Various video game stuff not deserving its own thread

[Xenich]

Yeah, I tried it out for an hour or so. The fact that you can't skip through nights even with a bedroll kinda sucks. Zombies climbing ladders is ******** too.

You aren't supposed to skip nights, it defeats the point of the game.

The base concept of the game is that you are to survive and day and night are different in that zombies will act differently between them (ie the move faster at night, are more aware, and different types come out). Climbing exists because there isn't supposed to be a "safe" spot for you, if they couldn't do basic things like climb ladders, 90% of the game would be with little danger. Eventually, some types will even be able to climb walls and move at high speed, some can even destroy tiles.

You have 7 days to find a spot and build a defense for the "blood moon" which comes every 7 days and there is a number of very powerful zombie types on that night (you get to specify how many). When the "blood moon" hits, zombies will know where you are and begin to converge on your location regardless of where you are. They will do everything they can to get to you. That means the dumb ones will beat on walls, climb anything their zombie type is allowed to climb and even dig the earth if you are underground.

This process repeats over and over with each iteration of the 7 days where more and more types of zombies start to come out and are higher level. The use a scaling approach based I think on character level (and I think number of days). Point is, things will get harder over time and the hordes will get bigger, and the nights will get more dangerous.

The basic play idea is to build your skills, get better tools, weapons, abilities to make stronger defenses to deal with the blood moons and be able to explore deeper into the cities which do have more powerful zombies and loot and various locations will be of different difficulty at different stages (some houses may have deep areas in them multiple levels down like a dungeon and things get harder the deeper you go, but the loot gets better as well).

Level scaling plays a pretty big part on things though, so I don't think you can get high end stuff simply by heading to the hardest areas (but it has been a while). Like I said, all of these things can be adjusted be it with the base settings that come with the game, or... through mods. I think that is why I liked Darkness Falls when I used to play as the author diverged from a lot of the concepts Fun Pimps were doing which I thought was a better experience.

Been a long time though and the game has changed quite a bit since I really played it heavily, so things might be much different.

I've been browsing Nexusmods and somebody's posted a No Fun Allowed Pimps intro replacement.
Are the devs being annoying **** or something?

No idea, I haven't followed them closely for years. While I have loaded up a couple of the more recent builds not too long ago, I didn't play them to any real focus, nor did I pay attention to the developers. I tend to just do my own thing.

https://7daystodiemods.com/darkness-falls-mod/

This is a mod site I have used in the past, but it may be outdated. I have used some of Nexus mods at times (the SMX UI mods were nice in their changes), but I used to just do a lot of my own configurations and modifications myself through the server files to tweak things (a lot can be adjusted just messing with those). It does appear he has updated for V1.4, but also has the A21 build which some people prefer over the changes to release.

When I played the game heavily off an on it was up to around build 20. They are at full release now, and a lot of things have changed in how the game works. I still think the game has merit being that it is so easily modified, but there are some systems that I certainly remove for my plays (I can't stand the trader/quest system, it makes the game too easy and shows obvious modern mainstream design with easy access to materials and crafting stations, but it is so heavily integrated into the game now it is difficult to segregate it at times). The original game was better set where the player had to find everything, build everything, etc... and was much harder because of it, a true survival build game.

This is a game you can spend an enormous amount of time tweaking systems, adding mods, etc... to get the experience you want and I think that is what makes it of value. You will have to learn how to tweak things though and depending on your experience with those concepts, your experience and desire to will vary.

[rusty_shackleford]

playing games from the 80s/90s goes like "IN THE FUTURE YEAR OF 2025, WE WILL HAVE FLYING CARS AND LIVE IN SPACE HABITATS"
man couldn't they have at least picked a further off time period?

[Segata]

playing games from the 80s/90s goes like "IN THE FUTURE YEAR OF 2025, WE WILL HAVE FLYING CARS AND LIVE IN SPACE HABITATS"

We would've gotten that if weren't for globohomo

[KnightoftheWind]

We have finally lived to see manmade horrors beyond our comprehension...

