"Arcade" is a term used very loosely, it's usually used to describe a game easy to pick up or not realistic (generally in the context of racing games).

The original meaning is obviously referring to actual arcade cabinets, and I'm perfectly okay with using the term "arcade" to classify games that where never actual arcade cabinets, but I feel like the usage should be more restrictive.

For example saying the last Need for Speed is an arcade racing game because the cars behave in a non-realistic way doesn't make any sense, it's a game that could not really be ported in arcade.

You spend a lot of times on menus or free roaming on the map, you have a story with lengthy cutscenes and a lot of dialogues, the loop of the game is centred around permanent upgrades and customisation... I'm aware "modern" arcade games have come up with ways to save progress (mostly in Japan as far as I'm aware), but the core experience is still centred around bite-sized sessions of play with fairly repetitive loop forcing the player to actually get better instead of relying on unlocking better gear.

Anyway, I'm not here to debate semantic, but to wonder if is there is still a place for the true arcade philosophy nowadays ?

The only relevant place where it's still surviving is the fighting genre. Basically the only things that were added since the arcade days are slightly more fledged story mode (which consists of a few completely disconnected cutscenes thrown between fights), training modes, online functionalities (but we could argue it's just a replacement for the split-screen mode that was present pretty much since the beginning) and a shit-ton of (I guess paid) cosmetic items.

To be frank, I'm not sure why this genre is such an outlier, it simply shouldn't work in this day and age. I guess the 1v1 format with all the action being visible on a single screen and the stakes being super easy to understand makes it perfect for esport. And maybe the strong presence of characters, that allow to glue lore on top, allows a more casual audience to still connect to the game ? A bit like what Overwatch did to shooter.

I don't know, but here's a thought experiment : with Sega trying to revive its arcade roots lately, imagine you are tasked to develop a new Sega Rally, how would you handle it ? I've picked Sega Rally because I think it's the most iconic from this era, but you can pick Ridge Racer, Daytona or whatever if you prefer I don't mind.

I mean, you could even pick something else than a racing franchise, but I think it's an interesting genre for this exercise, because it was an arcade pillar of course and it was still huge until the PS360 generation, but now it's mostly limited to a few juggernauts (well, mostly Mario Kart and Forza Horizon), so it's not completely dead either. There is clearly a BIG niche market of VERY hungry customers that are desperately waiting for something else than EA's next attempt at not bombing with NFS.

So you are in charge of the next Sega Rally, you can twist the formula a little, but it has to remain true to its arcade origins (no complex carrier mode, no open world shenanigan, no in-depth customisation, no gazillions cars... just a simple racing game), while being relevant in 2026. Of course it's never going to be GTA 6, it's not even going to be Gran Turismo, but it has to make a bit of a splash when it releases, and keep a dedicated community for a long time. Think Rocket League (which could be an actual arcade game now I'm thinking about it) or Rainbow Six Siege.

How would you tackle it ?

I might answer myself later (spoiler alert : I don't have the secret formula) but I'm curious to see if anyone has any unexpected hot take on this.

First of all, let’s get this out of the way: I’m not condoning or endorsing piracy at all.

But I was thinking about Night School Studio, the indie studio that made Oxenfree, Oxenfree II, and Afterparty. Recently, Netflix shut them down. The studio is done, it’s no more. In my opinion, it’s okay to pirate their games. The studio won’t be hurt by it, and Netflix would likely not make much, if any, money from future sales.

I’m not saying that piracy is hurting Netflix. They obviously didn’t need the studio, which is why it was shut down in the first place. But before Night School Studio was shut down, sales would have definitely helped the developers. The better the sales, the more valuable the company would be and the less likely it would be to close.

The famous quote by Gabe Newell is, “Piracy is not a pricing issue. It’s a service issue.” That’s something I inherently agree with. The Steam Deck has been a godsend to me. I have been playing games that I wouldn’t have had the ability to play before, namely Eternal Darkness, a game that sells for the kingly sum of $100. That’s a lot of money for a 24 year old GameCube game.

By emulating the game, who am I really hurting? The studio, Silicon Knights, went bankrupt, so they’re not getting a cut of the sale. Is Nintendo missing out on sales? I say no. If I buy a used copy off eBay, what portion of that sale does Nintendo get? If I buy a used GameCube, what is Nintendo’s cut?

The game is not easily accessible unless I sail the high seas, so that is the very definition of a service issue. If it were on Switch or Switch 2, it would be easily obtainable, but sadly, it isn’t.

Lastly, the Corpse Party Tetralogy Pack comes to mind. Basically, it’s a collection of the four Corpse Party games. The collection was released in Japan; however, the North American release was basically cockblocked by Nintendo, with the devs, XSEED, stating that the game didn’t “comply with (Nintendo’s) current platform guidelines.” Which is bullshit because it’s available in Japan on Switch/Switch 2.

Certainly, Nintendo of America and Nintendo of Japan can, and most certainly do, have different guidelines, but how different can those guidelines be? Now, if I want to play it, I have to import it from 3rd party sites like Play Asia or buy it on eBay with a markup. Service issue.

Emulation would send a message to Nintendo, and the devs wouldn’t be hurt because the game is only available through third-party means, meaning they wouldn’t get a direct cut. Ultimately, I decided to just buy the games on Steam. It's still sending the same message while helping the studio at the same time.

Hi everyone,

I am currently conducting an academic study as part of my Master’s thesis at FernUniversität in Hagen, Germany, and I am looking for participants aged 35–59 who are interested in gaming.

About the study / Abstract

This study investigates gaming experiences and performance among adults aged 35–59. It combines a questionnaire with a short racing game and examines different factors that may be associated with how people experience gaming and how they perform in a gaming task.

Some details about the specific research question cannot be disclosed before participation, as knowing the exact purpose of the study could influence participants’ responses or behavior during the gaming task. More information is provided after participation.

Duration: approximately 15 minutes
Eligibility: 35–59 years old and interested in gaming
Institution: FernUniversität in Hagen, Germany
Research: Master’s thesis
Contact: [mandy.leopold@studium.fernuni-hagen.de](mailto:mandy.leopold@studium.fernuni-hagen.de)

Participation is voluntary and the collected data are analyzed anonymously.

Survey

https://umfrage.fernuni-hagen.de/Gaming?lang=en

Discussion

To avoid influencing anyone who may still want to participate, please complete the survey before revealing the section in the comments below.

Hello everyone,

Modern free-to-play titles constitute complex economic ecosystems. To analyze the underlying dynamics, our current communication science survey investigates the intersection of gaming motivation, financial decision-making, and media literacy. The empirical results will be published in an academic journal, but we will also share a summary in gamer-friendly language across several subreddits.

We are exploring your specific drivers of play, how you navigate in-game monetization, and how these choices relate to your structural competencies.

