Troonslop "Retro" Games / Demake games / PS1 Trannies / ULTRAKILL / Y2K trannies - Retro gaming is infected

Is Ostranaut troon pozzed? the pronoun selection made me wonder if it's designed by troons or people who want to appeal to troons/progressive. I don't think it's troonslop from the get go but it feels pretty sus
Surprised no one seems to have mentioned that furfag "ultra-hardcore" game, or is it not quite fitting of this thread? It sure as shit is troonslop at least.
Those aren't troonslop, they're autistic. Their troon appeal is an unfortunate side-effect of appealing to the greater autistic male demographic.
See also: Dwarf Fortress, Factorio, and Hearts of Iron 4.

This pepito jumped from doing (admittedly great) music to video games no one cares about into directing interactive movies, what say does he have on proper game design?

Madness.
"A game's story should be impacted by the consequences of your fuckups instead of undoing them." is good game design, it just sounds retarded because David Cage said it.
 
Random update on the guy who made this video, he's getting roasted again. Lolcow potential with this one
https://youtube.com/watch?v=fPTR_P_NrF4
Ah damn, wasn't sure where to post that video and I find it already posted here.
Too bad the creator of this vid is a tranny. At least he doesn't even seem to try to pass.
Lol yup, soon as I saw their name. I can imagine a grown ass man with pub hair for a beard, unwashed long hair, and a dress.
 
"A game's story should be impacted by the consequences of your fuckups instead of undoing them." is good game design, it just sounds retarded because David Cage said it.
Counterpoint:

How do you deal with something like this other than loading back to the last save? Do you want every game to be some Monkey Island bullshit where if you jump off a cliff, you land on a "rubber tree" and get catapulted back to the top of the cliff unharmed? We obviously don't want everything (or anything) to be one of those old Sierra games where any action, no matter how innocuous, that wasn't planned out as part of the official solution results in a pointless death, but there needs to be some sort of middle ground, especially when you're doing obviously suicidal things in the game and player death should be expected.
 
How do you deal with something like this other than loading back to the last save? Do you want every game to be some Monkey Island bullshit where if you jump off a cliff, you land on a "rubber tree" and get catapulted back to the top of the cliff unharmed? We obviously don't want everything (or anything) to be one of those old Sierra games where any action, no matter how innocuous, that wasn't planned out as part of the official solution results in a pointless death, but there needs to be some sort of middle ground, especially when you're doing obviously suicidal things in the game and player death should be expected.
I think that the interpretation was that player actions should lead to tangibly different and potentially negative outcomes when it isn't one that would obviously cause death. I believe that this has the potential to be quite cool, I'd like a game where negative decisions can sometimes lead to brand new situations.
 
How do you deal with something like this other than loading back to the last save? Do you want every game to be some Monkey Island bullshit where if you jump off a cliff, you land on a "rubber tree" and get catapulted back to the top of the cliff unharmed? We obviously don't want everything (or anything) to be one of those old Sierra games where any action, no matter how innocuous, that wasn't planned out as part of the official solution results in a pointless death, but there needs to be some sort of middle ground, especially when you're doing obviously suicidal things in the game and player death should be expected.
Darkseed comes to mind on this. The jail softlock is infamously painful since it forces you to play again from the beginning of the game
 
Counterpoint:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=qBGqQo6Pops
How do you deal with something like this other than loading back to the last save? Do you want every game to be some Monkey Island bullshit where if you jump off a cliff, you land on a "rubber tree" and get catapulted back to the top of the cliff unharmed? We obviously don't want everything (or anything) to be one of those old Sierra games where any action, no matter how innocuous, that wasn't planned out as part of the official solution results in a pointless death, but there needs to be some sort of middle ground, especially when you're doing obviously suicidal things in the game and player death should be expected.
A reload is fine for situations like that. I mean more 'plot-relevant' deaths, like while defending Goodsprings in New Vegas. Instead of just loading your last save, it'd be more interesting if dying had a different outcome depending on how much you strengthened the townsfolk and how many enemies remained when you died. A weak militia and zero kills would result in the town getting taken over and Victor having to pull you out of another grave.
To be clear, I'm not saying reloading is bad design or every story needs failure branches, but they can definitely make games cooler.
 
