I see the title - and first thing I think

“Oblivion, now with 16 times the upscalers” in Todd’s voices

Yes, that is a good idea around what I am thinking in regards to the “magic addictive formula”

They have a system in play that optimises the play experience in a way that is rewarding to “addictive habits” and attempts to “encourage” a habit that leans towards an addiction.

Thank you, it seems the scope of the thought was a lot more open-ended than I imagined.

Was thinking in the line of the how the big game companies seem to try to hook people onto their game experiences and when one hits it big, how they attempt to moderate that experience around trying to keep it at a level that is akin to selling cigarettes.

It is like they are trying to find that “magic addictive formula” and try to be the sole provider of that experience to keep a person coming back to them.

That sounds depressing, it is like they commoditised cheat codes. Sad to see it fall into the trappings that the game makes fun of. I can almost imagine what the GTA 6 version might become if they decide to intergrate that level of “hooks” into its shiny game environment.

I think that was the 2K launcher, if I recall, I remember they were doing something with their games (was playing XCOM 2 at the time) and promptly made use of a workaround

Didn’t like the extra steps just to get into a game - like they were reminding you that you only pay for the license to play the game and the property is theirs to do with as they please. I mean, it is, but still doesn’t help feeling like I am being constantly reminded.

That is probably one of the more famous examples, yeah. They pivoted resources from the single player experience once they saw how much money they were making with their shark cards (I believe it was called). Developed an ecosystem that encouraged spending money to enjoy the game (but not forced) and I guess it was an equivalent experience of getting players to “micro-dose” with a payment to bypass elements of grind to get the best stuff and have an overall smoother experience.

Yeah, they are more apt comparisons where the target market is built upon consistent small (or large) payments that are in a business’ best interests - like in-game currencies (chips in gambling sense) are used to obfuscate the value of what a player is spending money on (which falls into one of the many psychological tricks you mentioned)

Streaming platforms and movies are similar - yes but for them it is a one time recurring cost for the service or in a movie’s case it is a pay per experience.

With game pass, for example, you can play games like streaming, but it won’t be the full experience for some games (i.e the dlc and additional content) - and to be fair, it does usually come at a discount but there in lies additional costs per experience

It is like the equivalent of paying for a streaming service and then it asks and double dips, saying “hey, we see you really liked that show - want to pay us 5 more bucks to enjoy more of it” or a movie and where they ask you to spend more to see the extra deleted scenes

Games are in an area where one can both pay per experience and pay for the service and it is understandable in some cases why that can be - however there are games now that are intended for pay for experience (single player for example) that have additional costs attached to them to draw more “easy” money (this can be the case of developing something worse on purpose to offer a simpler way out of it) or you have games that are nearly the same every year (with them chopping and changing features to make it seem “fresh and new”) and then leverage on a FOMO (mobile games are far worse in this regard) to “encourage” one to spend more on the original purchase.

The effort to manipulate and try to make more with less, feels more erroneous in the gaming sphere

They are trying to get people to become “addicted” to an experience and they wish to target either those that can afford it (and for them - power to them) and/or those that cannot but are unable to control their desire for more (worst case scenario - they hook a proverbial “junkie”)

I will be say I wasn’t thinking too hard into it but, (and not direct response more how a lot of the bad elements feel like they are being pushed)

• Was thinking how the idea of games-as-a-service and subscriptions are considered a priority
• how samey a lot of AAA games seems to feel (like it is consoldated on a “formula”)
• a desire to manipulate towards the idea to spend more on the original product
• supply enough of a product to get a player invested and once hooked - try to maintain that investment over a period of time
• the product is seldom as good as advertised
• the quality of the product, in general, feels like it is being degraded in an effort to more easily manipulate
• games are seen as something as means to an end - and in that vein, it is targeted to be able to draw in people according to metrics and less a expression of creativity

By and large - yes, the idea can be applied to capitalism and I think the idea I was thinking of is that AAA games lean into the more exploitative area of it.

Doesn’t mean it is the only one or even the worst, but I was thinking in the headspace at how the “big games companies” are trying to lean into being more manipulative (directly or subversively) and how it feels more like “drug dealers” trying to sell their brand of high, trying to dictate how to enjoy those highs, they try to lock players into a “brand” of gaming and once they can “control” what people will enjoy, attempt to exploit value from it.