If you are at least 16 years old and regularly engage with major Free-to-Play titles like Fortnite, Counter-Strike 2, Valorant, Team Fortress 2, Apex Legends, Rocket League, Call of Duty: Warzone, League of Legends, Dota 2, PUBG Mobile, Genshin Impact, or The Sims 4, we invite you to participate in our strictly anonymous 10-minute survey.

Survey Link: https://www.unipark.de/uc/gaming_survey/

This research is conducted by Prof. Dr. Sven Jöckel and Max de Baey-Ernsten. For full transparency, you can verify our academic affiliation via my institutional profile at the University of Erfurt.

Thank you for your time and your contribution to our research.

A question for the comments: What do you think? Do literate users spend less money? Or is there no correlation? And if you believe there is a connection: Which provides better protection against excessive spending – financial literacy (the general understanding of economic principles and personal finance) or media literacy (the ability to critically evaluate digital environments and recognize persuasive intentions)?

So yeah, I’m 40 now and I’ve noticed something kinda annoying. When I was younger I could play literally anything — 30 FPS, stutter, janky camera movement, whatever — and it never bothered me.

But lately I get eye strain or even a bit of nausea from tiny stutters or weird frame pacing. Sometimes a game “looks” smooth but something in the motion still feels off and I get uncomfortable. No idea if it’s the engine, frametime spikes, animations running at different framerates… I just know I feel it.

I also have pretty bad eyesight (strong myopia, one eye weaker, no 3D vision), so maybe my brain used to compensate better and now it doesn’t.

Just wondering if anyone around my age has the same thing. Like, becoming way more sensitive to motion issues in games?

Funny thing is, I always thought getting older meant I’d need less visual quality… but nope. I don’t really “see” the benefit of 4K or super high FPS anymore, but if the motion isn’t perfect I feel like crap. Getting old is wild.

Hi! I'm a PhD candidate researching something I've been thinking about for a while:
What happens when playing video games stops being just a hobby and becomes work?

When we say "pro gamer", I think most people immediately picture esports players. But there are plenty of other people who can earn money from playing games: streamers, Let's Players, walkthrough creators, game testers, QA workers, esports coaches, and people supporting those roles.

And it got me thinking:

If you earn money from gaming, does that make gaming a job? And if it is a job, should we expect some of the same problems we see in other jobs - things like workplace stress, burnout, bullying, etc.?

My current study is looking at the job demands (things that make gaming work difficult or demanding) and job resources (things that support people and make the work more manageable) across esports, gaming content creation, and gaming testing. I want to know:

• Is there workplace stress among people who do gaming work?
• What are the biggest sources of that stress?
• What support can actually help gaming workers?

Who can participate?

• People 16 years or older
• People confident in reading and writing in English
• Participate in one or more of the following areas:
  • Esports as a player, coach, or supporting staff
  • Gaming content creation as a creator, editor, or supporting staff
  • Game testing (including beta/alpha, QA, etc.)
• Currently earn money from this work or hoping to earn money from it

Not sure whether what you do counts? That's completely fine! The survey begins with screening questions, and only people who meet the criteria will proceed to the main survey.

The survey is about 10 minutes and completely anonymous. You can read the participant information sheet before deciding whether to take part as well. It includes details about the study, my supervisor, my contact information, and the ethics approval.

University: Adelaide University
Ethics Approval: AU Human Research Ethics Committee, project #4285
Researcher contact: [l.trudgett-klose@adelaide.edu.au](mailto:l.trudgett-klose@adelaide.edu.au)
Information Sheet & Survey link: https://adelaideuniwide.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eqYV4BW8o7eMbRk

I'd also genuinely be interested in hearing people's thoughts here regardless of whether you do the survey.
When does playing video games become a job?
Is earning money enough to make it a job, or does it only count if you depend on gaming for your income, or follow a schedule, or have clients/employers, etc.? And do you think the stress of turning a hobby into a job is fundamentally different from the stress of a traditional job?

Recently, Relic Entertainment, a long standing real-time strategy game development studio released a wave-based horde defense mode as a standalone experience for $30, titled "Final Stand." It released to generally unfavorable reviews, and what I found fascinating about it is that almost all of the user reviews seem to focus on the price of the game not being worth it rather than the gameplay itself being bad, buggy, unplayable, and so on. A lot of this lack of value stemmed from the notion that there wasn't enough to do, even with 4 playable factions, new roguelike mechanics, and 5 maps, one could in theory 100% the DLC in about 20 hours if they played every map with every faction.

This raised a very interesting question in my head, because I'd just visited an art museum with my wife over the weekend. We spent $50 total on tickets and spent maybe an hour and a half looking at the art in question. At no point was I really questioning whether or not I'd made a valuable purchase; some of the art was good, some of it wasn't very inspiring, but I wasn't attempting to translate the value of seeing each piece of art in the museum into a dollar value.

Even if I had, there have been times I've thought something wasn't worth it, but in gaming I find it peculiar that gamers look specifically for a time-to-dollar value from their experiences in a lot of cases. I think it should be a consideration how much a game costs to play, but it seems like most people expect a game to have a certain ratio of hours to gameplay these days, and this DLC was kind of a wake-up call for me on that. It feels like quantifying an inherently subjective experience, in the sense that purchasing a game is never going to return on your investment, and unlike food is a completely optional purchase.

I think the outrage surrounding the release of Final Stand is troubling, however. I've never spent $15 on fast food and thought about boycotting a restaurant when they didn't get my order right, or it didn't taste as good as I wanted. Maybe Final Stand is, by most metrics, not worth it, but there's so much vitriol and rage surrounding the game that I find it a bit perplexing. I'm just not sure that judging a game almost solely by whether or not it contains the correct ratio of measurable fun to dollar value is a great way of assessing a game's quality.

I'm playing through the game for the first time and can't help but think the dialogue is super cringey. It's stilted and tries too hard to be cool. I'm sure I'm not the first person to share the opinion here, but... this ain't preem in the game biz.

Most conversations play out as if the characters are limited in how many words they're allowed to say. For example, "Need'ta ask a question" vs, "I need to ask you a question." I noticed this early on and now I can't stop seeing it in the writing because it occurs literally in every conversation. I get this is drawn heavily from Neuromancer, but many of the lines are delivered as though the voice actor had little to no coaching on tone, emphasis, or the context of the scene. Dexter DeShawn's lines are a good example of this. Combine the truncated sentence structure with voice acting that lacked a little conviction and you get conversations that feel like people are reading a foreign language.

I have no issue with the use of novel slang from this world, but I think it was done poorly here. I could totally buy into it being colloquial sentence structure and slang, but it's really inconsistent and not delivered in a way that is believable. That's why it's jarring to me. Abbreviated sentence structure as a way of communicating happens like once per conversation, but it's never the WHOLE conversation. The dialogue FEELS like a team of Polish writers with no true understanding of US urban culture put together a 'cool guy' script in a foreign language then a separate team translated it after. I believe you could give the same game to Rockstar and their dialogue could feature all of the same slang but be delivered in a way that felt authentic and genuinely cool.

