EvaUnit02

While I agree in principle, I think a game needs to make it clear when something isn't window dressing. My buddy just couldn't understand why positioning mattered. It never clicked for him because he figured RPG combat was just "swing a sword/shoot an arrow until the other guy dies". We had to explain it to him. He also never thought to explore the UI for information as to why his movement was reduced or why he was disadvantaged, despite having icons next to his character with tooltips explaining what status effects were in play. While it may seem obvious that things are happening on screen and one could deduce that something meaningful is occuring, I think if I'm honest, I can't blame my buddy for not understanding. I've fallen victim to it myself.

Sometimes we just don't, on our own, interpret information as being meaningful. Consequently, we unduly discard it before making decisions. I think it's important to be told in one form or the other when something matters. Whether that's tutorialization or otherwise, I think it's important. I think the more complicated the game, the easier it is for a player to fall in to a trap of discarding important information and subsequently becoming frustrated.

I think even something as simple as the game making its expectations clear from the start could go a long way. Something as simple as conveying to the user that they are expected to be attentive as they play.

I love both Baldur's Gate III and fighting games but disagree. I think both are woefully inadequate at explaining their rules to players. Larian games need to not only make BGIII's rules as clear as a rulebook but also make tactics and strategies plain and clear to the user. Otherwise, it is very easy to fall back on decades of video game expectation only to realize your expectations are wrong. I had a co-op game of BG3 with a friend. My friend couldn't understand why he had to position his units anywhere. Didn't understand why inventory wasn't just immediately being teleported to a shared infinite item box. Didn't understand the basic mechanics of D&D combat (which even then, Larian changes to various degrees) Didn't understand why decisions had any meaningful consequences. Didn't even understand what he was supposed to be doing narratively despite there being a quest log and having us recap the story up to the point we were.

While fighting game tutorials have gotten better, I still have yet to experience one that explains very basic things that the FGC takes for granted. Things like health bars being identical physical lengths but representing different numerical values. Things like "waiting for your turn." Things like meter management.

Complex games are great. But complex games need to recognize that they have a larger duty to teach than simpler games. I think video game design needs to take a page out of tabletop game design and provide some analog to the tabletop rulebook: complete with not just rules but detailed explanations, sidebars, and examples of play.

I think Larian Games do very little to explain their rules to the player. I, too, found it incredibly frustrating when I played Divinity: Original Sin and later, DOS 2. So while I didn't carve out time from my day to learn the ins and outs of Baldur's Gate III, I did have experience with the other two games that helped me navigate it.

I adore these games but it took many hours of training for me to understand what it was I was even supposed to be doing.

Star Ocean: The Second Story R. Brilliant remake.

You don't really need to start with First Departure.

I (genuinely) don't understand. What exactly was disrespectful?

I think it's just an effort to collect a licensing fee.

Price per unit time suggests that the only value of a game is in how much time it consumes.

The value calculus is going to be different for everyone but for me, I tend to look for:

• A game which is a game first and foremost rather than an entertainment experience. That is to say: something that demands decision making of me in which I can either increase or decrease the payoffs of those decisions. Games which focus heavily on cinematic scenes, heavy QTEs, or long dialogs disinterest me.

• I am often willing to take a punt on a game that tries to do something creative and interesting.

• I tend to not like games that demand a high degree of memorization and/or dexterity.

• Games which perform well. A recent example of a regretful purchase I made was with Shin Megami Tensei V. I adore the series but the framerate on the Switch really brought my experience down to a level where I just didn't want to play anymore.

The weights of these things will change from game to game and other elements may enter or exit the equation from time to time, of course.

tri-Ace games have fantastic combat mechanics, imo. Give the original Valkyrie Profile, any Star Ocean (later games have more intricate combat), or Resonance of Fate a spin.

I'm not sure how ad blocking is going to work once more and more ads are delivered via the domains you don't want to block.

Most jobs in the game industry are employment, not contracts.

I recoiled when I read, "my dad actually owned a PS2 when I was born." Oh time, you cruel beast.