The Linux GOTY Award 2019 is now open for voting

Quoting: GuestSeriously, can you name 5 quality AAA games released in 2019 that you "can't live without" and are not playable using WINE? I can't.

I agree! At least if we now only talk single player games.
Generally speaking I don't find many games worth playing each year. But then again - I don't need to when one game alone represent potentially hundreds of hours gaming time.

Quoting: GuestThis year? What are the really cool AAA games we need? Well, there is Cyberpunk 2070 (the main reason i am keeping the Windows 10 partition), what else?

For me maybe the most anticipated game this year is Vampire Bloodlines. That game, if done right, has huge potential of being a GOTY this year. And the ingame videos so far are really¸really promising. It's SO great getting an action RPG that's not a cookie-cutter fantasy setting. Gothic modern day urban vampires... I mean how can that not be cool :)

And yeah Cyberpunk is of course practically guaranteed to be epic.

Quoting: GuestWitcher 3, Fallout 4, Skyrim SE, Deus Ex MD, the Tomb Raiders, the Far Cries, Grand theft Auto V, Red Dead Redemption 2 and a few more. Some of them are native on Linux or playable under Wine+DXVK/Proton.

Indeed. And that is also why I said that I am happy we got Steam Play. :)


Last edited by Beamboom on 3 February 2020 at 2:51 pm UTC

Quoting: Beamboom

Quoting: TheSHEEEPOf which you did not counter a single point, so I am most likely simply right about you.

Again an assumption. You are really eager at judging others, aren't you.

An assumption in a sentence with "most likely"? Why yes, yes it is!
And one you continue to reinforce by evading all points made.
I am not one of those people who pretend judging others would be something bad. All of us judge everyone else (and ourselves) all the time, we do it since we walk around on this dirt heap. I'm merely as open about that as I am about anything else and do not care for initial handshaking to get a discussion started.

Quoting: BeamboomThe problem is your attitude, it's not one I care to spend time on. Be a bit more inviting and not so full of attitude and you may establish an interesting conversation. I don't have a single thing against people with different perception on things than me. But I do have a thing against people that respond like you.

I have no interest in being inviting. My interest lies in speaking my mostly unfiltered mind and receiving an equal response.
Take it or leave it, but know that leaving it will only reinforce my "assumptions" about you - not that I could give you any real reason why you should even care about what a random online person thinks about you.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 3 February 2020 at 12:40 pm UTC

Quoting: TheSHEEEPTake it or leave it, but know that leaving it will only reinforce my "assumptions" about you - not that I could give you any real reason why you should even care about what a random online person thinks about you.

Like I said, you have your answers to that in the first post you replied to. There is no reason for me to repeat that.

Quoting: GuestDon't suppose we can stop the grumbling at each other and move more back into discussion territory?

Good suggestion.

Quoting: GuestMy own view of course is that I think more people should try spend extra time on indie gaming, just to expand their experience.

That (imo of course) is actually the only solid argument *for* our lack of "headliner" games. There are indeed games I discovered "out of boredom" in the period before Steam Play were launched. But I hate to admit it (seriously, I do), while entertained I was only so for a relatively short period of time. There was too much lacking for me to really find them to be worth extended investment of time.

And it wasn't only because they were too small/basic/retro (pick your adjective :) ). I miss the layer of polish that high budget games have. They are simply more professionally made, created by experienced designers and it obviously makes a difference.

And no, I do not now talk about graphics (in fact there's plenty indie games with great visuals - I'm not one that demand "realistic" graphics at all, and rate artistic style much higher than the number of polygons or the visual effects).
No, the polish I talk about is on all the other things. The hundreds of little components that makes out a game. Everything from an intuitive interface to a well thought out tutorial to fluid mechanics, responsiveness, camera control, map design, every other little thing that isolated doesn't mean all, but each on their own adds up.

And THEN, on top of THAT, we can start talking about content: Voice acting, scripting, story line, animations, cut scenes, visuals, audio, network play, size of player base (in multi-player), freedom of movement, character creation, etc.

And the closer we conceptually get to the big budget games I love, the more the indies falls behind. With today's engines "anyone" can make a sleek twin stick shooter. But if you seek open worlds to explore, then the indie scene don't have much to offer at all. We got 7 Days 2 Die (who is a great game by the way). But that's about it.

There's a reason why those games are built by the large developers. It takes a hell of a lot of manpower to create something adequate. Again, not just in regards to graphics, but in regards to sheer content. Map design. Story lines. Assets. Scripting. Mechanics. It's a massive endeavour.

There are some attempts at this from small developers - and I believe I own a good share of them (Planet Explorers springs to mind as a hugely ambitious example) - but I am sorry to say they all fell short. Some adorable attempts, especially when we talk about a team of 2-3 guys or even solo projects - and I can totally see what they try to do, but it just doesn't cut it. It's too big of a task.

(btw: When I talk about "AAA" I don't mean the strict meaning of only games from devs owned by the big distributors. From that definition CD Project Red was an indie. Obsidian would be an indie. I essentially talk about the games created by larger developers, backed by high budgets.)


Last edited by Beamboom on 3 February 2020 at 9:13 pm UTC

Funnily enough, I get Beamboom's point about AAA not just being graphics. That's spot on. For me though, what make's a game "AAA" is many things, but often (for me, as I say), hinges upon good acting. Voice acting, or movements in game. Not many indies get this right.

Some do though. Games like Mark of the Ninja, or An Elysian Tale have this in spades, but are from small outfits. Similarly, the Windows-only games from Spearhead Studios are indie but have IMMENSE story telling, voice acting, movement and polish - both Stories: Path of Destiny and the "sequel" (it's not really) Omensight are just amazing because of this, but of course, they'll never get true "AAA" categorisation. Both play near-perfectly in SteamPlay btw - the former is platinum, the latter should be platinum, but needs the media foundations installed to play the tutorial thumbnail videos sadly. It's a 20 second fix to install it, but pretty infuriating that Spearhead adopted such a shitty technology... for a sequel!! Both are still well worth playing though.

Wow, Favourite long-term supported game is a hard category to pick!

Quoting: BeamboomI miss the layer of polish that high budget games have. They are simply more professionally made, created by experienced designers and it obviously makes a difference.

And no, I do not now talk about graphics (in fact there's plenty indie games with great visuals - I'm not one that demand "realistic" graphics at all, and rate artistic style much higher than the number of polygons or the visual effects).
No, the polish I talk about is on all the other things. The hundreds of little components that makes out a game. Everything from an intuitive interface to a well thought out tutorial to fluid mechanics, responsiveness, camera control, map design, every other little thing that isolated doesn't mean all, but each on their own adds up.

This is just straight up bullshit, and disrespectful of the skill demonstrated by some indies. Just because a game has a larger budget doesn't make it more "professional" or more polished.

As a random example off the top of my head: Shovel Knight. Anyone can cobble together a basic 2D platformer, but designing a game of Shovel Knight's quality takes genuine skill. Coming up with novel obstacles that one might take for granted as a player is not easy, nor is designing levels that are challenging but fair. It takes real creativity, and real design skill.

I would argue that Shovel Knight is actually better than a lot of the games that inspired it, and that's because Yacht Club didn't just haphazardly throw down tiles or blindly mimic what came before. They're not just quaint hobbyists dicking around. They're skilled professionals with a deep understanding of game design, who applied that knowledge to create a product that was highly polished.

It's fine if games like Shovel Knight don't interest you, but it is undeniably exceptionally well-crafted, and just as "professional" and polished as any AAA game.

Quoting: BeamboomAnd THEN, on top of THAT, we can start talking about content: Voice acting, scripting, story line, animations, cut scenes, visuals, audio, network play, size of player base (in multi-player), freedom of movement, character creation, etc.

You said your issue wasn't with indies being "too small/basic," but you're talking about scope here. And again, it's totally fine if you prefer games with more to them. But just because a game has a larger scope doesn't mean it's better, or more professional, or more polished. It just means it's bigger.

Quoting: Smoke39This is just straight up bullshit, and disrespectful of the skill demonstrated by some indies. [...]As a random example off the top of my head: Shovel Knight.

(my bolds)

Sigh. I had a feeling this would come. I was about to write one more disclaimer but felt I'd written a long enough post as it were. But here goes:

I am obviously now talking about the big picture. The general situation. There's always exceptions, the world is not black/white.
It's very easy to come up with examples of small games that does a particular thing well. There's also plenty, plenty!, examples of big budget productions gone horribly wrong on pretty much every single aspect of the game. Oh good grief, the examples stand in line.

It's also quite symptomatic that an indie game does some parts well, but are very weak on others. A direct consequence of being so few on the project. But the small scope concepts, like puzzlers, platformers, are often done well. Perfect genre for a small developer to create.
And you got the ultra rare exceptions that turns out to be pure pieces of interactive art. Like Flower from Thatgamecompany. But those are few and far between.

I purchased The Pedestrian yesterday. A real charmer of a game. Excellent visual idea. Smooth execution. Will be fun for an hour or two. All good. But at the core of this game lies a very small scope. It's just another small puzzler. It just looks really good.

Generally speaking, the tendency is that the bigger the scope of the game is the harder the small developers will fail. Because, at the end of the day a large scale game totally depends on having enough competence and manpower behind it.
And that, inevitably, costs.

But yes, of course there exist small games that does what it does well. I mean... Come on.


Last edited by Beamboom on 4 February 2020 at 11:27 am UTC

I think it is fair to say that in general, the majority of games are not well done.
No matter what industry or kind of skill you talk about, people who are truly good at what they do, the top of the class if you will, are in the minority. Thus, it is only natural that the majority of products in any sector is not good - while the few that are good crystallize and become apparent over time.

The thing is just that there are a lot more indie than AAA games, and with that naturally also comes a larger number of good indie games compared to very few good AAA games.

AAA games have the advantage of being shiny on the surface level - and many players rarely look further than the surface when it comes to games.