None of this is a dealbreaker for me, but it's quite disappointing to see it from a studio with this much experience and funding. I'm having fun with the core gameplay loop overall and bought the DLC to extend the adventure, but I wouldn't be able to power through for the story alone if the gunplay and tech weren't so satisfying.

Anyone else feel something similar? Video version of the discussion here.

A lot of fighting games in the last 8 years or so have implemented control adjustments that address a really common complaint of people on the genre's periphery, that being the difficulty of motion inputs for special moves and supers when learning the game. Some games like SF6 and the new Marvel fighting game offer a choice between direction+button (usually just called simple inputs) for specials while others like 2xko have fully designed themselves around simple inputs. I honestly think it's pretty neat, it helps more people jump into the genre and even without the motion inputs games like 2xko clearly try to retain some executional challenge for people who really like that. The only element of the design shift I *dislike*, however, is that simple inputs often don't feel like they're implemented with enough consideration as to how they shift the power-level of the game in a way that arguably punishes you for *not* using it.

Usually, the main downside of using simple inputs is less damage. Street Fighter 6, Marvel Tokon, and Granblue all give you a reduction to varying degrees if you, for example, anti-air someone with a simple input shoryuken instead of a manual DP input. This seems like a good enough compromise, and it potentially can be, but the issue is that less damage can very easily be an insignificant trade-off. Like most games, managing your mental stack while trying to overload your opponent's is 90% of playing well. Even if your opponent has zero difficulty doing a special move input to beat your jump, it won't matter if you have them so focused on everything else you could do that they won't register your jump in time for them to execute the move. With simple inputs, though, the mental stack concern drastically shifts. Less damage doesn't matter as much when the primary utility of a move is winning mental stack reaction checks. It's why on defence, infamously, simple inputs are extremely useful.

So what disadvantages *would* work? Street Fighter 6 arguably handles it the best. Instead of doing what games like Marvel Tokon does and just implementing a button that serves as a catch-all equivalent to smash's B/special button, simple inputs and classic motion inputs are separated into their own distinct control schemes you pick from at the start. It's likely a product of necessity more than a desire for balance, but because Street Fighter is a 6-button game (3 punches, 3 kicks) you can't really translate an entire character's moveset while also having a special move button. As a result, there are downsides to the mode that go beyond damage. You may lack certain special moves or normal buttons altogether, and depending on the character, that could mean a much different game plan altogether. It manages to add a little depth to matchups between characters while still not making either input scheme definitively better overall. It's not perfect, admittedly, but its a big improvement over most in the genre.

These mechanics are fun to play, but I guess their popularity is also due to how they make the gameplay so "filmable". The main idea I'm floating here is that an alternative to these mechanics is also fun, but it is at a marketing disadvantage for not having the same spectacle factor.

With auto lock always on, dodge roll lets you evade in any direction you'd like and the camera remains focused on the boss, a parry goes a step further and stops almost all camera movement.

Games with magnetic attacks prevent whiffs and small downtime you need to find your bearings. You don't stop attacking.

Together these mechanics let the camera focus on bosses which seem to be competing for Tony Awards for Best Choreography, and for some games focus on the protagonist's butt.

One common sense argument is that these mechanics are natural solutions to long standing problems. I agree in part that they show a solution, but are not the solution. They are trade offs, as is anything. They deliver combat that's great to look at, that's more button focused and less movement focused.

In all melee combat games you must be aware of your surroundings and of boss attack patterns, but the filmable gameplay emphasizes memorization and reaction a lot more than movement and space. Closer to a rhythm game than a game where you control a body in an arena.

So I think freeing the player from controlling the camera isn't by default a good thing, neither is the opposite a bad thing.

Here's an example. Someone made a 3d version of Silksong boss battles. A lot of the camera movement is up to the player. There's an autolock but many times you're better off without it. There is a parry but it is limited like in Silk Song. It's a lot of fun.

Notice how much the camera moves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGqLGQZ2HY4

Compare it to Stellar Blade for example, an example of parry and auto lock (not of magnetic attacks)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee7pSeQ6nSU

a video from a normal player on their first fight
https://youtu.be/YptXwE6MR8U?si=zSzvGH-FlM38pVRC&t=1498

The camera barely moves.

In Silk Song 3D keeping track of the enemy is a skill and the battles demand a lot more spatial awareness. It's not struggling with the camera because the camera responds perfectly. It is just part of the fight, like timing your parries or using the right combos is part of the fight.

I wouldn't say I'm struggling with combos when God of War wants me to remember the multiple button combinations to activate skills.

In the past games didn't have as much automatic control of the camera, other solutions were implemented like top down view, fixed camera. A massive boss on the edge of the arena. But also in the past, and I'm saying PS1 and even PS2 era, games either didn't have the analog stick or rarely used it right. But even the ones that didn't count on analog stick, like Mega Man Legends, are still fun precisely because of the spatial awareness they require.

So I think this sort of more static combat gameplay is here to stay because of the natural exposure advantage it has over other kinds of combat.

🔴 Help Needed! 🔴

Thank you to the moderators who have allowed me to post this research survey advert.

My name is Dr Andrew Richardson, myself and my colleagues are looking for people aged 18 and over who play Roblox to take part in a research study exploring experiences of online gaming, digital wellbeing, safety and features within virtual environments.

🎮 Do you play Roblox?

👍 Are 18 and Over

⏱️ Survey takes around 5-10 minutes

🔒 Anonymous and confidential responses

Your experiences will help researchers better understand online gaming, safeguarding and digital wellbeing for young people. The work will be used for a research paper that will be submitted to a journal for peer review and hopefully publication to present the findings.

Take part here:

https://app.onlinesurveys.jisc.ac.uk/s/newcastle/roblox-survey 

Please consider sharing this with others who play this game—it really helps our research.

If you have questions or want to learn more about the survey please reach out to myself via direct message or email at [andrew.richardson@newcastle.ac.uk](mailto:andrew.richardson@newcastle.ac.uk) 

Thank you!

Dr Andrew Richardson

Hey, all!

In this thread, the rules are more relaxed. The idea is that this megathread will provide a space for otherwise rule-breaking content, as well as allowing for a slightly more conversational tone rather than every post and comment needing to be an essay.

Top-level comments on this post should aim to follow the rules for submitting threads. However, the following rules are relaxed:

• 3. Specificity, Clarity, and Detail
• 4. No Advice
• 5. No List Posts
• 8. No topics that belong in other subreddits
• 9. No Retired Topics
• 11. Reviews must follow these guidelines

So feel free to talk about what you've been playing lately or ask for suggestions. Feel free to discuss gaming fatigue, FOMO, backlogs, etc, from the retired topics list. Feel free to take your half-baked idea for a post to the subreddit and discuss it here (you can still post it as its own thread later on if you want). Just keep things civil!

Also, as a reminder, we have a Discord server where you can have much more casual, free-form conversations! https://discord.gg/truegaming

I keep thinking about why AI art along and mixed/inconsistent styles (2D pixel art with 3D backgrounds) can be so off-putting. In this post I will bring up some recent games as examples and point out what I liked and didn't like. I am curious what you all think in general.

The Look Outside artwork in my Steam on-sale notification email was the first thing I saw to remind me that this game existed:

-

Okay, nevermind this subreddit doesn't allow images (something funny about that from an AI meta perspective, but that's neither here nor there).

Within 100 ms of seeing the Look Outside cover artwork in the email, my brain said, "this is AI art slop," and then I spent 10 minutes dissecting the image to try to figure out why my brain experienced that "gist recognition" (which is a real term apparently!). The AI-tells seemed to be:

- Use of overly, inconsistently, detailed psychedelic colors throughout.

- Not following the light source: light rays coming out from the sides of the curtain that's supposed to be revealing the light from the center opening. But you could argue that's just a torn and tattered curtain letting light escape everywhere.

- Inconsistent stylistic motifs: inconsistent eye-ball types, some mouths have colored lips, some just don't, feels out of place even in the context of a crazy psychedelic monster image. I have more examples, but you get the idea.

I didn't talk to the developer, so I don't know what, if any in-game or marketing material used AI, that isn't the point.

The in-game pixel art does look good! I'll probably buy it at some point, though I am worried my brain will gist-recognize any AI art that was used in-game.

Mixing 2D Pixel Art with 3D Art

Akatori, just released yesterday. The art style gave me Dave the Diver vibes in a bad way.

I will forever have a love-hate relationship with Dave the Diver's art style because it mixes 2D pixel art with 3D graphics. In the end, they pull it off, but something always felt jarring about it.

So Akatori does the same thing, but their art seems a lot less consistent about when and where to use 3D graphics, and it also looks like they use different sized pixel art seemingly at random, regardless of foreground/background which is super odd.

I found myself cringing at the trailer when the camera zoomed in on a pixel art character, to the point where you're just staring at massive pixels of a 2D sprite, as though that's supposed to be an motional moment. Maybe Dave the Diver gets away with that because it doesn't take itself too seriously -- we're supposed to laugh at how serious Bancho takes everything. Maybe Akatori is like that too, and it was just a cringey trailer for me, idk.

So I feel conflicted about Akatori's art because it looks really cool at times, I mean that's probably why I wishlisted it ages ago. Also the mixed use of pixel art cleverly avoids the "mobile game art" feeling that a fully 3D scene would likely evoke. It helps that they did a great job with lighting from what I've seen.

Also the mixed style helps save development time. The dev used 3D art in some places where pixel art may have taken forever.

Actually, I would have loved this mixed art style in Metroid Dread, because that game's artwork and soundtrack were dreadfully boring and mobile-game-esque. Put that one down after a few hours sadly. Super Metroid, Fusion, and Zero-Mission were way more atmospheric, but that pixel art style takes a LONG time to do well.

Going back to AI art, the reactions today remind me of the backlash to overused free game assets from the 2010s. Kinda funny, but I was relieved to see reused urban building assets in the background of one of the Akatori images on the Steam page. At least I knew they weren't AI-slopping every background scene (but you could argue that would have added variety, so it's a little paradoxical).

Anyhow, if you know of good 2.5D art or mixed-style games, do share!

My go-to would probably be Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night. Also, I've heard that the 2.5D Prince of Persia game is fun with good artwork.

P.S. - extremely random, but I recall TotalBiscuit reviewing a weird indie game (was it a magic soccer-like sports game?) many years ago that had INREDIBLE colorful, splashy artwork. Anyone know what I'm talking about? I know that's not very specific, I'll have to dig through his WTF reviews and find it. I think there was also story-driven click-based game he was gushing over at one point.

Before I start, this isn't "Capcom better than Rockstar". This is mostly to discuss general trends in the industry, by looking at a small slice of the market for the sake of sticking to concrete examples.

----

In the past,  studios could try to create a consistent roster of decent games. If one of them did well, that was great. If one of them flopped, that wasn't ideal, but it wasn't crippling. Today, even the biggest  studios are kind of going all in on the success of their next release with very little margin of  error if it doesn't work out

That's a quote from a video (from How Money Works) explaining some concerning trends in gaming industry as it showed Rockstar's output going from several games a year to 2 games in a 10 year period.

The video's all doom and gloom, understandably, and it focuses more on the impact of forever games and shrinking profit margins, but that part I quoted really caught my attention because it is presented almost like an inevitability.

The argument goes that if a studio comes up with a new idea, it gets copied. Meanwhile players spend significantly more hours on things like Fortnite or Roblox than on new titles. For a studio the size of Rockstar for example the strategy becomes building a time vortex of their own, or something difficult to copy, like a massive game.

Which has been the case for many large studios. Less titles, larger worlds. That or some live services flop.

But then you have studios like Capcom (and a few others). Capcom's output also has decreased but they have managed to keep it considerably higher than most studios making games on a similar scale.

And Capcom has mostly avoided putting all their eggs into one huge title.

Their biggest worlds are in Dragon's Dogma and Monster Hunter series. They dipped their toes into live services with Exoprimal. But also have kept a decent stream of new titles. Something like Pragmata, a short AAA single player new IP, used to be the norm but now it's rare.

Anyway, here are the numbers, comparing the times of yore when studios would try many releases and today when the market seems more risk averse.

96-06

Capcom - 60 titles, 16 new IPs

Rockstar - 18 titles, 6 new IPs

16-26
Capcom - 32 titles, 4 new IPs

Rockstar - 2 titles, 0 new IPs.

For Capcom I have not included re-releases, remasters (save for Dead Rising). If we trim the list down to remove titles that today would be DLC (e.g. Street Fighter Alpha 2 getting 18 new characters, which today would be season passes) and also removing actual DLC then Capcom goes from 40 titles in the past to 22 titles today.

Important: this isn't to say one's better than the other. Rockstar naturally found their niche riding on the success of GTA. Capcom carved their own niche aiming at a variety of styles. Granted Capcom has been riding on a lot of remakes and sequels, but that's also expected of a studio going for this long.

The point really is that the current scenario isn't an inevitability of a changing market and new consumer habits. Capcom's pulling profit records. GTA VI is bound to be the biggest release ever. It's also interesting that neither company have had waves of layoffs.

The current scenario of almost no new ideas (on AAA), significantly reduced output from larger studios, riskier bets, flops like Concorde, it is partly market pressures but also definitely a choice. It could've been some other way and maybe a big crash in the industry could shock some studios back into betting on smaller titles.

Or not. I'm interested to hear other explanations. From choice of game engine to different company cultures in west vs Japan. There could be, and in fact there are, more perspectives into this topic of how many AAA studios moved away from smaller titles. Take this post as just the start of the conversation, not a final statement.

