Sorry it bugs you, but it’s far better than the entirely uninteresting/unoriginal “Doom-like”. I get it’s standard practice at this point, but I’m happy whenever we get an actually interesting, poignant name.
When games like Duke Nukem 3D or Quake were out, Boomers were what? 30 to 50 years old? I’m sure some of them played FPS games, but there is no way they were the majority.
Think about it this way, it’s not that the majority of people playing those games are boomers, but the majority of games that boomers play are those games.
Also, this has caused me to look up the formal definition of Gen X vs Boomer, and I did not realize that everyone born after 1964 is considered Gen X. In my head Gen X went from ~1975-1990, everyone before that being a boomer, so assuming other people have the same conception of boomer in their head, then the majority of people able to afford gaming PCs in the mid 90s would be boomers…
They also do just go boom and have stuff like the BFG …
I think they're called that because they postdate the "looter shooter" that combined Diablo-esque "action RPGs" with FPS games, like Borderlands and Destiny. "Looter" without the "shooter" is a much better name for Diablo's genre anyway, since we have far too many RPGs that are also action games and have nothing in common with Diablo.
I'm still waiting for the resurgence of the style of shooter that came just after those that inspired this wave of boomer shooter; the likes of Half-Life, Halo, 007, TimeSplitters, and so on. I don't know what subgenre will be assigned to those games when they start to come back around, but that style is also old at this point, so hopefully it doesn't also get assigned the label of "boomer shooter", because then it'll be harder for both audiences to find what they're looking for.
There’s a video on this, but that’s just the name that stuck. Its not derogatory at this point, just a way to differentiate a good shooter from a game like CoD
Oh yes! SMG was the game we bought the day we bought our Wii back then and it is a masterpiece. It is also the only Mario Game I ever “finished” (all Stars with Mario, not Luigi tough). We loved everything in this game. The Music, Level Design, Controls… and whenever we thought that we have seen all, they came up with a new game mechanic that surprised us and was super fun. It was truly a fantastic and memorable experience.
I feel like this game is Squeenix’s love letter to the OG FF7. They took the original open world section, which wasn’t the most exciting either (I remember spending a lot of time grinding mobs) and reimagined it. Is clearing every tower and side quest the most exciting gameplay? Probably not, but as a longtime fan I enjoy the little things like seeing the Fort Condor mini game reimagined and learning about the lore of the world. As others have said you CAN skip a lot of the side quests and it does get more linear in parts (Chapter 3 and backend of Chapter 4 comes to mind).
I agree, if you took out the side quests and mini games you’d get another FF16 which was an absolute slog by the end of it because of how monotonous it was with lack of variety
FF16 only ever became a slog due to its side content and the difficulty of such once you were levelled last a certain point. Story content was always great, even for the side stuff. But the gameplay for the side stuff got very tedious after the third half. I also ended up doing everything too. So I know how boring it can be. Still loved the game as a whole though. Mostly due to the story and characters.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne