Jump to content

Series feature criticism


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, freddie1989 said:

Can't say I am too keen on the feature as a whole as it has all the stacks etc all built in and I have no interest in playing 5 versions of the same game, why would I?!

 

That is an interesting point that I never thought about

 

It's desperate to cater towards people who hate playing spinoffs above all else, but forces stacks to appear for everyone. I run into far more people who don't want stacks on their profile than spinoff games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, freddie1989 said:

Can't say I am too keen on the feature as a whole as it has all the stacks etc all built in and I have no interest in playing 5 versions of the same game, why would I?!

 

23 minutes ago, Shadiochao said:

That is an interesting point that I never thought about

 

Well, it's in its infant stages (not a pun). The kinks and fine touches are being worked out.

 

Some people want to see if they've done every last thing for a franchise. Others care about completing each unique sequel. There's also some games (eg GTA V PS3 vs PS4, Uncharted vs Uncharted Remaster) that have different trophies for each stack, so it makes sense to include both of them in a particular stage.  Ultimately the feature is what you want to make of it, and a method of tracking.

 

The 'No Stage' is only intended for games with "some connection" to the series, but a very loose relationship, not necessarily spin offs. I'll use an Uncharted example again: Uncharted Fight For Fortune (card game). Most spinoffs will likely be added to the main series in time, or if there are multiple games in a single spinoff, its own series.

 

Edited by B1rvine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Shadiochao said:

 

That is an interesting point that I never thought about

 

It's desperate to cater towards people who hate playing spinoffs above all else, but forces stacks to appear for everyone. I run into far more people who don't want stacks on their profile than spinoff games

 

For me personally it is a time issue. I have limited play time these days and a huge backlog so really don't want to spend that time playing something I already finished and missing out on other games. For instance I just got Far Cry 5 Gold Edition and it comes with Far Cry 3 classic but I have zero intention of playing it as I have already done it once.

16 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

 

 

Well, it's in its infant stages (not a pun). The kinks and fine touches are being worked out.

 

Some people want to see if they've done every last thing for a game. Others care about completing each sequel. There's also some games (eg GTA V PS3 vs PS4, Uncharted vs Uncharted Remaster) that have different trophies for each stack, so it makes sense to include both of them.  Ultimately the feature is what you want to make of it.

 

The 'No Stage' is only intended for games with "some connection" to the series, but having a very loose relationship, not necessarily spin offs. I'll use an Uncharted example again: Uncharted Fight For Fortune (card game).

 

You can never please everybody so its just good to see the site developing new features and moving forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, B1rvine said:

Ultimately the feature is what you want to make of it

 

It's not really, because spinoffs are being treated differently from everything else. If I'm the kind of person who completes every single game in a series, it's not like I can pretend they're all being treated equally or being presented in the same way.

 

We have a situation where completing World of Final Fantasy, A King's Tale, Fortune Street, 5 stacks of Monster of the Deep, both versions of Dissidia Final Fantasy NT, XV Pocket Edition and all 4 stacks of XV Multiplayer is weighted exactly the same as completing Final Fantasy XV once.

 

It's BECAUSE of this spinoff thing that we can't make what we want of it. People would've been free to only care about the "main" games if every unique game was treated the same, but now everyone has to.

 

It all comes down to who and what this feature was created for. Personally, I just wanted a simple page that had my progress in a series easily viewable, but I can't even have that because some people don't consider some games to be worthy of standing on their own. Somebody else's definition of what should count or not is getting in the way of me simply looking my progress on my trophy lists.

 

If this spinoff thing is so important, it should've been optional. There are no concrete definitions for what should be considered main or loosely connected for some series, and even if there were, not everyone cares about that when earning trophies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Shadiochao said:

snip

 

We may be labeling "spinoff" differently.

 

@BlindMango Agreed, the Final Fantasy series is a mess :)

Using regular numbers :

 

Final Fantasy 15 Pocket Edition should probably be part of FF 15 series.

World of Final Fantasy should be immediately after 14.

A Kings Tale should be before 15, and after World.

Monster of the Deep and FF15 Comrades Expansion can be after 15, in either order.

Dissidia NT stacks can be the final stage.

 

I know nothing of Fortune Street, but a quick glance tells me 'No Stage'. Looks sort of like a Playstation Battle Royale meets Mario Party with Final Fantasy and DQ characters. Actually, I probably would have excluded this title altogether, its part of the "Street series" which only has one title on modern Playstation systems (with trophies). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_Street

 

Edited by B1rvine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, B1rvine said:

We may be labeling "spinoff" differently.

 

Well it's not really the labels I'm worried about.

 

I just disagree with the idea of No Stage. Every single unique game should be given its own section so they benefit from the main function of the feature, and any labelling or sorting should come after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Shadiochao said:

 

Well it's not really the labels I'm worried about.

 

I just disagree with the idea of No Stage. Every single unique game should be given its own section so they benefit from the main function of the feature, and any labelling or sorting should come after that.