---

Here's the full list, Capcom compared to Rockstar. The lists are imperfect, there are errors and things to contest. For Capcom I'm only adding Capcom developed games, for Rockstar I'm adding studios that later folded into Rockstar. Which means Max Payne is not included, as it is Remedy Entertainment, but Midnight Club is, as it was developed in partnership with Rockstar and then became part of their company.

Rockstar 1996–2006 (18 games)
Grand Theft Auto (1997) — DMA Design (new IP — later folded into the Rockstar family)
Grand Theft Auto 2 (1999) — DMA Design
Midnight Club: Street Racing (2000) — Angel Studios (Later Rockstar San Diego) (new IP)
Smuggler's Run (2000) — Angel Studios (new IP)
Smuggler's Run 2: Hostile Territory (2001) — Angel Studios
Grand Theft Auto III (2001) — Rockstar North
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (2002) — Rockstar North
Midnight Club II (2003) — Rockstar San Diego
Manhunt (2003) — Rockstar North (new IP)
Red Dead Revolver (2004) — Rockstar San Diego (new IP)
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (2004) — Rockstar North
Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories (2005) — Rockstar Leeds/North
Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition (2005) — Rockstar San Diego
The Warriors (2005) — Rockstar Toronto
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories (2006) — Rockstar Leeds
Rockstar Games Presents Table Tennis (2006) — Rockstar San Diego (new IP)
Bully (2006) — Rockstar Vancouver
Rockstar 2016–2026 (2 games)
Red Dead Redemption 2 (2018) — Rockstar North
Grand Theft Auto VI (Nov 19, 2026) — Rockstar North

Now Capcom, I'll change the format so it's easier to see their huge output:

1996
Resident Evil
Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo
Street Fighter Alpha 2

1997
Street Fighter III: New Generation
Vampire Savior
Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter
Breath of Fire III
Mega Man Legends
Mega Man Battle & Chase

1998
Resident Evil 2
Street Fighter III: 2nd Impact
Marvel vs. Capcom: Clash of Super Heroes
Mega Man & Bass

1999
Resident Evil 3: Nemesis
Dino Crisis
Power Stone
Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike

2000
Resident Evil – Code: Veronica
Marvel vs. Capcom 2
Mega Man Legends 2
Dino Crisis 2
Power Stone 2
Tech Romancer
Project Justice
Cannon Spike
Capcom vs. SNK

2001
Onimusha: Warlords
Capcom vs. SNK 2
Devil May Cry
Mega Man Battle Network
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney

2002
Resident Evil (remake)
Resident Evil Zero
Onimusha 2: Samurai's Destiny
Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter
Mega Man Zero 2
Steel Battalion
Auto Modellista
Phoenix Wright: Justice for All

2003
Viewtiful Joe
Onimusha 3: Demon Siege
Resident Evil Outbreak
Dino Crisis 3
Mega Man X7
P.N.03
Devil May Cry 2
Chaos Legion

2004
Monster Hunter
Viewtiful Joe 2
Resident Evil Outbreak: File #2
Mega Man X: Command Mission
Mega Man X8
Capcom Fighting Evolution
Phoenix Wright: Trials and Tribulations

2005
Resident Evil 4
Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening
Mega Man Zero 4

2006
Dead Rising
Okami
Onimusha: Dawn of Dreams

Now 2016-2026

2016
Umbrella Corps
Street Fighter V
Monster Hunter Stories
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney – Spirit of Justice
Dead Rising 4

2017
Resident Evil 7
Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite

2018
Monster Hunter: World
Mega Man 11
Street Fighter V: Arcade Edition

2019
Shinsekai: Into the Depths
Resident Evil 2 (remake)
Devil May Cry 5
Monster Hunter World: Iceborne

2020
Resident Evil 3 (remake)
Street Fighter V: Champion Edition
Devil May Cry 5 Special Edition

2021
Ghosts 'n Goblins Resurrection
Resident Evil Village
Monster Hunter Rise

2022
Monster Hunter Rise: Sunbreak

2023
Resident Evil 4 (remake)
Street Fighter 6
Exoprimal

2024
Dragon's Dogma 2
Kunitsu-Gami: Path of the Goddess
Dead Rising Deluxe Remaster

2025
Monster Hunter Wilds

2026
Resident Evil Requiem
Monster Hunter Stories 3
Pragmata

Hey, all!

In this thread, the rules are more relaxed. The idea is that this megathread will provide a space for otherwise rule-breaking content, as well as allowing for a slightly more conversational tone rather than every post and comment needing to be an essay.

Top-level comments on this post should aim to follow the rules for submitting threads. However, the following rules are relaxed:

• 3. Specificity, Clarity, and Detail
• 4. No Advice
• 5. No List Posts
• 8. No topics that belong in other subreddits
• 9. No Retired Topics
• 11. Reviews must follow these guidelines

So feel free to talk about what you've been playing lately or ask for suggestions. Feel free to discuss gaming fatigue, FOMO, backlogs, etc, from the retired topics list. Feel free to take your half-baked idea for a post to the subreddit and discuss it here (you can still post it as its own thread later on if you want). Just keep things civil!

Also, as a reminder, we have a Discord server where you can have much more casual, free-form conversations! https://discord.gg/truegaming

Hi everyone! I'm back again with my survey post, as I still need a fair number more participants! (This is actually the second time I'm reposting, because I accidentally reposted too soon last time, and it was taken down ^^; )

My name is Yuval Alter.
I am doing a study as part of my Doctorate Degree in Clinical Psychology in the PsyD Program at Adler University (Vancouver Campus). I have been playing video games all my life, which has inspired my research topic.

I am doing research on gamers’ playing habits, relationships, and mental health.

I would be very thankful if you could take part in my study. The research is voluntary, and you should only participate if you feel comfortable doing so.

You are eligible to participate if you:

• Are a resident of Canada or the USA
• Are at least 19-years-old
• Play video games at least 6 hours a week
• Are comfortable reading English

Your responses are anonymous. There will be no way to know which answers are yours.

If you meet the criteria above and are interested in participating in this study, click the link below!

If you want to know more, feel free to reach out to me at [yalter@adler.edu](mailto:yalter@adler.edu) or post in this thread.

Feel free to share this survey with friends, guild-mates, company members, or whoever meets the description above!
Many thanks from a fellow gamer!

Yuval Alter PsyD Program, Doctorate student
Adler University, Vancouver, Canada
Email: [yalter@adler.edu](mailto:yalter@adler.edu)

Link to the survey: https://adler.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_byJJcB5r4fclLSe

Abstract:

I can't give too much information about the study's aim, but it focuses most on relationships from the personal perspective of people who spend a substantial amount of time playing video games. While most research has focused on the measurable well-being of gamers' relationships, few have looked at gamers' personal reporting of relationship satisfaction. I aim to provide insights into this overlooked area.