[Oyster Sauce]

Something needs to be done about vtuber character designs



Dropped 2 minutes in due to the localization anyway

[wndrbr]

Something needs to be done about vtuber character designs



Dropped 2 minutes in due to the localization anyway

what is this

[Oyster Sauce]

Something needs to be done about vtuber character designs



Dropped 2 minutes in due to the localization anyway

what is this

The Hundred Line -Last Defense Academy-



all she said was "hai"

[rusty_shackleford]

Something needs to be done about vtuber character designs



Dropped 2 minutes in due to the localization anyway

looks like any other modern japanamango character

[Oyster Sauce]

Something needs to be done about vtuber character designs



Dropped 2 minutes in due to the localization anyway

looks like any other modern japanamango character

Thank you for agreeing with me

[rusty_shackleford]

how come japanese games don't have you go from right to left instead of left to right?

[DemoGraph]

how come japanese games don't have you go from right to left instead of left to right?

This is reserved for Australian ones.

[Xenich]

I can't think of anywhere to put this, so I will simply add it here.

The entire concept of a game is for you to fail. The entire focus of a games design is for you to fail. Failure is the designer goal. Your job as the player is to overcome. You are arch enemies, at odds with each other, and the entire premise is for the designer to find ways to test you to the point of failure. They can do this while telling wonderful stories, providing colorful descriptions of the events, but ultimately... their job is to see you fail.

Your job as the player is to prove them wrong. To best them be it through intellect or physicals means. This IS gaming... any designer or developer who doesn't seek this isn't a game developer, they are simply an
"Entertainer", and honestly... this is my individual opinion, but "entertainment" is not gaming, it is contrary to the purpose of gaming as not everyone finds losing "entertaining" and so this is the conflict that is created.

That is not to say, there shouldn't be games that "entertain", but ultimately, they are not games, they are simply "entertainment" and it has no place in gaming, as a gamer derives their entertainment from the game, not the "show".

This is the failure (outside of politics) that I think has degraded the industry over the years.

[DemoGraph]

The entire concept of a game is for you to fail.

That is not to say, there shouldn't be games that "entertain", but ultimately, they are not games, they are simply "entertainment" and it has no place in gaming, as a gamer derives their entertainment from the game, not the "show".

This is the failure (outside of politics) that I think has degraded the industry over the years.

Let's wait until you realize what was the deal with real Olympic games.

► Show Spoiler

All greek sports were gamefication of military activities.

And what it implies for modern sports.

► Show Spoiler

These days only biathlon (and maybe tank biathlon) could be considered proper Olympics.

[jdcp]

This is the failure (outside of politics) that I think has degraded the industry over the years.

I don't get where you're trying to get this, isn't this still the standard?

Winning is very subjective too, I consider it a win if I lost a game but did a good job despite the stakes being against me the entire time (I'm looking at you Poker).

Let's wait until you realize what was the deal with real Olympic games.

What we can learn from this is that, logically, all things evolve eventually and a single definition shouldn't encompass diverse concepts such as gaming.

Still, I feel he has some right to his words, but not at all. The least of the problems with the modern game industry is politics or the philosophy behind game design.

Don't take my word for it but I bet it's mismanagement and lack of artistic innovation, the developing of games having become more accessible has to do much with it too. It's a bunch of things really and I insist what he mentions even if it was true would still be the least of problems.

Regarding games in general, the objective has always and will forever be to serve as entertaiment, so I still don't get where @Xenich is trying to get with this

[Vlajdimir Ermenović]

playing games from the 80s/90s goes like "IN THE FUTURE YEAR OF 2025, WE WILL HAVE FLYING CARS AND LIVE IN SPACE HABITATS"

We would've gotten that if weren't for globohomo

Globohomo existed then too.

[Rand]

Are the devs being annoying **** or something?

Yes.
They actively nerf or remove things from the game that the community enjoys "wrong" or figures out how to exploit, then they implement rigid systems that force the players to play "correctly"

Let me give you one example: water.
There used to be empty water containers in the game. You could fill them up with leftover toilet tank water, river/pond water, or even snow, then boil and/or filter the water.
And water is very important as there is thirst and hunger, and most quality cooking requires clean water.
You can drink directly from unclean sources (ponds/rivers mostly), but it harms you (health damage) and can give you sickness that can be a real pain to get rid of.
But the devs thought this made water "too easy" so they made it that water containers are consumed with the water in them, and the containers were magically created by processes that created water.
In short order, they removed all sources of water collection (except finding it in loot, which was rare and wouldn't meet your needs) with "dew collectors" which, by the 3D model were really rain collectors.
They were slow, and so you needed multiples at your base(s) to keep hydrated.

Now this is where they wanted to get to. Things like smelters and generators and water collectors create "heat" which is a system whereby zombies, especially horrible summoner "screamer" zombies, would be attracted to your base constantly.
Meaning that a silent, passive, rooftop water collector array constantly attracted zombie nuisances.

Here's the kicker: there are "mods" you can put in clothing. One is a helmet mod that removes all the penalties from drinking from unclean water forever. It doesn't wear out and works perfectly.
Once you find or trade for one, you can basically ignore water from then on. Um... this is game design?

That's ONE example of why people are angry with and sick of the developers.
I could go on. Ask if interested in engineering master zombies with psychic powers and magazine learning and other stupidities.

[Rand]

playing games from the 80s/90s goes like "IN THE FUTURE YEAR OF 2025, WE WILL HAVE FLYING CARS AND LIVE IN SPACE HABITATS"
man couldn't they have at least picked a further off time period?

******* and ***** can barely drive like responsible people and you want them to have air vehicles?

[Tangerine]

playing games from the 80s/90s goes like "IN THE FUTURE YEAR OF 2025, WE WILL HAVE FLYING CARS AND LIVE IN SPACE HABITATS"
man couldn't they have at least picked a further off time period?

******* and ***** can barely drive like responsible people and you want them to have air vehicles?

In the futures depicted, it was over 90% White.

[logincrash]

I could go on.

Please, do. I'd love to read some rants about this.

[rusty_shackleford]

should be allowed to brutally murder the people who cried about "brown and bloom" games
yes the real world has earthy colors

[Roguey]

should be allowed to brutally murder the people who cried about "brown and bloom" games
yes the real world has earthy colors

If you live in the southwest or a desert, sure. 360-era HDR did not reflect reality, it copied the sun's effect as seen through a camera, which is just wrong. I'm not looking at a world through an in-game camera (unless it's Mario 64 or some other game with a cutesy nod)

[rusty_shackleford]

should be allowed to brutally murder the people who cried about "brown and bloom" games
yes the real world has earthy colors

If you live in the southwest or a desert, sure. 360-era HDR did not reflect reality, it copied the sun's effect as seen through a camera, which is just wrong. I'm not looking at a world through an in-game camera (unless it's Mario 64 or some other game with a cutesy nod)

Forests are brown and dark green

[DemoGraph]

should be allowed to brutally murder the people who cried about "brown and bloom" games
yes the real world has earthy colors

If you live in the southwest or a desert, sure. 360-era HDR did not reflect reality, it copied the sun's effect as seen through a camera, which is just wrong. I'm not looking at a world through an in-game camera (unless it's Mario 64 or some other game with a cutesy nod)

Forests are brown and dark green

Rusty hired an Indian for posting!

Russian forests are white. Spruce forest is sometimes blue.

[Rand]

I could go on.

Please, do. I'd love to read some rants about this.

Okay. I'll rant about the game again soon when I feel inspired.

[Xenich]

The entire concept of a game is for you to fail.

That is not to say, there shouldn't be games that "entertain", but ultimately, they are not games, they are simply "entertainment" and it has no place in gaming, as a gamer derives their entertainment from the game, not the "show".

This is the failure (outside of politics) that I think has degraded the industry over the years.

Let's wait until you realize what was the deal with real Olympic games.

► Show Spoiler

All greek sports were gamefication of military activities.

And what it implies for modern sports.

► Show Spoiler

These days only biathlon (and maybe tank biathlon) could be considered proper Olympics.

This is the failure (outside of politics) that I think has degraded the industry over the years.

I don't get where you're trying to get this, isn't this still the standard?

Winning is very subjective too, I consider it a win if I lost a game but did a good job despite the stakes being against me the entire time (I'm looking at you Poker).

Let's wait until you realize what was the deal with real Olympic games.

What we can learn from this is that, logically, all things evolve eventually and a single definition shouldn't encompass diverse concepts such as gaming.

Still, I feel he has some right to his words, but not at all. The least of the problems with the modern game industry is politics or the philosophy behind game design.

