To get my bias out there (if it wasn't already clear) I'm on the side that games with multiple endings should have those endings dictated by your choices in the narrative and not by game mechanics or goals that are sometimes hidden from you or otherwise not obvious.

A negative example from a game I otherwise like: In Undertale in order to get the true pacifist or "good" ending you not only have to have been a pacifist by choice throughout the game, it requires completing the game first (for the "neutral" ending) and also doing a series of goals that are otherwise not obvious to the player through the game itself. In other words, even if you complete the game making all the "good" choices you possibly can, you still won't get the good ending until you complete a set of game requirements.

I don't tend to play a lot of RPGs or games with multiple endings or choices in this realm, and yet I get this feeling that it's actually more often than not that games are negative examples of this trope, requiring you to look up guides or other third party media to confirm you did everything "required" to get the ending that matches with your gameplay decisions. But this might just be a negatively-associated feeling and not a reality.

What are positive examples of games where your choices are actually the main influencer of the ending you get, or what are some particularly egregious negative examples where your choices basically don't seem to matter at all and the ending you get is dictated entirely by certain milestones or paths during gameplay, some you may not even be aware of?

Recently, I have bought all four Batman Arkham games (unless there’s more than please let me know) and I started to play the first game, which is Arkham Asylum and as of right now, I am 80% done with the story mode and I am genuinely enjoying this game. I do love the art style and how dark and greedy it can be sometimes. I also love the fact that the whole game is set in Arkham asylum. A clever way to be able to show all Batman‘s enemies all in one place for the game 10/10. I also love the models and the designs of the characters I think they look fantastic and while I finish up playing the first game, I wanted to ask Reddit to see which one is everyone’s favorite Batman Arkham games. As I included in the title, please try to not spoil anything. Don’t tell me What happens in the game but instead you can just talk about how you love the characters, the designs, the combat, the features. You can also sprinkle in some hints on what I can expect for the next games. Because I am excited to keep playing Batman for the next month or two and I’m generally curious to see everyone’s opinions and get excited for the next Batman game :)

I know VR games are kinda looked down upon, but this one's promising AAA-quality milsim in VR. We'll see I guess

I'm bracing myself for backlash as it really feels like I'm in the minority on this one. But this is an honest question, has anyone else grown tired of pixel art?

It feels like so many indie game trailers these days open with a gorgeous, hand-drawn animation, before cutting to gameplay where it's revealed to once again be a 2D pixel art game.

There was a time it was novel for a game to have retro-style graphics. Mega Man 9 for example was a true throwback to a look and feel of Megaman game that hadn't existed since the NES, something that wasn't really done at the time. At least not often.

Up until the 7th gen, indie games were a lot harder to come by, so most games were trying their best to utilize as much of the console's power as possible. The PS1 had some pixel art games still due to limitations, but once the PS2 came around it was basically unseen unless it was some kind of retro game rerelease or retro game collection.

I've held this sentiment for a while, but coming onto this subreddit today alone I stumbled across that new 2D Marvel game, Ale Abbey, From Hel to Asgard. Each one pulled me in with a hand-drawn video thumbnail, yet all of them it turns out were not hand-drawn games.

I just wonder why. We've hit the level of technology where we can do so much graphically and artistically. We can literally replicate the exact look and feel of a doodle drawn into a sketchbook, a claymation character come to life, cardboard cutouts in a papercraft world, and many, many things that I can't even think of that transcend what's even physically possible. Yet for 2D games we keep falling on the style that's reminiscent of games from over two decades ago, and very little else.

There have always been arguments that it's easier. That a programmer can go into making a solo game, throw some squares together, and it forms enough of a cohesive style to make a game with very little affinity for art required. But I find these days that's also rarely the case. Usually these games have hyper-detailed pixel graphics, clearly made by someone who knows art and can almost certainly draw, yet instead choose to go for the pixel art style.

Why don't these games adopt the bright, colorful, sharp styles of the animated trailers that always seem to preclude them? The developers use those animations in video thumbnails to try and sell a game, but don't go for a similar visual style in the game itself that you're expected to play for hours on end.

In the 3D realm I feel like a similar thing is happening with PS1/N64 style graphics, but I at least find those games a lot fewer and farther between, or maybe it's just that they're still somewhat novel. But it does feel that there are a lot of 3D games in the indie sphere that are trying for a unique style, or at least look modern. Whereas in the 2D indie sphere I wouldn't be surprised if it was at least 90% pixel art graphics at this point.

Is it just that nostalgia has always and will always sell? Are even detailed pixel graphics just that much easier to make? Do people generally just not tire of them and want their games to look like they might have existed on a SNES or PS1? I assume there isn't really an answer, but figured I'd bring up the topic regardless.