 

Just out of curiosity, how would you handle the following series? Currently it is as follows: 

  • Stage 1: Dark Souls & Dark Souls: Remastered
  • Stage 2: Dark Souls 2 & Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin. 

Should each of those four games get their own stage? Or DS2 and DS2: SotFS be separated but DS1 and DS1:R grouped together? Or is it fine as is? What is a "unique" game for you? :) 

 

(In my opinion, DS1 and DS1:R is the same game on different platforms, but DS2 and DS2: SotFS differ in quite some aspects.)

Edited by Arcesius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Arcesius said:

Just out of curiosity, how would you handle the following series? Currently it is as follows: 

  • Stage 1: Dark Souls & Dark Souls: Remastered
  • Stage 2: Dark Souls 2 & Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin. 

Should each of those four games get their own stage? Or DS2 and DS2: SotFS be separated but DS1 and DS1:R grouped together? Or is it fine as is? What is a "unique" game for you? :) 

 

I'd keep those the way they are. They're slightly modified versions of the same game, and they're already linked as stacks on PSNP anyway.

 

I'm more concerned about actual unique games being paired with wildly different games, just because the only thing they have in common is that they're not considered "main" games. Such as Dragon Quest Builders 1 and 2, and Dragon Quest Heroes 1 and 2 all being in the same stage. I'd put each of those in their own stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things I've noticed:

 

Clicking on the "Playstation Series" tab directs you to someones PSN  https://psnprofiles.com/series

https://psnprofiles.com/series/1-uncharted

 

Why is Star Wars Bounty Hunter an the other older Star Wars games lumped into PS2 classics and not Star Wars?

Also Super Star Wars is not on any list either, they belong to the Star Wars list I guess?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Shadiochao said:

I'm more concerned about actual unique games being paired with wildly different games, just because the only thing they have in common is that they're not considered "main" games.

 

I don't want to give an incorrect answer, so I'll wait for @BlindMango to officially chime in here, but I think in time your concerns will be satisfied. From what was explained to me earlier, games were just added to the correct series section but not necessarily sorted out yet.

 

As far as the "No Stage" purpose, this would be reserved for minor titles that can't be classified as a 'sequel' in any sense of the word, usually for games sharing part of the series name only and loosely connected. Main titles don't necessarily mean numbered titles either. For franchises with huge amounts of titles and/or spinoffs, the spinoffs themselves may be a series of their own or not, but it's being looked at "since its a mess with big series".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, B1rvine said:

 

I don't want to give an incorrect answer, so I'll wait for @BlindMango to officially chime in here, but I think in time your concerns will be satisfied. From what was explained to me earlier, games were just added to the correct series section but not necessarily sorted out yet.

 

As far as the "No Stage" purpose, this would be reserved for minor titles that can't be classified as a 'sequel' in any sense of the word, usually for games sharing part of the series name only and loosely connected. Main titles don't necessarily mean numbered titles either. For franchises with huge amounts of titles and/or spinoffs, the spinoffs themselves may be a series of their own or not, but it's being looked at "since its a mess with big series".

 

But even having No Stage is my concern. The page groups stacks together and lets you see your progress in them as a whole. By not giving certain titles stages - regardless of why - it means you don't have the ability to use the page to see whether you've completed all their stacks.

 

By prioritising making a distinction between major and minor titles, it's taking away a useful function from those minor titles. It's a function I'd want to use, so that's why I don't like how it has been done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Shadiochao said:

But even having No Stage is my concern.

 

Yeah, I understand your issue, and partially share it. Again, I'll wait for Mango to officially answer, since I have nothing to do with the series, but I think it has more to do with a perspective of "Does this really belong in this series?" kind of aspect vs main/spinoff. 

 

Example : Would you put the Lara Croft GO game in with the Tomb Raider series, and Hitman GO in the Hitman series, or have a GO series by itself with both of them? Should GWENT be part of a Witcher series? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, B1rvine said:

Yeah, I understand your issue, and partially share it. Again, I'll wait for Mango to officially answer, since I have nothing to do with the series, but I think it has more to do with a perspective of "Does this really belong in this series?" kind of aspect vs main/spinoff. 

 

Example : Would you put the Lara Croft GO game in with the Tomb Raider series, and Hitman GO in the Hitman series, or have a GO series by itself with both of them? Should GWENT be part of a Witcher series? 

 

The fact that the games are even on the page means they're being considered as belonging to it in some sense. And if that's already the case, they should be split up so they get the full benefit of the page's features. It just doesn't make sense to me to put them there and then have them behave this way. The people that don't do spinoff titles aren't benefiting from the way it's being done, because the series is still being marked as incomplete whether they personally consider these games part of the series or not. Splitting all games into easily-identifable groups wouldn't change anything.

 

If there has to be some distinction between main and side games, it doesn't have to come in a form that means side games need to be put in a single group with all the other side games. If all games had stages, main games could be marked with a tag instead of a numbered stage, or something simple like that.

