I'm trying to find good gaming experiences for wife, who has some typical non-gamer traits, but also some otherwise hardcore traits. I find it hard to make sense of it, and I'm wondering if this is the right community to get some help and suggestions.

Past gaming experience:

• Sims 2: ~1000s hours on Sims 2. Loves the design of houses and villages, rather than the psychological experience of the inhabitants.

Which is where I thought that there has to be some experience out of the huge collection of games that can be fun. Luckily, being a fan of Harry Potter, Hogwart's Legacy ended up being a big hit, and great introduction to 3rd person and open world mechanics.

I've tried suggesting games, but none really sticked. Until...

• Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon..... not, my idea. She was bored, and picked it at random from the list of installed games while I was away for some days. Doesn't seem to mind the difficulty spikes or dying 60 times in a row because of movement mechanics. And, it's not like I'm coaching. This is all her. I would never have thought to even suggest this game.

So, I need some help with finding suggestions, since I'm apparently a bit clueless. These are some constraints:

• ADHD and very easily bored. RDR2 would be a great recommendation, except that the game is very tedious. It might work if one got hooked, but, I doubt it'll happen. Hogwart's Legacy got past it by the setting and world building. Horizon: Zero Dawn on the other hand is an absolute no-go.

• First person mechanic might be a challenge. 3rd person works a lot better. Not entirely sure why.

• Competitionist to a fault. Hogwart's Legacy was 100%-ed beyond what the game was able to properly track. If a game hooks, it hooks deep.

• Not a fan of gore, horror, and zombie themed games. Or in general enemies who look like they are having a bad time.

• Probably not a fan of complex game systems if one is forced to understand it. (AC6 just.. let's you fly around and shoot things, even though you really should understand all of it). It's fine to sneak in game systems after getting hooked, but not as a prerequisite. If that makes sense.

• Strategy games and turn based games are probably not a fun time.

• Likes pretty worlds, but not a fan of artsy 2d stuff like Gris, or the many platformers of that type. Maybe Ori might be pretty and cute enough to work. It's a weird balance.

• Playstation 5 is what is most readily available and perhaps more importantly, low effort. Though PC could be an option.

• Doesn't mind a challenge that would be frustrating to most people, as long as one can get back into the action immediately. She doesn't have "gaming skills", and it's fine to be punished for it, but not with tediousness. For example Hollow Knight would be a game that is 99% getting to a boss and 1% getting killed by the boss. Not very fun. So the game design also matters. Demon Souls would have this same issue. Checkpoints in AC6 is probably a big element in why that game seems to still be fun.

Edit: some more constraints

• English is not a first language. So it's a somewhat higher threshold to get drawn in by text based storytelling.

---

Here is what I've thought so far might be good games:

• Monster Hunter: Probably amazing if one gets past figuring out all the mechanics. I haven't played this myself.

Hm... and I'm a bit out of ideas. Suggestions?

It's a common issue at this point: a game releases, gets years' worth of updates and DLCs, and then eventually the developers move on to developing a sequel. The sequel comes out and... the depth and amount of content is nowhere close to what players have just been experiencing in its predecessor. The sequel may have many of the quality-of-life features that didn't arrive in the predecessor until later updates, but it simply can't launch with a full game's worth of content plus years of DLC's worth of content. It only gets worse for games that support modded content, too, because they'll have years' worth of mods on top of the developer-created content.

We've seen this a lot already: the Civilization series is infamous for the sequels not living up to their predecessors until they've had years of support themselves; Crusader Kings 3 was seen as lacking in long-term replayability for passionate fans of the series; Destiny 2, upon release, was seen as shallow and sparse compared to the first game; and, recently, Cities: Skylines 2 developers spent the lead-up to the game's release trying to reel in expectations because they didn't want fans to expect the game to have comparable amounts of content to everything that's available for the first game after eight years of post-release updates and DLC.

To compound this, many of the games that benefit from extensive post-release support are less story-focused games. They often offer a mechanical foundation and a sandbox wherein players can create their own experiences, stories and lore - Civilization has no plot, nor does Cities: Skylines or Crusader Kings. They're similar, in fact, to tabletop RPGs - like Dungeons & Dragons - in that sense. And they share another issue with tabletop RPGs: sequels sometimes just aren't necessary. When there's a new story to tell in an existing world, or for an existing character, it obviously makes sense to make a sequel and tell that story. But if the game is more of a mechanical foundation that's already sound? Well, major overhauls to that foundation are a reason to make a sequel, but sometimes it can just feel like "reinventing the wheel" for the sake of releasing a sequel, not because it's necessary or because it improves anything.

It feels to me like a problem that will only become more and more pronounced as more games opt for live-service models or extended post-release support, too. Can anyone think of any examples of games that had extensive post-release support through updates and DLCs where a sequel was then released that wasn't seen as disappointing or a step backwards?

Capcom Exec says Videogames need to be more expensive

Just thought it might be interesting to get a conversation going around this topic. Obviously it's stirred up a lot of opinion.

What's your take on it?

For those that didn't catch the last Direct, Super Mario Wonder has announced that it will feature two different kinds of online multiplayer, both very different to local multiplayer - one where you can see "ghosts" of other players currently online on a given level, which can't interact with you directly but can give you specific aids (such as reviving you when you lose a life, setting a checkpoint for you to revive, or handing you an item); and another where you can make rooms with your friends... but still can't interact directly with them, only allowing for speedrun-styled races. Sure it's a letdown to not be able to properly interact with other players online in the same way that you can do offline, but the problem is that the alternative has already been attempted... and the results are catastrophic.

Remember Super Mario Maker 2? It included a mode where players could join an online room, whether with friends or strangers, to play courses among themselves. It's also infamous for the constant slowdowns that players experienced during the courses. Why was this happening, you may wonder? Well, because the players needed to synchronize their state between each other, and since the game was not designed with modern network tools in mind such as rollback (which would probably be too heavy for the Switch), the only way to ensure everyone was on the same lane was to wait for everyone to receive the input data from all other players. And in a game with up to four players at a time, things are absolutely going to get messy.

And that's why the current online implementation of Super Mario Wonder is a decent compromise. If players are ghosts that can't interfere directly in the state of other players, that means that no synchronization of data is required, and a ghost can lag behind real-time as much as the network forces it to without needing to pause the game of all other users of the lobby. Sure, it's a shame that Nintendo still doesn't use rollback in the year of our lord 2023, but let's face it, the Switch was not the best of class back on release date, and nowadays even a smartphone has more memory and processor speed. That means that implementing rollback netcode into the game would require major gameplay sacrifices (such as capping the frame rate and the amount of items on screen, for example) in order to fit the limited capabilities of the Switch. If the choice was between having limited interaction between players and running at half the speed in the worst case scenario, I think Nintendo chose right.

This copies a post by grailly on Reddit.

Most games have adopted popular RPG mechanics and it's widely accepted that "everything's an RPG now". RPGs are also some of the biggest and most popular games around.

I'd argue that Puzzle Game mechanics (aka puzzles) are even more widespread than RPG mechanics throughout the media. However, Puzzle Games themselves are pretty niche and basically never get any big budget titles. This gets more surprising when realizing Puzzle Games are very popular; Tetris might just be the most recognizable video game, Portal (Portal 2 might be the only AAA puzzle game?!) is insanely beloved, wordle took the world by storm last year, sudoku and crosswords are still in the newspaper every day, Candy Crush...

Why do you think Puzzle Games are relegated to being indie or AA?

I thought about it a bit and came up with some unbaked responses which I hope you will add to:

• People want to kill stuff in AAA games. To which I answer, can't we kill stuff in puzzle games?

• There's little point to making Puzzle Games more expensive. Would having The Witness or Talos Principle pushed to AAA status make them any better?

• "Puzzle" is a recessive genre. Add anything to a puzzle game and they aren't considered puzzle games anymore. So making a AAA Puzzle game will basically remove its Puzzle Game consideration. Puzzle + exploration = adventure. Puzzle + fighting = Action adventure. Puzzle + story = walking simulator, etc.