Don't take my word for it but I bet it's mismanagement and lack of artistic innovation, the developing of games having become more accessible has to do much with it too. It's a bunch of things really and I insist what he mentions even if it was true would still be the least of problems.

Regarding games in general, the objective has always and will forever be to serve as entertaiment, so I still don't get where @Xenich is trying to get with this

DemoGraph has it right, a game is a contest, originally designed to test and prepare for various conflict or action (often war).

The entire point was to test the skills, hone them, push them to limits to make sure they were prepared. It is not different than testing a person after they have learned a concept to assess whether they are prepared for continued study and understand what they were taught.

That is the basic origin of games to be honest, a contest that has rules, conditions, to which create win/loss, success/failure results.

A game can be played for entertainment, but a game is NOT entertainment. To claim such would be to completely confuse the definitions of entertainment and gaming. Watching a movie or even reading a book can be entertainment, but is a movie/book a game? One would be ******** to make such a claim and lacking the most fundamental understanding of the language.

You don't change the language to fit the person (modern idiocy), you force the person to understand the language and the fact is, a game while can be "entertainment", is not "entertainment" in and of itself.

I need to be a bit more clear on my original discussion of "failure" as the purpose. It is more akin to the "contest" that I am talking about, winning and losing are integral here. It is a measurement of the contest and its players results. The rules define the limits of the tests and the players pit themselves against those rules to accomplish the task according to those conditions. It is the entire basic purpose of a game. It could be a contest to the rules, or a measurement against other players in the conditions of the win and lose, but make no mistake, there is measurement, there are obstacles and the purpose is to overcome them.

There are two types of gamers today. Those who play games, and those who seek entertainment. They are not seeking the same thing exactly. While both are seeking the entertainment of the experience, their expectations and goals are at complete odds with each other.

One seeks a contest, to push the limits of that and measure themselves to being able to succeed over those obstacles, ie... they want a game.

The other wants to be dazzled, pass the time with enjoyment, to be literally "entertained" in some manner, but the "game" as it has been termed is not the main focus. Sure, they may like the presentations of various games... FPS, RPG, RTS... etc... but that is just flavor, not the entire point and this creates an expectation that the activity constantly be "entertaining" and that means, loss... is a bad thing, obstacles of frustration is bad design because the moment those people run into something that presents a significant challenge or obstacle and the frustration sets in, they are no longer happy, no longer "entertained" and often lose interest.

On the opposite side of this is the gamer, who seeks a game for that very meaning. They want challenge, obstacles, they want to be tripped up, made to fail so they can figure out how to overcome it, how to defeat it and succeed with the use of their skills be it intellectually or physically, they need a contest... that is the entertainment.

Since they are at odds, games become difficult to develop for both. Sure, you can have "difficulty levels", but I am talking about a core concept of what drives the development, which is for the developer to seek to test, force failure, trip up the player, to defeat them. A person making a game for "entertainment" folks won't seek that, they will seek to make sure every aspect of the game is "enjoyable", without frustration, you know... Fun™, because you know... a game must be Fun™ right? Yet what is fun to a gamer and what is fun to those seeking entertainment are completely opposed.

One will destroy the others experience which is why you see gamers complain about games being dumbed down, simplified, streamlined to conditions where "everyone is a winner!" and it is why one seeking entertainment will scream, yell, pull their hair out and complain about a game that is "too hard", "too complicated", "too many things to learn", "too many requirements for a win", etc... the game should be Fun™ as if that subjective word had any real meaning as a general understanding.

So, a developer who is making entertainment should focus on dazzling the people seeking entertainment, keeping them busy, distracting them while they have Fun™, which often involves stroking their ego with constant "You win! Good job!" or having them do mundane low requirement tasks to infinite levels so that they can feel accomplishment without any real obstacle.

A developer making a "game" should view the player as the opponent, to seek to have them fail, to challenge them, test them... even frustrate them. There are limits, they have to be "reasonable". Obviously a developer could make a game where everyone fails because the requirements are impossible to achieve, but.. the point is that there should be a focus on testing them and that should contain a process where the player must learn, adapt, and improve over time to be able to win.