 

Games can be part of multiple series lists, so they could be part of both GO and their respective franchises. Also Gwent's subtitle is "The Witcher Card Game" and all of the cards are based on Witcher characters, so I'd say it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this Series feature just made PSNP a lot more worthwhile, especially since it considers all stacks (that should shut up the fools who think stacks aren't required for series completion :lol:)

 

That said, I can appreciate the idea of stages, but it's just too arbitrary and should be omitted, or made a toggleable feature

 

The only other issue is how DLC & nonplats are required for series completion, but that can be easily fixed with a custom userscript

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, B1rvine said:

Example : Would you put the Lara Croft GO game in with the Tomb Raider series, and Hitman GO in the Hitman series, or have a GO series by itself with both of them? Should GWENT be part of a Witcher series? 

 

The rabbit hole goes even deeper when you consider Batman games. Right now, it seems there are three Batman series: the Arkham games, the Telltale games, and the LEGO games. There's a LEGO series, but not a Telltale series, and Tales from the Borderlands is considered a Borderlands game. The Crash trilogy is considered a series...but CTRNF is also listed as part of that series. Is it the character that makes it a series (in which case, why aren't all Batman games listed together?), or the developer (in which case, why is TftB grouped with Borderlands 1 and 2?), or something else? Is it possible for games to be part of more than one series, or does that complicate things too much?

 

That said, I would think for the majority of users, that it would be useful if "stages" (or whatever we're going to call them) could be condensed into single game, as I think more people are interested in completing a series than a stack. I could be wrong about that.

 

Either way, this is a really neat feature, even if it's in its infantile stage. I don't think it would be necessary if developers knew how to number their games properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BlindMango

@B1rvine

 

Just a suggestion, but maybe make stacks/remasters able to be hidden once 1 game in that set is completed.

 

For example, Assassin's Creed 3 shares a stage with AC3 remastered.  In my case, I have AC3 remastered completed, and I'm never going to add AC3 (ps3) to my list. 

 

They are pretty much the same game when considering their place in the series/canon/storyline etc, so I'd like to be able to hide AC3.  This should be something that can only be toggled on/off once there's a single completion to avoid abuse.  Side stories should be incorporated as sub-stage X.a 

 

The same could apply to stacks I think.

 

It's a nice feature, but at the moment, it's useless to people playing on only o e platform.  Ability to hide game duplicates will allow everyone to use it as they like. 

 

Perhaps people completing multi stacks, or game X & its remaster can go over %100 for that stage/series?

 

As it stands, the current system layout alienates players not interested in stacking duplicate games

Edited by AJ_-_808
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

 

The rabbit hole goes even deeper when you consider Batman games. Right now, it seems there are three Batman series: the Arkham games, the Telltale games, and the LEGO games. There's a LEGO series, but not a Telltale series, 

A single game should be allowed to be part of multiple series. So for Batman, there should be an overall Batman series that has all the games, then "subseries" for Batman: Arkham, TellTale Batman, and Lego Batman (the latter two might also be part of other overarching series, e.g. Lego).

 

There's other examples where subseries makes sense, like the Middle Earth games. They're clearly part of an overarching Lord of the Rings series (this series appears to be missing btw), but also clearly their own series. Castlevania Lord's of Shadow is another example where a subseries would make sense. Even the mess that's Final Fantasy should have subseries for Final Fantasy XIII and XV.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies if this was mentioned and I missed it.

 

@Sly Ripper, did you consider earning a platinum for a game in a stage qualifying for the green check mark?  In the case of a single game in a stage, a platinum (but not 100%) could be the green check mark, but not the blue check mark.  In the case of multiple games in a stage, the only change would be that a platinum would qualify for getting a green check.

 

Thank you for your consideration.  I really like the way the new feature is coming together.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quite like the way it's set up.  For the truly dedicated you can go for stacks, and for the rest of us everything is logically laid out.    It makes sense to me that spin-offs are off in there only little area.  Really, the feature is just a check-list.  Unless we're all going to go collectively mad and start flexing over how many blue check-marks we have, but please, let's not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Milktastrophe said:

A single game should be allowed to be part of multiple series. So for Batman, there should be an overall Batman series that has all the games, then "subseries" for Batman: Arkham, TellTale Batman, and Lego Batman (the latter two might also be part of other overarching series, e.g. Lego).

 

There's other examples where subseries makes sense, like the Middle Earth games. They're clearly part of an overarching Lord of the Rings series (this series appears to be missing btw), but also clearly their own series. Castlevania Lord's of Shadow is another example where a subseries would make sense. Even the mess that's Final Fantasy should have subseries for Final Fantasy XIII and XV.

 

It's already been established that a game can be part of more than one series (for example, King of Fighters '94 https://psnprofiles.com/trophies/5502-arcade-archives-the-king-of-fighters-94), so I would second @Milktastrophe's comment as being the most logical way to organise things, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...