Video Games Randomness - Prioritize specific game threads!

[Blackhawk]

Well, it suppose it could technically be based on X-COM: Enforcer.

But I doubt it.

[Jag]

There is a rumor making the rounds that Firaxis is working on an XCOM-style Marvel title. I would buy that.

That would be great. The new Avengers game looks and plays great, but the actual game is absolutely dreadful and barely worth playing. Wouldn't mind some more Marvel games.

[JetFred]

Yes, my immediate thought was Freedom Force.

[Max Peck]

My thoughts went all the way back to Guardians: Agents of Justice.

[Max Peck]

The 2K/E3 rumor mill claims that 2K is looking to take a big bite out of my wallet.

2K's E3 Plans Seemingly Leaked, Include Borderlands Spinoff and Marvel Game

Also the expected NBA 2K22, and a new action title described as "Cthulu meets Saints Row."

It's possible that 2K Games' E3 announcements have been leaked on Reddit, and that they include a Borderlands spin-off featuring Tiny Tina, a new Marvel game, and a very early development action game.

According to a Reddit post that received a nod on Twitter from Bloomberg journalist Jason Schreier, 2K's E3 announcements may include a Borderlands universe title codenamed Daffodil, potentially dubbed either Wonderlands or Tiny Tina's Wonderlands (both of which are already trademarked by 2K). It's said to be in a similar gameplay style to other Borderlands games and features playable "multiclass heroes."

Update 6/3/21 4:30 pm PT: Schreier has since tweeted again that the 2K leak is real but isn't "sure all of it is going to be at E3."

Another potentially leaked announcement is a new game from Firaxis said to be a turn-based action game using Marvel characters. According to the leaker's source, it was described as "XCOM with Marvel Heroes" and may feature some "famous actors" voicing characters.

Also in the leak is something the source called "Codename Volt," an action game that "seems to be in really early development" and was described as "Cthulu meets Saints Row." It was unclear as to what studio was developing this game, though the leaker pointed out that last year a different leak revealed Hangar13 was working on an "open-world sci-fi title with supernatural elements," which may be it.

Aside from the Marvel game, another Borderlands title would be a day one purchase, doubly so if it features Tiny Tina. I'd also be keenly interested in anything accurately characterized as "Cthulhu meets Saints Row."

[The Meal]

So inappropriate for this thread.

[Blackhawk]

So inappropriate for this thread.

Whyfer?

[The Meal]

So inappropriate for this thread.

Whyfer?

Directed at the string of comments above Max Peck's regarding a very specific upcoming Marvel/XCOM type game. There's plenty of obvious interest in something like that, all on its own, that a "Randomness" thread is clearly not the spot to house that discussion.

[Blackhawk]

Ah, I thought it was in reference to the 'rumor mill' post that mentioned a half-dozen games.

Personally, I don't mind an off-hand mention of a specific title in randomness, especially if it is at the rumor level. It's when there's enough interest that it actually fosters real discussion that a dedicated thread should be created (as was the case here.)

Although a "Leaks and Rumors" thread might be a good idea, too.

[The Meal]

I was fine with a post. Then another. But the third post, and then the continued discussion, after I had already seen a thread existed (which, by the way, I don't know whether or not it existed when those posts were made in this thread, and I don't really feel like looking...) was enough to get me to go from thinking "ENOUGH" to just clicking the reply button and expressing displeasure.

I may be out of line. But it's a web forum, and my displeasure got expressed.

[dbt1949]

Bully!

[Max Peck]

I was fine with a post. Then another. But the third post, and then the continued discussion, after I had already seen a thread existed (which, by the way, I don't know whether or not it existed when those posts were made in this thread, and I don't really feel like looking...) was enough to get me to go from thinking "ENOUGH" to just clicking the reply button and expressing displeasure.

I may be out of line. But it's a web forum, and my displeasure got expressed.

This is the third message you've posted in this thread discussing how you don't like people conducting discussions in this thread. Perhaps you should consider creating a thread to discuss what other people are allowed to discuss in random threads.

