total, 4 that are similarly structured with 1 final hunt
• The first 4 hunts consist of 3 locations where clues are hidden, and one final location where the treasure is hidden
• The clue locations are revealed equally to everyone participating
• The clues are non-removable, difficult to destroy, so more than one can find them
• The clues are required to determine the final location of the treasure for that hunt
• The final hunt's locations can be determined by supplemental clues hidden in the first 4 hunts

I'm thinking of doing an episode per location, per week. Each episode will consist of searchable features like road signs and trailheads, followed by clips showing highlights of the path to the clue. If the clue is hidden to the general public, I'll show more or less where people can expect it. The clue itself will be a semi-permanent installation. That is, it'll be a physical form that's locked up somewhere for the duration of the hunt. After the hunt is over, I plan on going out and removing them. This is mostly because I don't want rogue hunters to destroy the clues so that no one else can find them. I plan on making a rule that if someone goes out and the clue isn't where it's supposed to be, I'll publicly post it. I doubt anyone would, but I still think it's a good idea to have a deterrent.

I wanted to get some outside perspective on how you think this would play out, and what sort of issues I'm missing as far as game mechanics.

• Would this be the kind of thing people would enjoy bringing friends along for, even though there's only one treasure per hunt? Is there some way I could make it more worthwhile to people playing in groups, without diminishing the value of effort for a single hunter?
• Would it be better to cluster the 3 locations for each hunt together? I feel like it might be more fun as an activity, but there's a much greater danger of making it too easy and having the first person out discover it. I like the idea of spreading the clues out time-wise and space-wise so that more people have an opportunity to take part.
• I have no idea how many people will participate. I have very few followers and almost all of them are friends. I'd like to try and promote it, but I also know that I'm pretty horrible at that sort of thing. Still, I'd like to come up with a design that would work well regardless if it's 5 people or 500 people playing. What sort of issues might happen as the player base scales up?
• I'm kinda going from scratch on these ideas. I've hosted basic treasure hunts before but nothing this complex. Mostly just "crack this cryptogram, figure out what the poem means, find the spot". This is basically the same thing, just with multiple locations required to find the spot. Are there other formats I should consider?
• Should the treasure be hidden? Or would it be better to send it to a winner? If it's hidden, it's probably way more satisfying for the person who finds it. But there's also a risk of someone random finding it. The hiding spots will have to be really good, but there's also a lot of people in this city who get out and about. Having a final problem to solve could be fun if it's done right, or it could be really annoying. I also don't really want to have to ship the pieces. And I think it adds in a dubious factor where people might be more inclined to question the legitimacy of the winner (which happens occasionally with online giveaway contest sort of things). I'm leaning toward just hiding the treasure, but I'm also open to ideas.

For context, not for self-promotion: I'm not really trying to plug my channel or anything like that, I genuinely could use feedback on this and I've really been digging the threads on here. If you feel like you want some context though, I'll put some links. I don't think they're necessary because I hope I explained it well enough and the videos don't really add anything, mostly because I made them before I started planning this. They're more like a weird, long intro.

It started because I was annoyed with my neighbor who kept asking for a favor, and to get sweet, petty revenge, I sent him on a treasure hunt. I liked the idea and wanted to make something similar for everyone else. It tied into a project theme I've been working on lately, so I started making a series of glass sculpture elementals, and introduced the artifact hunt with the first making-of video.

Planning on doing a video for the making of each piece, plus the videos for the hunts. It's gonna be a lot of work so I'm trying to get as much sorted out beforehand as I can. I've been really scratching my head over this for the past few weeks, so thanks in advance for any thoughts!