Games today, do not do this. Gamers play most of the games at maximum difficult and many result to having to insert numerous mods to make them more "game" focused. Then you have those who have to impose self restrictions (I hate doing this personally) to best a game because the base game is for entertainment, not actually a focus on being a game.

Granted there are levels of arguments on this people can make, but the general point is the same, a game is not entertainment and the point of a game is trying to get you to fail until you learn how to succeed. If that process is bothersome to you, then you don't seek a game, you seek to be entertained... there is a difference.

[jdcp]

(I hate doing this personally)

Me too, it's stupid, if I have to impose myself restrictions it either is a game I am so balls deep on it that I gotta craft more content out of my *** to continue enjoying or it is a game I won't continue with further.

I could make arguments against this, even though I support it to an extent and certainly looked forward to it, but eh it's not worth it. Overally this is a very pointless subject if you ask me

[DemoGraph]

DemoGraph has it right, a game is a contest, originally designed to test and prepare for various conflict or action (often war).

TBH, I trolled you a bit.
I've been talking about Olympic games specifically. Sports industry isn't even close to the original meaning of them. I'd say that your take is much closer.

Playing in general doesn't necessarily presuppose militant conflict. The more important function is avatara-like descent of the social role into a physical body of a player (see Huizinga ch 1, 3, 6, 7). It makes his relations with the others ordered. It "civilizes". It allows to know the world and create a myth.
The game is a theosis on a micro scale. Or not necessarily on a micro one.
Especially see this:

► Show Spoiler

Huizinga shows that in ritual dances a person 'becomes' a kangaroo. There is a difference in how western thought expresses this concept and how "primitive" religions view this. Scholars of religion use western terminology to describe non western concepts.

"He has taken on the "essence" of the kangaroo, says the savage; he is playing the kangaroo, say we. The savage, however, knows nothing of the conceptual distinctions between "being" and "playing"; he knows nothing of "identity'\ "image" or "symbol"." In this way Huizinga suggests the universally understood concept of play is more fitting to both societies to describe this phenomenon.

Competition is important but secondary.

And yes, the game has to be an entertainment (if only because it's voluntary), but this aspect is even less important than competition.

[rusty_shackleford]

what's up with the warframe asset flip looking games

[Tweed]

what's up with the warframe asset flip looking games

A lot of Warframe's weapons are modeled from Nerf guns.

[aimlesshealer]

DemoGraph has it right, a game is a contest, originally designed to test and prepare for various conflict or action (often war).

TBH, I trolled you a bit.
I've been talking about Olympic games specifically. Sports industry isn't even close to the original meaning of them. I'd say that your take is much closer.

Playing in general doesn't necessarily presuppose militant conflict. The more important function is avatara-like descent of the social role into a physical body of a player (see Huizinga ch 1, 3, 6, 7). It makes his relations with the others ordered. It "civilizes". It allows to know the world and create a myth.
The game is a theosis on a micro scale. Or not necessarily on a micro one.
Especially see this:

► Show Spoiler

Huizinga shows that in ritual dances a person 'becomes' a kangaroo. There is a difference in how western thought expresses this concept and how "primitive" religions view this. Scholars of religion use western terminology to describe non western concepts.

"He has taken on the "essence" of the kangaroo, says the savage; he is playing the kangaroo, say we. The savage, however, knows nothing of the conceptual distinctions between "being" and "playing"; he knows nothing of "identity'\ "image" or "symbol"." In this way Huizinga suggests the universally understood concept of play is more fitting to both societies to describe this phenomenon.

Competition is important but secondary.

And yes, the game has to be an entertainment (if only because it's voluntary), but this aspect is even less important than competition.

I'm probably just sperging about the use of the word "essence," but theosis doesn't have to do with either play or becoming God in essence. The goal of spiritual life is to participate in God's energies and ultimately the inner life of the Most Holy Trinity, but we do not literally become God by nature. Only God is God by nature; human nature is divinized by its union with Christ. We put on God and become gods, but we are not the same as God. Christians do imitate Christ, so we "play" as Christ in a sense, but that's not equivalent to the concept of theosis.

Leaving that aside, I'm doubtful that games as we commonly understand them are all about embodiment, though there can be overlap. What is the player embodying in chess, Tetris, or tic-tac-toe?