[Carpet_pissr]

I was fine with a post. Then another. But the third post, and then the continued discussion, after I had already seen a thread existed (which, by the way, I don't know whether or not it existed when those posts were made in this thread, and I don't really feel like looking...) was enough to get me to go from thinking "ENOUGH" to just clicking the reply button and expressing displeasure.

I may be out of line. But it's a web forum, and my displeasure got expressed.

LOL

[The Meal]

Criticisms are fair. I'll stay out of this thread.

[JCC]

I mostly hate this thread too, since usually the game being discussed isn't named in the particular post and I don't know what the hell is even being discussed. This thread had a more clear purpose when there was more traffic in this forum than there is now. These days it takes forever for an "active" game's discussion to be relegated to the 2nd page. So, I see no purpose in threads that discuss random/numerous unrelated games.

[Skinypupy]

So, I resubbed to Xbox PC Gamepass today. Checked it on a whim, and there were 5 games available (Solasta, Crusader Kings 3, Monster Train, Spellforce 3, and Fallout 76) that were all on my Steam Wishlist at full price. Hell, I just about pulled the trigger on Solasta on Friday, before I noticed it was on Gamepass.

Interestingly, I have now been able to do the $1 for 3 months offer three separate times. I don't think that's how it's supposed to work, but it keeps offering it, so I'll keep taking it. How they can afford to offer such a stellar lineup of games for so ridiculously cheap is beyond me, but I won't complain.

(See, that's randomness. )

[JCC]

Yeah Gamepass (for console or PC) seems like a great deal. I am less inclined to get it for PC since PC game ownership is more permanent than console game "ownership" which is really "renting" a game until you get rid of your console or it dies. Having said that, my gaming PC is 6 years old. Given that building a new gaming PC is not viable for the near future (to put it mildly) and the fact that I like the idea of "renting" a game for a console I may only use for 5-6 years (at most) an XBox series X is something I am actually considering. (Especially for 4K gaming since it's much cheaper than a 4K gaming PC - albeit a high end PC will do 4K better, but at a much higher cost...) However, the same issue that makes building a gaming PC difficult is also making acquiring said XBox Series X difficult to nigh on impossible. So, who knows that the hell I will do? (Most likely keep chugging along with 1080p gaming on my old ass PC!)

I am also mildly amused at the notion that I could buy a gaming console and then never buy a single game for it! It would have sounded so improbable a decade ago.

[JCC]

And yes, I just belittled my own argument for the abolishment of this thread by making a post in it. (I am an idiot.)

[Daehawk]

I think Gamepass also includes EA Play.

[Skinypupy]

I think Gamepass also includes EA Play.

Yes, it does

[Blackhawk]

This thread has a purpose, but it isn't discussing specific, named games. It's a great place for minor observations, tidbits, thoughts, news that affects multiple games, etc.

If I'm in the mood to bitch about the lack of keybinding in games, or comment about lens flare, or to mention a rumor about a game that hasn't been substantiated enough to give it its own thread, then this is a perfectly fine place. Most of the time those posts get read and not responded to, or generate just two or three replies.

But again, if I post about lens flare and it kicks off a bigger discussion about games vs cinematography, it would be smart to move that discussion to a dedicated thread.

[Sudy]

I don't think policing this thread from within the thread is going to be practical. It's only going to be read by the readers of this page, and some may not agree or will forget. If this is a significant detriment to broader forum discussion, then the rules either need to be pointed out externally and enforced, or the thread needs to be locked. Obviously, the former isn't usually how we do things around here.

This thread is 123 pages deep and eight years old. There are no rules or suggestions in the top post. The subject was updated to say "Prioritize specific game threads!", but even that's a little confusing and overbearing. And "Video Games Randomness" does not necessarily imply "no named games/no discussion of specific games". As if the line doesn't blur anyway.

Sometimes someone has a small thought that blooms into something thread-worthy, sure. But they may not be inclined to create that thread, may have already moved on from the discussion, or creating the new thread may kill or change the discussion. Not that that's too bad of a thing... it happens. And the starter of a discussion doesn't have ownership over it, no.

