PlzGivHugs

Fallout 1 or 3, is not 99% combat

By time spent, I wouldn’t be suprised if nearing that (99%) is either going to be walking to the next location (quest or not) and fighting enemies to clear the path. Yes, you’ll spend a bit of time talking to NPCs to retrieve the quest, and on some of the better designed quests, there might be some alternative routes, but traversal and combat are still usually the focus and/or the default. When you do have a reason to use other mechanics, or make meaningful story decisions, its good - but those chances are rare.

Pokemon is a strange one here too, because that series is built around a rock paper scissors system such that you should be regularly be switching up which attacks you’re using.

I did oversimplify, but I still find it, and other JRPGs I’ve tried way too shallow. In Pokemon’s case, while there is the typing, theres is still usually an one obvious best move at any given point. I do find Pokemon better than many others, in that there is much more ability and reason to customize your party on an ongoing basis, although they largely negate this benifit by making the games so easy.

I’d love to see if your complaints hold up to Larian’s games on tactician difficulty.

Honestly, I would be interested too. The format with a larger party does interest me, and like I said, I do like a lot of tactics games like XCom and Fire Emblem, which are bordering on RPGs mechanically. I just don’t have the money to spend on new games for the time being, so I probably won’t be trying it until its price goes way down.

I’ve tried a bunch of the big ones. Fallout 1&3, Skyrim, Final Fantasy 3 and 7, Pokemon, Borderlands, a couple of different MMORPGs, and a bunch of random others. My description was a bit oversimplified, but my point was more about the general lack of care towards the primary loops that you spend 99% of the game engaging with. For example, Fallout 3 has terrible gunplay which is further limitted by the need to focus on one weapon type, and uninteresting AI which doesn’t leave room for deeper tactics. Pokemon, along with a lot of other JRPGs, often boil down to finding one or two decent buffs/debuffs to use, then spamming whatever does highest damage. MMOs obviously tend to require a lot of grinding repetitive, often easy enemies.

That said, I have found some of the RPG-adjacent games better. Roguelikes are one of my favorite genres, since they tend to center around a strong gameplay loop, while still featuring the non-linearity and character builds. Same with tactics games. Honestly Dark Souls seems like it may be a good option, but I bounced off of it due to technical issues the first time and just haven’t gotten around to trying it again.

RPGs in general, but esspecially Fallout. I want to like them. I love games with a heavy emphasis on detailed worlds and environmental storytelling. I love detailed character customization and building. I especially love varied and non-linear games. Despite all of that, I just can’t enjoy RPGs, because the primary loops are always so shallow. Melee is almost always either a matter of spam clicking or timing paries, firearms tend to be just holding left click on mindless enemies as they walk into a choke point, and stealth is either buggy and unreliable or completely overpowered. So much of the game is spent on these weak points, rather than the genre’s strengths, to the point where I just can’t enjoy them.

My point is that it is an option, and still a competitive one, when so many still use this option. If it wasn’t, these games wouldn’t have succeeded and/or would have died off. Its an option middlemen have to out-compete, and I’d argue many don’t.

Every other storefront that has attempted to compete seems to either trip over itself by trying some anti-consumer behavior to increase short term profit(EGS, Uplay), lack discoverability features(itch), or not offer enough benefit to endure cost of change(GoG)

I’d argue that GoG also falls into the lack of discovery catagory.

That said, I’d argue that the lack of discovery isn’t just a player issue, but ties back into the other side: publishers and devs. These storefronts/launchers are unessisary middle men. A software company can run its own store, and make its own launcher. Just look at so many of the big titles over the last two decades: Minecraft, League, Tarkov, War Thunder, Roblox, and more recently Hytale. Looking at players is only half the puzzle, the other half is how these storefronts compete against each other, and even against direct-to-customer sales for publishers.

So, for publishers/devs, what does Steam offer?

• Payment processing
• Distribution
• A very robust support system
• Discoverability
• Tools for online play and social features
• Lightweight DRM for those who want it
• Modding tools
• A community forum
• Tools to add compatibility to your games
• A plethora of extra features that improve your product for the players

And at what cost?

• 30% cut
• Tied to a forum, whether you want to be or not

Now to compare to, lets say, GOG:

Offers:

• Payment processing
• Distribution
• Some user support

Costs:

• 30% cut
• DRM is banned

Because of this, its no wonder that they can’t get more of the market. Why would someone choose to sell there over Steam, or even over direct-to-consumer?

Even outside of the content being viewed, there may be a huge difference in effect depending on who is viewing it. Almost all of the current studies are on University students, probably western demographic most able to socialize with others due to need, proximity, and free time. Debatably, they’re also among the most impressionable groups as well, given that they’re still not fully grown and are in the middle of trying to figure out and plan their lives. Intuitively, this would mean they’re more able to take advantage of their time off social media, and more impacted by their time on it.

This begs the question of if the effects will be the same in other populations. For example, in populations that are less able to socialize, does social media help reduce the burden, and if so, what platforms or elements have this effect versus more negative effects.

I think social media probably isn’t great, but the data also isn’t particularly conclusive, and much of it is very broad and unhelpful. For example, in the first study you linked, it had a sample of 143 University students accross three different social media sites, measured only using app battery usage. While it isn’t to be completely discounted, esspecially alongside the larger body of work, it’s sample size is tiny, and the data collected isn’t esspecially representitve of what is supposed to be measured, as it includes non-social-media tools like Facebook Marketplace while excluding social media accessed via the browser (among other flaws). The vast majority of studies on the topic, regardless of findings, have similar flaws.

IMO, social media as a whole is too varied to meaningfully lump together, and a lot of the impacts that are commonly attributed to social media are better attributed to deeper causes regarding lack of sociatal trust and support. Tracking the impacts of social media is hard enough, nonetheless the impacts of something like the lack of third places, and impacts of economic inequality on mental health.

I personally played it some time after Portal 2, probably 2015 or so. I found it great, particularly as far as lore and pacing are concerned. Sure, there are bits that drag, characters that aren’t well written, and plot/lore details that are too ambiguous, but I’d much rather that than hand-holdy, surface-level plot of most similar shooters, or plot told through YouTube videos and flavor text like many modern shooters. IMO, its still one of the best at what it does, and its still a personal favorite for that reason.