I'd compare it to cinema - are all the movies that are most successful also the best movies? Certainly not.
They are just good popcorn cinema. Won't demand much from your audience, will show quite a spectacle on the screen, people leave with a good feeling (well, if the movie wasn't downright terrible) while not really being richer in any meaningful way and having no thought provoked.
Truly great movies rarely achieve a high level of success, even though some certainly do, often over time.

I don't think there's anything wrong with popcorn cinema, and I'm definitely mostly a popcorn cinema viewer.
My standards when it comes to cinema or movies in general are a lot lower than when it comes to games.
But I'd never even get the idea of saying that large scale cinema movies are better than their lower-budget counterparts in any way other than surface-level bling.
Quite the opposite, actually. In true artistic value, not a single movie by Marvel comes close to anything put out by Von Trier, for example. I watched Antichrist once and it still finds its way into my thoughts every now and then - that sure won't happen with a Marvel movie.

It is very, very similar with gaming.
Just that indie games are a lot easier to access and consume than indie movies and therefore can find a potential audience more easily.

Quoting: BeamboomIt's also quite symptomatic that an indie game does some parts well, but are very weak on others. A direct consequence of being so few on the project.

The parts that indie games do well are the parts most important to any game, those related to gameplay, to whatever the core of the game is.

The parts that they don't usually do well in are art and, to some degree, audio. And I'm not talking about high-end effects or models here, those have nothing to do with art quality. What's important about quality game art is its consistency and (usually) variance. That's where many indies fail to various degrees, and not always because of budget.

Just to make it clear, I'm talking about good indie games here; that bad ones fail at what they do is kind of a given.

AAA on the other hand focuses on high-end art and audio - because that's what will rake the cash in big time, with the casual audience. While gameplay, if things went well, is serviceable at best. Which is kind of funny, because great gameplay can be achieved by very few people and is thus actually much cheaper than high-end art which requires lots of manpower.
A AAA game that is also truly good or even great in gameplay and not just a boring rehash of things devoid of challenge and creativity?
Dark Souls comes to mind. I'm struggling to name more.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 4 February 2020 at 12:58 pm UTC

Quoting: PatolaIt's not a method to lull our brain to sleep. Is to make things believable. Ever heard of suspension of disbelief?

Absolutely.
And there is absolutely no problem in suspending my disbelief if the graphics are consistent and well implemented. If they are realistic or not is rather irrelevant.
Because I'm actually using my imagination. Not actively, mind you, like most things mind-related, it happens "in the background".

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: TheSHEEEPIf you want to lull your brain to sleep with AAA graphics - because that is exactly what happens, your brain got nothing to do there as it doesn't need to fill any blanks, the more realistic the graphics get - well, that's your choice.

So, making the brain tired with artificial, non-believable graphics is something you enjoy? Curious. I'd think they get in the way of enjoyment, not somehow improve it.

You're not painting a very optimistic picture of your brain if a bit of imagination is already tiring it.
The brain is like a muscle, excercise it. It is not too late (assuming you are not 60-70+ and the cells are actually decaying).

I continually use it from working to learning a language to playing games that require actual thought and imagination - and I'm not having tiredness problems with any of it.
Of course I rest it, too. Rest is important. I usually do it before going to bed, helps with sleeping.

Quoting: Patolabecause you are not even first-person (except for Hardcore Henry, a truly amazing flick).

I see a pattern forming here.
First person makes immersion a lot easier, no doubt about it.
But it isn't the only thing allowing it, it can be done with pretty much any perspective.

Though I do agree that was maybe not the best example. Series and movies are almost exclusive watching someone else do stuff, you are not the protagonist.

Quoting: PatolaSimple graphics .... They instead offer you a simplified, flat version of what you would be supposedly interacting with -- a token of an entity, and not by any means an attempt at a convincing exposition.

Exactly. And everything they do not show you, every thing lacking to complete the "picture" and form a non-flat version of what you are seeing, all of that is done by your imagination.

Quoting: PatolaAt no time you have to really imagine something, but if you really had -- like in those games made for blind people, with sounds alone, where you have to use the imagination all the time -- it would likely be a bad, tiresome game, at some point you would really demand to see the monster, or whatever that is it should offer.

So you acknowledge that your brain goes active if it is presented with a lack of information.
Good, that is correct. That's how brains work, filling the gaps and completing patterns is what we're really good at. Especially if trained correctly.
But retro graphics are full of a lack of information. The only difference between something like an audio-only game and something with a simple graphical style is the amount of information lacking.
Your brain doesn't care, it becomes active either way, the only difference is in how active it has to become.

You don't have to take my word for it. I would seriously recommend reading some books about how brains work, or at least what we know so far.
We got recommended these two in a completely random course at my "vocational school" (not sure what the correct translation would be) years ago, or at least older printing of these:
https://www.amazon.com/Creating-Mind-How-Brain-Works/dp/0393974464
https://www.amazon.com/Imagination-Understanding-Minds-Greatest-Power/dp/1643132032

Though I didn't finish the latter, to be honest, it was a bit "out there" with its excourses into psychology.
Edit: The latter one says it was released in 2019. Uhm... I'm either mixing it up with another one with a similar name or they got the dates wrong.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 5 February 2020 at 6:55 am UTC