But sometimes folks just want to talk about a title that they're too lazy to search (or it's too hard to find due to the game's name, or the original thread's subject) or create a new thread for, or they think it doesn't warrant a thread.

Unless we're willing to accept policing and someone's willing to perform the policing, and we're really concerned this is killing discourse and will lead to a further erosion of membership, I don't see what the problem is. I wouldn't cry if this thread were locked, but someone would probably just try to create a new one. And I suspect I'd definitely have mini-posts down the line that I wouldn't bother to write because I didn't feel like creating a new thread, or finding an old one.


Etiquette can't always be assumed. Like I don't always know when it's appropriate to use the quote function, since it has the added feature or alerting the original poster. Usually I don't bother to quote if I'm the next reply in the thread. I just assume the progression of thoughts will be clear, and that that poster is likely to check the thread manually. But maybe they're not, and people hate when I fail to quote. I have no idea.

I think the Randomness thread is probably good for the busier EBG forum as it keeps some of the sillier things out of the main forum and allows people a place to easily express anything they like. But it also develops so quickly that I often fall behind and don't bother to read it at the risk of missing something interesting. That's really a need that would be best filled by a Discord-like platform, but ours hasn't really caught on for general chat (which is fine, as I don't think we necessarily want to take that off-forum either).

[Daehawk]

*Puts torch and pitchfork away* Dernit

But ya long discussions in a random thread irk me somewhat too. But all I do is start to read a post and if I see its part of that discussion I dont care for I just skip to the next and so on. No big deal.

[Skinypupy]

I honestly had no idea people had such strong feelings and concerns about a catch-all thread for gaming randomness.

[Sudy]

Are you saying you won't be participating in the schism? Because we have no place for your kind either.

[Smoove_B]

I honestly had no idea people had such strong feelings and concerns about a catch-all thread for gaming randomness.

It's an organizational issue. I'm kinda there now with the Solo Gaming thread I started three years ago. It contains all kinds of great info, but at 35 pages, good luck finding anything without searching. I use it to post single-shot review posts for what I'm playing or to get information about a game, but if I ever have a reason to believe a solo board game would garner more than one or two posts, it would likely be better to create a separate, dedicated thread - like was done for Core Space or Middara. In the same vein, once the Marvel/Firaxis title moved from speculation into a known title, having a dedicated thread for it makes sense - it's going to be a real game and people are going to want to talk about it in a dedicated space, not a thread on randomness.

This is gaming. There are rules.

[Sudy]

The way I see it, if someone thinks there should be a thread about something, they should create it. People are going to post where they want to post. Are we not allowed to talk to other OO members about Marvel XCOM on Facebook, either?

[dbt1949]

This is gaming. There are rules.

But that's what GameFAQ is for. It gives you cheats so you don't have to follow the rules.

[coopasonic]

Unless we're willing to accept policing and someone's willing to perform the policing, and we're really concerned this is killing discourse and will lead to a further erosion of membership, I don't see what the problem is.

I can't speak for everyone, but the concern isn't killing discourse, at least not directly. The main concern is the conversation can get lost to history. Some of our members share lots of useful information about specific games. When I decide to play one of those a year or two later, finding that discussion and following it in a wide ranging thread even if I can find it, becomes very difficult.

[Skinypupy]

The way I see it, if someone thinks there should be a thread about something, they should create it.

I recently made a few posts in this thread about the surprise release of a Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance remaster. It was a fairly niche game 20 years ago, likely doubly so now. I didn't think it's a game that would necessarily warrant it's own thread (which would likely just be me talking to myself), so this seemed like a good place to drop in a few random thoughts about it as I played through.

I've always just sort of assumed that was the intent of this thread. A place to plunk down random or niche stuff like that which didn't really feel like it deserved it's own thread.

[coopasonic]

I started the thread with a post about a specific game, so I'm arguing against myself as well.

A new thread doesn't cost anything but entering a title. It doesn't take more server resources, it doesn't require anyone's approval. I wouldn't even want a rule about it because I wouldn't want to waste the admin's time.

[Daehawk]

I started the thread with a post about a specific game, so I'm arguing against myself as well.

A new thread doesn't cost anything but entering a title. It doesn't take more server resources, it doesn't require anyone's approval. I wouldn't even want a rule about it because I wouldn't want to waste the admin's time.

But there were arguments against a new thread for each title remember? I can recall postings..myself included....with a new thread for everything and it got complained on.

[Sudy]

I've always just sort of assumed that was the intent of this thread. A place to plunk down random or niche stuff like that which didn't really feel like it deserved it's own thread.

Yeah, that makes sense to me. And if someone else thinks that subject is worthy of its own thread they're more than welcome to create one, without any malice toward the original poster.

I think I usually confuse this thread with the "what are you playing right now?" I think I've posted thoughts about my current Diablo 3 season runs here (or there) that could/should have gone in a Diablo 3 thread, but the problem is there are several of them, and discussion often bleeds between D3, a thread created for a specific season of D3, the D2 remaster, and the D4 pre-release thread.

This would be easily resolved by having a naming mechanism for core threads for each game, but I don't think anyone wants to feel they're not allowed to create a new thread for discussing a major event, patch, or expansion. Similarly, creative thread titles are fun (though it should at least be clear what they're referencing). Still, somehow this community has survived for 16+ years without rules for this stuff. While our numbers have waned, I don't think it's because of the video game forum's titling and posting conventions.

[Daehawk]

[Lorini]

On somethingawful.com they have Megathreads. I for example started a megathread about management games and that's worked really well. When a game is discussed a lot in the management thread then people know there's enough traction for a full thread.

[Blackhawk]

No policing. No enforcement. No policies. Just a preference and a request.

I can't speak for everyone, but the concern isn't killing discourse, at least not directly. The main concern is the conversation can get lost to history. Some of our members share lots of useful information about specific games. When I decide to play one of those a year or two later, finding that discussion and following it in a wide ranging thread even if I can find it, becomes very difficult.

That's a big part of it. Two things changed my mind: Borderlands and ongoing game discussion.

With Borderlands, the heavy players answered quite a few questions on multiple occasions. Some heavy explanations happened. Most of that happened in this thread, and when people jump into the actual Borderlands threads, there's nothing about it, and they ask the same stuff again. Instead of checking back onto the previous page to direct someone to the answer, I was having to do searches and dig through literally hundreds of results looking for a post from a few months before. All that info, scattered in a way that made it useless. More than once I've considered buying a new game, looked up the OO thread, and started poking around to see people's thoughts and problems first. This destroys that.

With ongoing game discussion, people keep posting about the game as if their current post followed their previous post - which was actually ten days ago and three pages back. Their post starts with, "So, I'm stuck and about to give up. There's this part where I go around the corner and...", or "I played some more tonight and...", or "I finally finished! It was a good game, with a few caveats, but I..."

I care about hearing about your game, and may even want to discuss it with you. I have not fixed your activities to memory, however, and I'm not searching through two weeks of posts to figure out which game you are talking about. And half of the time the only time it was mentioned by name was on the first post about it two months ago. So instead of spending ten minutes figuring out what you're talking about, I skip the post. It kills the discussion because nobody has any idea what's being discussed. And, as above, those insights could be invaluable later on when someone's looking at that game, but they'll never know where to find them.

And, as others have said, it isn't like the old days when a single thread would disappear off of the front page in three or four hours. Bumping old posts was frowned on, as was having too many posts (remember the Meta drama because we had literally hundreds of threads for Oblivion (I show more than 350 separate threads.) Now? Some discussion subforums get three or four new threads per month. More threads might actually draw more interest and bring out more discussion, and would create an even bigger library of topics to draw on later. We used to post a new thread for every question (Oblivion Beds/Oblivion Combat/Oblivion patches (a thread per)/New driver for Oblivion!/Oblivion funny momoments/etc/. Now we only have one thread for everything, and everything gets lost. A happy medium would be nice.

Besides, when a new potential member shows up and sees that there hasn't been a new thread in a several days, they're probably going to keep right on going. They want discussion, and it makes us look like a dead forum. We aren't dead, and we have a lot of discussion, but we aren't what we used to be, and a flow of new posters is a must if there is going to be an OO in a few years.

So, no policing. This isn't policy. And I am not going to single people out. But I am going to continue to appeal to people to maybe do things a little different in a way that, I hope, benefits everyone.

[Daehawk]

A fellow OO'r sent me the Wasteland 2 Collectors Edition box and all and I told them I would post a pic of it with my other post apoc stuff. So here it is

Thats Fallout 3 and its lunchbox and bobble head, normal Fallout 4 because I wasn't interested in paying so much at the time for a giant wrist pipboy and had no smart phone anyways, and a copy of Fallout New Vegas Collectors with platinum chip, playing cards, and casino chips. And of course in front the Wasteland 2 box with some of the stuff from it. Its way cool. Im such a kid inside.

[Sudy]

No policing. No enforcement. No policies. Just a preference and a request.

Please pardon my hyperbole. I was more responding to the "feeling in the room" rather than to any one person or suggestion (though I did choose your eloquent and inoffensive post to reply to after I'd deleted a partially written reply earlier on).

With Borderlands, the heavy players answered quite a few questions on multiple occasions. Some heavy explanations happened. Most of that happened in this thread, and when people jump into the actual Borderlands threads, there's nothing about it, and they ask the same stuff again.

I hadn't considered this point, probably because I don't often use the forum this way myself. It makes sense. I agree it's frustrating to have pages of game-specific discussion in one of the general threads. It's just kind of hard to figure out the right time to move the conversation, and who gets to do that. I've seen you do it a couple of times, but it isn't always respected. And that's fine too... when it's a debate situation some people just want to get in a final word. But not everyone's playing by the same set of expectations.

And, as others have said, it isn't like the old days when a single thread would disappear off of the front page in three or four hours. Bumping old posts was frowned on, as was having too many posts (remember the Meta drama because we had literally hundreds of threads for Oblivion (I show more than 350 separate threads.) Now? Some discussion subforums get three or four new threads per month.

I only vaguely recall this, but I often wasn't as active in those days outside of major game releases that interested me. It's honestly hard to remember that the PC Gaming forum was ever that active, but I know it was definitely busier than it is now. I started thinking of this in terms of cosmology, and how to future civilizations the observable universe will be so small they won't know there's anything beyond their own galaxy. Here, activity has migrated toward EBG over many years as this has evolved into more of a social community of existing members. You browse old threads and see prolific posters who haven't been heard from (at least around here) in years.

Besides, when a new potential member shows up and sees that there hasn't been a new thread in a several days, they're probably going to keep right on going. They want discussion, and it makes us look like a dead forum. We aren't dead, and we have a lot of discussion, but we aren't what we used to be, and a flow of new posters is a must if there is going to be an OO in a few years.

I kind of wonder if how even existing members use the forum has changed as media has evolved. We've been discussing the lack of new blood for years, but it remains challenging to attract new membership without something external. Do the youngest generations even use traditional forums anymore? (I don't see a lot of OO members' kids signing up, even though I think I joined GG when I was 17 or 18.) If established members continue to fade away, what is the future of OO? The less-used Facebook and Discord groups? An eventual subreddit when it's no longer financially feasible to maintain the forum? Why have we lost members in the last several years who stuck it out for the first ten (or more, going back to GG)? How much new blood would we actually want?

[Rumpy]

The youngest generation seem to be using Discord, although personally I don't find it conveys the same type of discussion at all. They're not promoting of in-depth discussions, but rather they're more fleeting discussions that can't as far as I know, be archived and searchable via search engine, which IHMO is a big deal when it comes to searching for potential technical fixes for older games, or general game reactions. In the past, I've enjoyed reading up on older threads discussing older games I've originally missed out on, which I think is something this current trend will miss out on. The sad thing is, some companies have removed their support forums (Bioware for instance) in favor of discord, which again could be useful for research purposes.

[Blackhawk]

Everything is fleeting in Discord - which makes moderation easy. You don't get people showing up an hour later and jumping into the argument, because the argument has scrolled off the screen. You just need to respond to reports. It's very appealing to large companies. But other than that, yeah. It's an awful medium for text-based discussion.