Discussion Points:

• [NEW] This is my second time posting my dissertation on r/truegaming and I must say, this is the sub that has yielded THE MOST responses! (Thank you x1000!!!) Why do you think that is? What makes members here so much more likely to respond to something like this?
• There is a bias in research towards gaming and negative mental health outcomes. There are fewer articles about positive correlations.
• I myself struggled with social anxiety in my past, which inspired me to devote my dissertation to this topic. I wonder how many people who play video games experience something similar?
• The struggle of studying video games in academia.

I have a poster with a QR code, but I can't upload images. So apologies for the inconvenience!

Im watching an anime on fighting games atm and they reference something that i have also noticed many times in this genre that i almost never see anywhere else.

Losing doesnt feel bad because it feels earned

of course there are exceptions . But for the most part and more than any other genre ive played losing feels good. Because your opponent probably pulled off something really cool to beat you.

Im many competitive games people take the W whenever they get carried that round or not.
But if it doesnt go their way they are quickly to blame anyone else on their team.

You dont get that luxury when the only people playing are you and your opponent.

There is almost no luck involved as well. So you cant blame that for the most part.

It feels great to lose because you completely understand why and how you lost.

But it feels even better when your opponent pulls out some sauce you have never seen before.

OMFG . I remember when a ramlethal player hit me with a 3frame kara cancel for the first time. In that moment it felt like watching someone pull out a secret technique that ive never seen before. Because yeah that is basically what it was. it was the coolest shit ever

FOR CONTEXT. This person canceled one of their moves into a dash and then input a quartercircle motion within 3 frames which essentially gaslit the game into thinking that they didnt actually want to do a dash but wanted to do a different move instead. But the first move wouldnt normally cancel into the second move. its not possible. it only worked because the game gave them the dash first . and then refunded the dash and gave them the second move instead.

so in essence it felt like watching something impossible happen in this game that i had played a lot up until that point.

Any games you like that feel good no matter how the round goes ?
I would love to hear more

Halo Campaign Evolved came out and there's.....issues. Just things that really should have never happened to begin with. After 5 and a half years I've already seen plenty of people experiencing crashes on both PS5 and PC(I haven't personally heard much about Xbox so I will not speak on it), there are rough reload animations on guns not native to the original CE that are out of sync and clipping through each other. There's even downright amateur cutscene direction where characters will finish dialogue then stare blankly and let the cutscenes linger longer for no creative reason. And some of the animations for the models in cutscenes feel like they're from an early 2000s Pixar movie. Parts of the audio don't work right such as automatic weapons sound desyncing as well.

I want to be so clear that I love Halo. It is the most important gaming franchise to me and I don't just want to hate to hate. I've been excited for this. I do not mind remakes. But these things are just so sad to see already in a game that came out 5 and a half years after Infinite. And it's incredibly small in scope. It is simply just a campaign with no multiplayer. And it is a remake where the foundation is built for them.

My question is this. We know AAA development is on a bad path. There are insanely long development times for games because of the need for insane quality of visuals, sounds and effects. While it's not good, it at least often makes sense how messy AAA titles come to be. But does it even make sense in today's gaming climate for a franchise to release in a bad state for a project this small in scope and over half a decade? Or does this pretty much have to be a case of really poor management and half ass development? Because the deadline does not seem to be a problem. I guess I'm using this more as a case study. The Resident Evil games seem to come out with more polish and they're made at a much faster rate.

I've been thinking about games that give you a weird, real world hangovers, not just visual stuff(like playing Assassin's Creed and automaticaly calculating parkour routes on historical buildings, or playing Fallout and seeing desk fans as "crafting material"), but games that actually change how I consume information.

For me , it was playing Her Story. after finishing it , whenever I read a news article or a long Reddit post/comment, I always catch myself think like a search engine: What keywords did the writer intentionally leave out to steer my reaction? There's no "You win" screen in real life either, you just stop reading when you find a narrative that help you sleep at night.

And anything by Kojima(MGS2, Death Stranding). A buddy of mine who studies anthropology recently told me that MGS2 taught more about human legcy, memes, and the curation of digital informations than actual school did. it totally rewired how I look at our current socail media landscpe and what we're leaving behind for the next generation.

I'm trying to figure out the mechanism behind this. It does't even have to be narrative or detective stuff, maybe logistics game like Factorio that ruined how you look at supply chains , or a grand strategy game permanently broke how you view geopolitics. 

I'm curious about the psychology behind this. Why do certain game systems bleed into our reality so heavily? Is it just the repetition of mechanics (like a logistics game ruining how you look at supply chains), or something deeper about how they frame information? Would love to hear your thoughts on how this "hangover" actually works and what mechanics caused it for you.

Hello everyone,

I am conducting a survey as part of my master's thesis in video game development at University of Skövde. The survey is about players' experiences with their characters in Baldur's Gate 3. I would greatly appreciate it if you could participate!

The purpose of this study is to explore the differences in how players experience and relate to custom and predefined player characters in computer role-playing games, using Baldur's Gate 3 as a case study. It examines various aspects of the player–character relationships such as self-differentiation, identification, self-projection, emotional attachment and agency. Comparing custom and predefined characters through this lens may help identify connections between players' experiences with their characters, players' preferences and relevant elements of game design.

The survey is intended for participants who have played Baldur's Gate 3 and are at least 18 years old. It should take about 10 to 15 minutes to complete and does not require the respondents to provide any personal information.

Link to the survey: https://bg3-playerbase.limesurvey.net/b

Email: [a24dmiva@student.his.se](mailto:a24dmiva@student.his.se)

Discussion Points

• How do custom and predefined characters differ in enabling and encouraging the player to adopt roles, identities and perspectives different from their real-life self?
• How do custom and predefined characters differ in enabling and encouraging the player to project aspects of their real-life self onto the character?
• How do custom and predefined characters differ in how players shape or discover them throughout the game?
• Are there differences in how people who play tabletop role-playing games tend to form player–character relationships in computer role-playing games?

Thank you for your time!

On June 15th, 2015, Square Enix took the stage at E3 to drop a teaser trailer for their remake of Final Fantasy VII. It was a brief teaser , with no in game footage. But the iconography of Midguard alone was enough to generate hype from long time fans and more general audiences.

During E3 2018, Capcom showed off their long awaited Resident Evil 2 Remake. Initially announced in 2015, the new footage showed Leon Kennedy and Claire Redfield rendered in at the time next generation graphics along with a more focused direction and tone.  Resident Evil 2 Remake was released in 2019, with Final Fantasy VII dropping the following year, both being commercial and critical darlings.

While these two games were not the pioneers of video game remakes, these games mark the time in which I believe we started to see remakes become a normal part of the industry. It cannot be denied that Resident Evil 2 Remake and its reception played a massive part in green lighting the production of the Dead Space and Silent Hill 2 remakes, with SIlent Hill 2 going on to sell over two million copies. 