"A game's story should be impacted by the consequences of your fuckups instead of undoing them." is good game design, it just sounds retarded because David Cage said it.
"Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important." Carmack is a hell of a lot smarter than Cage, and made actual games, not movies pretending to be high art. Maybe if you're bad at a game you should die and see a continue screen. Cage sounds retarded because he is retarded.
 
The idea of games comping for all your choices is cool and all but it's generally infeasible for realistic gamedev. Think for a second, like really think—what are actual examples people give of quests where this sort of thing happens?

I bet your list includes that one sidequest from TW3 and some quests from Fallout: New Vegas. Maybe Hitman. The Golden Child for this sort of thing is usually FNV whose most expansive side quest has ~6 endings, and do note that it is the ONLY quest with this many permutations.

Thats because every alternate route exponentially increases development time without meaningfully increasing content for most gamers who are not interested in playing the same campaign a dozen times. Which is why the only games that do this are immersive sims and actual honest to god CRPGs. It is really, really cool, but unless games start procgen-ing quests or something then imo this isn't a reasonable request for a video game and tells me you'd probably be better off playing a ttrpg with other real human beings.

Most games would benefit much more from having that effort put into making the quests actually good rather than autistically accounting for every way someone might fuck up.
 
"Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important." Carmack is a hell of a lot smarter than Cage, and made actual games, not movies pretending to be high art. Maybe if you're bad at a game you should die and see a continue screen. Cage sounds retarded because he is retarded.
To be fair this is the same guy behind Doom 3, a game with much more involved worldbuilding that just turned out into being a Half-Life plot with a Doom coat of paint.
 
you'd probably be better off playing a ttrpg with other real human beings.
That logic only really works well for something like a Visual Novel or a dating sim. Games like Disco Elysium that doesn't even have combat, stanley parable or Life is strange, the kind of purely narrative games that game journos love to rim. Even on tabletops and rpgs your character can still get its head chopped off and get a game over, its cool to have branches and freedom but when you completely remove consequence you barely have a game anymore.
 
That logic only really works well for something like a Visual Novel or a dating sim. Games like Disco Elysium that doesn't even have combat, stanley parable or Life is strange, the kind of purely narrative games that game journos love to rim. Even on tabletops and rpgs your character can still get its head chopped off and get a game over, its cool to have branches and freedom but when you completely remove consequence you barely have a game anymore.
I think that's what really gets me when people start circlejerking about what a real RPG is and how it must have high-permutation high-impact character choice. The only games you're getting that out of are like three CRPGs from over a decade ago and visual novels like DE. KOTOR, New Vegas, and Witcher 3 cannot carry an entire genre even if they are very good games. If those are your requirements then you've gatekept half the damn genre (JRPGs) and cut off your nose just to spite your Ubisoft and Skyrim shaped face.
 
This is what you get pandering to trannies, looking like a lame cuck and then trannies will still hate you and boycott you for whatever reason.
When he released that video trannies were split on either liking it, or thinking that a normal person shouldn't be talking about them. Something they all agreed on though is that this guy is gonna troon out soon and he's a tranny chaser. Trannies want attention but also despise it at the same time.
 
"A game's story should be impacted by the consequences of your fuckups instead of undoing them." is good game design, it just sounds retarded because David Cage said it.
True, yet (from what I vaguely remember) Cage's crew still did it wrong by having no branching paths (endings aside) and only introducing a couple abrupt cuts/plotholes for when you do fuck up.
 
A small thing but annoys my core a bit
These "hear me out guys!!" types are some of the most mundane people that act like the most typical things make them special.

When men say "Hear me out guys!" Its a conventionally attractive women that has animal ears or a tail.

When women say "Hear me out guys!" Its a straight up animal.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo