this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023

43 points (95.7% liked)

Games

16729 readers

546 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc..
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.

Comments.

No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works

EA Sports FC 24 Players Say $30 Launch Week Loot Box Highlights Everything Wrong With Ultimate Team (www.ign.com)

submitted 1 year ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Classic cash grab, not too surprised.
Yet people keep buying these games.

[–] loobkoob@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Despite some of the players complaining, a lot of the audience likes the pay-to-win mechanic. It's not a game funded purely by whales; a lot of average players will spend money on the loot boxes. "I like that it means I don't have to grind for ages, I don't have time for that" and "it feels like the sports trading cards I had when I was a kid" are a couple of the reasons I hear somewhat regularly. The idea that it could be designed to not be grindy in the first place doesn't even occur to them.

[–] InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Very true.
It's also kinda sad.

The idea that it could be designed to not be grindy in the first place doesn’t even occur to them.

Orphan crushing machine vibes.

[–] calewerks@fanaticus.social 1 points 1 year ago

There's also still a sizable chunk of the audience who doesn't even engage with Ultimate Team, and just wants to play all of the other game modes.

[–] whereBeWaldo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

I am trying to convince my best friend to not buy the same cashgrab game every year but my mans just can't stop himself. At least he doesn't partake in any microtransactions.

[+] Blizzard@lemmy.zip -7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The fact that they artificially boosted all women stats to unrealistic levels and then allowed to mix them with men players is simply ridiculous.

[–] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah. That is whats ridiculous with ultimate team /s

[–] Blizzard@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

There are multiple things ridiculous about ultimate team and the game in general, I just added another one.

[–] Globulart@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The fact that this bothers you says everything.

Seriously though, what does it matter? Like at all?

[–] Blizzard@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The fact that this bothers you says everything.

Says what exactly?

What's wrong with what I wrote? A football simulation that's trying to accurately reflect players' skills for men, gives an unrealistically boosted skills to women players. Why?

[–] Globulart@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because what does it even matter? We should be encouraging women's football to continue to grow, part of that is making sure it's fun to play in games as well as competitive on the pitch.

It's come so far in recent years, and when we're talking about a game which is designed primarily for fun, being unhappy that women's stats aren't an apples and apples comparison to the men's stats is just silly.

It says that you have an issue with the women's game being treated in the same way as the men's game. Video games are designed for fun, not for simulation, and there are plenty of good reasons to have women be comparable with men in a computer game.

You'd have been upset when Tony hawk games had women skaters that could ollie as high as the men too huh? Or got upset when Chun Li won in street fighter games?

[–] Blizzard@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're stating your subjective opinions about topics unrelated to the game and comparing a simulation game to some unrelated arcade games.

It says that you have an issue with the women's game being treated in the same way as the men's game.

This is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Men's stats have been reflected with due diligence while women's stats have been artificially upscaled - how is that being treated the same way?

If a core system of the game "doesn't matter" to you then why do you even play the game?

[–] Globulart@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

They're treated the same because they're all applied to have maximum fun for the players and to encourage spending. You can also play as Zico or Pele and their stats are reflective as if they played a modern game even though it just wouldn't work that way. But it's done that way because people have fun (or more accurately, spend money) playing as a legend, even if they wouldn't be the same player in today's game as they were in their day.

Simulation games aren't striving for maximum realism, they're striving for maximum engagement and enjoyment. Although defining games strictly by genres is kind of pointless these days because almost everything straddles so many of them.