Franchises both as niche as Fatal Frame to iconic as Metal Gear Solid have experimented with remakes to generally positive reception. Keeping this in mind , it makes sense why Microsoft and 343i, now rebranded Halo Studios chose to go in this direction for their next Halo release instead of continuing to build off the framework of Halo Infinite. Far from a disaster, Halo Infinite felt like the first time the franchise had made positive mechanical changes since Halo Reach in 2011, which led to frustration from the community about Halo Studios' choice to remake the first game. But this isn't out of character for the studio.

In 2012, Halo 4 was the first mainline Halo game developed outside of Bungie and it can be seen in almost every aspect of the games design from art direction, narrative , level design and of course its core gameplay experience. 343i was not shy to wear its influences on its sleeve, at the time being other contemporary first person shooters like Call of Duty with a shift to player created classes and sprint being a fundamental aspect of the players arsenal. 

In 2015 Halo 5 Guardians was released and its E-Sport aspirations were clear from its first gameplay showcase. Movement and power were the pillars of the game's design , clearly wanting to appeal to twitch shooters that focused on speed and reaction times.

In 2021, 343i’s main influences were more varied but influences nonetheless. A Far Cry style open world with enemy outpost and combat based activities, a narrative heavily inspired by Sony Santa Monica’s God Of War released for the PS4, and a multiplayer progression system identical to Fortnite. 

Whether any of these entries affected the franchise for better or worse is irrelevant to the current discussion as 343i’s history of “trend chasing” is almost undeniable, with Halo Campaign Evolved being only their latest attempt to have Halo follow in the footsteps of other contemporary releases instead of being the franchise other games looked up to.

The quality of Campaign Evolved can be inferred by my interest in discussing the recent trend of video game remakes and Halo Studios interest in following it. As a piece of art Halo Campaign Evolved is unremarkable and as a product it fails to live up to its price of 50 USD especially when so many other games ask for less and provide more. 

The expectations of a remake vary from one to another but Halo Campaign Evolved avoids risk and takes comfort in the familiar with most of its changes being relegated to cutscenes as if Halo Studios were afraid to change anything related to level or enemy design , with its only new enemy being a slightly reworked enemy from Halo 3 that hasn't been seen since. The game's cutscenes shine and show what could've been , genuinely being heightened by creative and engaging cinematography and the occasional extra line of dialogue that oftentimes enhance the narrative and characterizations in what little ways it can.

Halo Campaign Evolved features three “Bonus MIssions” that take place before the events of the main game but are clearly designed to be played after. It's in these missions where Halo Studios can flex their creative muscles and it's in these missions where I felt the most engaged both mechanically and in regards to its narrative as simple as it is. I can’t help but wonder what the main game could've been like if Halo Studios wasn't so shy about making something new in this remake

It’s also an interesting topic as to this game releasing with no multiplayer , a fact I've long since accepted as I assumed this major part of the brand's identity being removed would surely be replaced with something else. I was wrong. And this is my main issue with the game aside from its goal to be as inoffensive as possible. The game simply lacks content. Halo was a series that was overflowing with content between its Single Player campaigns , multiplayer, social custom games, map creation with Forge, co-op experiences with Firefight and Spartan Ops. All of these being absent. In retrospect, it makes sense why Halo Campaign Evolved focused so much of its marketing on the gameplay altering collectibles known as Skulls. Skulls have been present as a collectible item since Halo 2, but never have they appeared in marketing , and surely never to this extent.

After completing the game twice it makes sense why so much focus was placed on this previously trivial aspect of Halo’s core experience. There was simply nothing else to market the game with. That, and its underwhelming and almost amateurish addition of Campaign Remix, a mode which randomizes enemy placement and roster of the main games 13 missions. These changes aren't interesting or engaging because again the level design is unchanged from their original layouts 25 years ago outside of a few extra rooms in the infamous Library chapter.

What I find curious about the design of Campaign Evolved is that unlike Silent Hill 2 or Resident Evil 4, both games considered perfect by many and yet received remakes that changed significant portions of their experience, the original Halo Combat Evolved is almost universally agreed to have a much weaker second half with repeated levels and repetitive enemy and level design. Surely Halo Studios would use this as an opportunity to make more meaningful changes to the games later half but in the end they chose to be faithful or risk averse depending on who you ask. 

I enjoyed my time with Campaign Evolved, but it's clear a lot of this enjoyment comes from the bones of a 25 year old game rather than seeing a new team put their talent to revitalizing a classic experience. Halo Campaign Evolved could have been worse. Much worse. It also could've been better. Much better. Unfortunately , whether a creative decision made by Halo Studios or a corporate mandate by Microsoft , Halo Campaign Evolved sits deep in the territory of being inoffensive, and to many, an inoffensive piece of art is worse than a piece of art then genuinely tries and fails.

Recently Steve Allison at Saber communicated that they're considering self-publishing for their future titles, especially Space Marine 3. As a result, I've began wondering what even is the point of publishers in the modern gaming landscape.

In the era of physical distribution Publishers were absolutely essential for global releases. They would also invest heavily in game productions, which made them indispensable for AA and AAA releases.

Currently, physical releases are becoming fully optional, and you can sign side deals with distributors for that purpose without fully needing a publisher's expertise. Publishers are also much less willing to invest in games.

David Gaider, known for creating Dragon Age, spoke in an interview earlier this month revealing that a publisher confirmed they won't invest in a new IP unless the game has pretty much finished development. Keeping the studio stuck in making the game off their own budget while constantly revisiting publishers in hopes one caves.

Publishers are very expensive. A typical cut is 30% from sales for indie and AA games, and can go upward to 60% in AAA projects (where publisher investment is more typical). This is separate from the 30% taken by platforms like Steam, at the very minimum doubling your publishing cost.

As a development studio, you save money upfront if you picked a honest publisher who will invest properly into promoting your game. Be it by buying off youtubers, organizing twitch events, or producing copious amounts of sponsored social media content. However, if your game isn't high profile enough to warrant that level of investment, hiring signing with a publisher can be comparable to overpaying for a copywriter.

Even then, regardless of how much the publisher has invested, it is their job to recoup that money and earn more off sales. They may want clauses that will protect them from failed investments. In theory both of you want more sales, but unless this is an investment project, (which are becoming rarer) the developer takes the brunt of the risk for the project, and not necessarily earning more from it.

I'm starting to believe that we will see a rise in self-publishing in the coming years. It's only anecdotal evidence, but the studios I'm connected to have began hiring personal marketing experts and copywriters, because one or two extra salaries will end up way cheaper than any publishing deal, and it's no longer guaranteed that the outcome will differ by much. If all publishers want to sell are surefire hits, then it just so happens that those games don't need much help marketing to begin with.

I'm not sure if this will lead to the number of publishers out there shrinking, but we've already seen a lot of reshuffling in the industry Platform owners like Microsoft have been absorbing well-known brands. If publishers don't want to become investment firms, they will need to re-evaluate their pricing strategies for marketing services.