That is true, it did popularise the drive towards extracting large amounts of value for comparatively little effort

Meanwhile Microsoft doing back-room deals to corner more of the market

Build 42 unstable right now, is more single player until they iron out everything for a stable release.

I would say if you don’t mind playing build 41 until they release build 42 stable - then short story long:

I can be fun with friends, but if you want to play without having to worry about too much grind then it is best to play with sandbox settings and tweak gameplay towards what you and your friends find fun.

The world can made persistent, but your individual character is unique and when they die you would have to respawn with a new character

There are mods that do help with the starting out from scratch bit:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2503622437&searchtext=journal - make a journal that stores a characters stats so you don’t have a grind a new character again)

The sandbox settings are very flexible (and mods can make it even more so) and you can even play in a world without zombies if you wish

Fedora 41 KDE Plasma

For the simple, shallow reason it looks great and feels snappy.

Personal rabble:

That is fair in the case of fishing, foraging and to a lesser degree farming

If one wants to finish it as soon as possible then there is a pressure to not miss something - a bit of a heresy - but Joja Mart route can ignore that pressure, but it does feel better getting the community center up and running though.

I know the T.V. channel that Pam provides is helpful for fishing and for me I try to set up a schedule where I dedicate a day to get a particular item or to improve a skill to make it easier to get a item I am looking for.

My first two years are usually very busy as my farmer is on a “sigma grindset” and approached as a game getting everything sorted.

I do feel that it plays better when I tried to compromise a bit and try to roleplay like start the day, sort out my fields and animals, have regular meals, visit the town, greet everyone, maybe look at the message board - doing something like fishing, foraging, mining or cave diving for a bit, head to the bar at night for a night cap and then make my way home for the night - especially Friday nights.

I break that habit a bit when it is a really lucky day but I can write that off as a day that my character felt like some “me” time or they are focussed on getting resources for an upgrade to the farm or an item for center

One starts to learn everyone’s schedule and you start to feel part of the Valley as familiarity helps build the “community” feel

That reminds me of the earlier versions where the Grandpa would judge you harshly if you didn’t get enough points and in the worse case scenerio would wonder if he should have given the farm to some other relative at the end of year 3.

But Concerned Ape removed that as it went against the spirit of the game - there is only one time sensitive event in the game and is a friendship event with one of the characters that should be done before the end of year one

I missed it for the longest time, but it does help flesh out that character but besides that, the valley is in a proverbial time bubble where everything can be done at your leisure within the time frame - which is usually dedicating a day for something.

I would say that that the desert dungeon requires planning and being efficient with your time to get to the 100th floor in a day though

Just my opinion - but Stardew Valley, for me, is best enjoyed in the same vein like something like Harvest Moon or Animal Crossing.

It is like Sims: Rural. I liked the idea of someone being sick of the corporate drone lifestyle and being given the opportunity to start a new life in the country-side.

While I agree, especially in the beginning that the timers do feel restrictive, farming can be a chore when you are starting out and the stamina can be annoying but it has been built towards an idea that

“This is your character’s life and just enjoy a new start in the countryside”

It does get easier, more streamlined and opens up more options when one starts getting into the specialisations in leveling and gain benefits from progress which brings with it more “set and forget” tasks (like ancient fruit in a green house with sprinklers) which are profitable and if farming isn’t your thing I was going to say to try animal husbandry - which starts out with just giving the animals you buy some attention and food everyday ( buy hay or use a scythe on long grass), open the barn hatch in the morning (when not raining) and close it at night and collect the resource either by picking it up or having the right tool for the animal.

Animal husbandry is a lot of initial setup and then animal maintainence to get a resource, which leaves more time to explore other aspects of the game

I guess it is a game best enjoyed to roleplay as one learns about everybody in the valley and make your mark as someone of important as you can either make your fortune, have a family, make friends or just check off the list of collectables

I do feel it is a bit unfair to compare it to something like Rimworld as it is a great colony simulator in its own right with it having the focus of developing a “blank slate” community of random people in a harsh and cruel world where the player is the “architect” as you create the plan and the pawns enact it.

Comparatively, I do feel Rimworld farming is more involved than in Stardew Valley as there is a lot of external factors to consider like fertility, effective crop placement to avoid disease ruining all your crops if your pawns are too slow to contain it, raiders burning it, weather and events that ruin the crops, etc)

While Stardew it is a cycle of seasonal preparation, planting, watering, scarecrows placement to avoid crows stealing crops and harvesting - it is quite simple although more hands-on in practice and some of these steps can eventually be automated.