Hello! Back with another round of musings.

Exoprimal has been my not-Diablo game the last few days and I have to say, I am impressed. It has my attention despite being a flagrant GAAS-model/wanting me to open my wallet so badly.

The game is a little thin at times and running around in your exosuit doesn't "feel" quite as amazing as flying in Anthem or piloting your titan in Titanfall, but the wide range of exosuits + customization definitely shores up some of that.

What I want to focus on however is the PvPvE format they've decided to go with. For those who don't know, Exoprimal is not just about beating up dinosaurs. You are actually racing as a team of 5 against another team of 5 doing the exact same missions. You progress through different challenges and each time you complete one, you see the silhouettes of the enemy team as they do their missions and the game notifies you if you are completing your objective faster or slower than they are. This constant update - both from the game's AI character Leviathan and from the silhouettes - creates a constant energy of go go go! that really enhances the game's tension. You can't just beat up dinosaurs, you need to work together to do it efficiently.

The game also randomly inserts story bits for everyone that will change up the level and challenges, keeping it incredibly fresh. One instance that really caught my attention (and drove me to make this post) happened to me last night. We were about 1/4th of the way through our encounters when suddenly some dialogue began and all of us were warped into one arena and a cutscene began. At the end, one gigantic dinosaur warped in and suddenly our enemies were our friends. We all had to work together as a 10-unit team to take this thing down. It was such an awesome way to be shaken out of "just doing missions." What's amazing is so far these major shakeups have happened once every 5-10 matches for me. While I'm sure I will soon encounter repeated events, I'm about 15hrs into the game and I haven't yet.

If they keep adding special missions/events/curveballs like this, especially tinkering with the PvPvE format, I don't see myself putting this game down for quite some time.

I’ve been going out of my way lately to find unique mechanics, UI’s, etc. that fundamentally alter and improve a game, to the extent that their removal would severely hurt the game and make it less effective/impactful/etc. To be clear this is less “unplayable,” so not something silly like “removing the right thumb stick from Halo.”

Instead, I think of how Immortality essentially “gamified” and simplified a movieola (35mm film editing hardware) to be the player’s interface with the game. The process of scrubbing through footage, marking favorite clips, cropping in on items of interest, “match cutting” (sort of), made for an incredibly immersive experience. Honorable mention goes to the music raising and lowering or shifting as I sped through or slowed down on footage - it created such a unique gaming experience.

What are some examples for y’all?

Before I start let me be clear that I am NOT talking about Zuckerberg’s “Metaverse” with a capital “M.” I am speaking of the concept writ large - aka a 3D/AR/VR/etc. "virtual world" akin to Oasis in the world of Ready Player One. This is incredibly boilerplate so if you are unfamiliar with the concept or want to know more I'd recommend reading more about it!

Arcade Paradise is a game where you slowly (and secretly) turn your dad's laundromat into a fully-fledged late 80's/early 90's-style arcade. It has a fun little story going as you move forward and a fantastic mix of short, medium, and longterm goals, all punctuated by a fun little sense of humor. It's a nostalgia trip for sure for anyone who lived through the arcade-era, complete with 35 arcade games you can play.

So to the actual point here: this game made me operate like I was playing Stardew Valley and Civilization again ("Just one...more...turn...") without the assistance of the actual arcade games. I really enjoyed a lot of the "cabinets" the devs put together but frankly it wasn't the games that kept me coming back. It was the laying out of my arcade, the little tasks to get the money I need for the next upgrade, the optimization of my pricing to get every possible penny I could to expand my floor and add more cabinets. Even seeing the completely non-interactive NPC's playing contributes, which is what made me also constantly go, "Man I wish my friends and I could chill here."

Prior to this game I never really experienced that sensation, but I then thought about my friend who designed all these social spaces on her island on Animal Crossing: New Horizons. She had this outdoor café she was so proud of in particular, and she always was inviting friends to join and run around there. I didn't really get it until I played Arcade Paradise.

I'm not really entirely sure what my question or "prompt" is for folks here, I just found myself musing on this subject and wanted to write up something about it.