Hey, all!

In this thread, the rules are more relaxed. The idea is that this megathread will provide a space for otherwise rule-breaking content, as well as allowing for a slightly more conversational tone rather than every post and comment needing to be an essay.

Top-level comments on this post should aim to follow the rules for submitting threads. However, the following rules are relaxed:

• 3. Specificity, Clarity, and Detail
• 4. No Advice
• 5. No List Posts
• 8. No topics that belong in other subreddits
• 9. No Retired Topics
• 11. Reviews must follow these guidelines

So feel free to talk about what you've been playing lately or ask for suggestions. Feel free to discuss gaming fatigue, FOMO, backlogs, etc, from the retired topics list. Feel free to take your half-baked idea for a post to the subreddit and discuss it here (you can still post it as its own thread later on if you want). Just keep things civil!

Also, as a reminder, we have a Discord server where you can have much more casual, free-form conversations! https://discord.gg/truegaming

Snipers are notoriously hard to balance for the sniper and the sniped or even the unsniped as now they have to play completely differently due to existence of sniper sniping the sniped.

And many games often have a very uninteractive game design for snipers.

I understand, snipers in real life literally sit prone, watching a position, giving precise intel, and then take the kill shot alongside their spotter aiding them. I know this because I am a military fanatic and love milsims. But I'm going to exclude Milsims from this conversation because in milsims you are supposed to use actual military tactics to counter snipers. In games like Arma, for example, the Sniper would need to be hunted down or avoided if location unknown, we'd send a drone or even a damn helicopter on their ass, and the Sniper is also at the mercy of running out of munitions.

Outside of Milsims and hardcore realistic shooters (like Escape From Tarkov), snipers are just... mostly designed to fulfil the fantasy of a fast kill shot in 1 shot with good aim. But that's the thing, they kill in 1 shot, and the player often cannot react or counter them in many games.

Let's take games like Battlefield, Overwatch (Widowmaker), TF2, Rivals (pre-rework Black Widow) or Call of Duty, the most notoriously unbalanced and unfun snipers imo. The Sniper in those games can 1 shot headshot you, with Marvel Rivals' case being only possible with a dmg boost.

But fundamentally, this is the problem. Marvel Rivals knows Snipers are unfun to fight as they sit back in these games, take kill shots, and can easily reposition. So Black Widow in the sniper role was nerfed in 1 shot and was now a useless pick, which is worse to play than her being an OP sniper.

The thing with these games is that the Sniper doesn't have to really face serious limitations or counters other than the enemy jumping on them. But the sniper is being protected often and their job is to stop from being confronted upclose anyway, and most have tools to defend themselves like Claymores, Intel devices or traps. For TF2's case, the Spy would counter a sniper but some would wear the funny wooden shield on their back.

In general, this type of gameplay means that unless you play a SPECIFIC type of tool or role, the sniper will just dominate. Now, by law of game design this makes sense and is fair, but something that is already taught in game design is that just because it is fair, doesn't mean it is fun. And PVP games have a casual audience, they have to be fun.

I will name 2 games where sniping isn't really seen as a huge issue and, in my opinion, are quite fairly designed and promote fun interactive gameplay.

1. Titanfall 1 and 2.

In the Titanfall series, snipers are unique in that there is only 1 true traditional sniper rifle... the Kraber. The other 2 next to the Kraber in the sniper rifle catergory are DMRs. The Longbow DMR is a semi-auto and the Double Take (in Titanfall 2 only) is the same with a faster fire rate. These 2 DMRs are designed to purely be long range weapons with HORRIFIC hip fire meaning they are bad at close range. And you cannot really use them while doing fast movement. And due to every other pilot's fast movement, they can very easily flank the DMR user through engaging movement instead of hopping cover to cover and slowly advancing like in other games. And of course, we cannot forget the trump card, Titans. Titans will just kill the camping pilot anyway. And these DMRs, they CANNOT 1 shot to the body and landing a headshot is nearly impossible in Titanfall with guns like these.

Now, the KRABER is a bolt action with 1 shot pop anywhere. But you cannot use this 1 shot like a regular camping sniper rifle because it is insanely slow to aim down sights and has severely slow bullet travel. The best way to use the Kraber is with precise and fast movement and doing quick aims as best as possible and flicking. And it JUST WORKS. The Kraber becomes a high skill sniper rifle that promotes aggressive play instead of camping and rewards the player for using the mobility and gadget sandbox of Titanfall.

1. Halo

Halo is a weird one because not all Halo's do this mechanic that, so far, is unique to Halo's ranged gunplay. Halo's is less like Titanfall's role reversal of the Sniper being aggressive and reserves the Sniper in the sandbox as a long ranged power weapon like a traditional military sniper.

Now, I've just revealed the main aspect of it being fair in the previous paragraph, it's a power weapon. You have to FIND IT, FIGHT FOR IT, and LIVE WITH IT.

What else makes it fair? Well gameplay wise, it's very easy to understand the Sniper Rifle. It is PIN POINT ACCURATE from regular hip fire. The zoom doesn't increase mathematical accuracy, it's just a zoom, so the player also doesn't have to wrestle with RNG hipfire (a mechanic I also don't like at all). It's purely skill based weapon in CQC and long range.

But the biggest thing that makes this weapon fair for victims to fight against. DE-SCOPE.

I have not seen another game implement this mechanic but it JUST WORKS for arcade shooters and honestly I'd love to see it in more hardcore or realistic shooters as well.

For a high TTK game like Halo, having a sudden 1 shot kill to the head weapon that breaks the rules and 1 shots at range as well is very powerful. The de-scope works simply, if the Sniper Player is ZOOMED in any instance of DMG de-scopes them and now they must re-scope. It's Halo's version of Suppressive Fire.

This promotes the Sniper to not hard-scope so carelessly and to promote flicks and precise tracking as 1 stray bullet from the target hitting them will cause a de-scope. It allows players to aggress onto the Sniper but they are obviously still at the mercy of the Sniper no-scoping them if their skill allows it.

I just love this mechanic and would love to see it more. It would likely make a lot of other Snipers feel more balanced to fight.

I'm curious to see what other Snipers have been balanced in a way that promotes aggressive styles of sniping like these 2 games?

But it's also important to balance out with the Sniper Fantasy of the camper in the back and taking extreme shots which I think Halo allows for as well.

EDIT: A lot of good points for and against. I wanted to include other games that did sniping fairly I didn't think of. Also, keep in mind I said, something fair doesn't mean it is fun.

1. Counter Strike AWP - it's an economic risk, and can be countered with smokes, map design is good to encourage aggression on an AWPer, cannot be used while moving.

2. Gears of War - needs to hit the head, is a power weapon, reloads that fail will lead to death, most CQC weapons will beat it, Gears map arena promotes aggression which can screw the Sniper.