I guess Stardew Valley is predictable and consistent without much risk and can come across as a chore whereas Rimworld has a lot of external variables that keeps one needing to have a plan in the back of one’s mind when things go wrong.

Fair enough if you do not find it interesting, it might just not be your style of gameplay. Give credit where credit is due that you gave it an honest go at it and if you do not refund it it, maybe you will enjoy it one day

From an audio perspective, Terraria has great a thunderstorm effect - just something that really stuck as weighty and impactful

For the whole experience, Project Zomboid isn’t a slouch either as it has the audio/visuak effects down and feels better with the some of its parts together as individually there are parts that feel weaker but as a whole makes the for an engaging experience if one decides to wonder during a thunderstorm

I am kind of the subborn idiot that initially struggled with the tutorial, but struggled enough to learn what it was it was trying to teach.

I remember and know it from failing, leaning and trying different things seeing what works.

The three starting default characters all have something they are good at and looking at those - all three are meant to get through the tutorial, although Norg is the most straight forward approach.

As I said before, it is not the best and they could have done a better job, yes.

It can leave one feeling annoyed that their gun character struggles - sure

Can it suck knowing you have to put some token effort into a melee skill if you do not want to sneak around or evade the enemies - indeed

But my point is that, regardless of its poorer presentation, especially when put up against Fallout 1’s tutorial, there is more than one way to do it other than pure brute force.

While I agree the tutorial is rough for something meant to teach, it can be done with different playstyles.

Although having some form of melee combat does make the experience a lot less frustrating and can save a lot on time spent trying to hit the enemies, but I think enemies have like 5 ap or so which one can avoid most of them on an agility build by outspeeding them.

A determined person could probably get through it without fighting as a challenge I guess as an agility and stealth focus.

There is a lock pick and explosive tutorial that are mandatory but aren’t too difficult and then there is a trap room which can be a problem if one is low on perception.

The final challenge can have the guy be talked down with enough speech

For ease of getting through it, strength or agility with a melee skill will make it a lot easier though.

Pathfinder WoTR is an overall improvement, but Pathfinder Kingmaker also has its charms.

It feels like playing a DnD campaign with the developers acting as the DM.

It does require some metagaming if one wants to experience everything, it does have an ending act that drags on for too long, it can feel oppressive with the disaster timers ticking away while one is still trying to figure out a rhythm and it can end up with things spiraling into danger if one doesn’t “rush” and plan around each main act quest.

It is one of those rough games that does have a certain appeal to those that do not mind working through the frustrations for a more grounded adventure - relative to the setting.

Tyranny, from a world building experience was great, felt like it was short an act though as I got to the final act and thought - “wait, what is that it?”

Also it is refreshing to have a game where morality is fluid and open to interpretation and up to the player to rationalise their actions, where the decisions lean more towards following an ideology more than morality

For a Warhammer cRPG, Rogue Trader is something to consider as well as it captures the feel of its setting pretty well

Tldr:

Having too many cultures that have not established a “market share” in politics makes the, people who run a country, job harder as it has to contend with dealing with the potential of new cultures forming and the inevitable culture clashes that follow as differing values and ideals will demand different things.

It fractures and dilutes points of control which encourages politics to try ensure loyalty though aligning itself with views of the majority.

End tldr

Unironically, Stellaris is probably a decent example of the thought experiment played out. Unless a species is built with ideals of the intergration and/or has its proper foundation set then it can quickly spiral out of hand as you have to deal with " a hunded voices asking for one thing".

It is far easier to control and secure a foundational majority based off of one species as it can be more easily guided towards an established outcome.

Adding too many “outsiders” has the potential to cause an imbalance and a shift in thinking which then requires a new paradigm to “herd the sheep” as it were, while still trying to maintain a standard that the base species has become accustomed to.

If it not carefully controlled, it can potentially lead to a fracturing of opinion and thoughts which is a lot harder to manage and “guide” as one runs the risk of isolating one group and in doing so opening up the potential cascade of problems if the ignored minorities builds up steam which then forces leaders to contend with trying to figure out a way to maintain control over the many species bases while still doing it in a way that causes the least amount of disruption to their control.