I’ll second the recommendation for Far Cry, particularly 3 and 4. Also, have you played Crysis? Later in the game it will move away from human enemies, but most of the game ought to be what you’re looking for, and it’s genuinely one of the best FPS campaigns ever.
Far Cry 5 meets the criteria too, and focuses on the strengths of mostly having the open world activities be the way you move the story forward rather than the dumbass missions these games always have for no reason.
It’s been a hot minute, but what I really liked about Far Cry 3 and 4 was that if you wanted a certain upgrade, you set your own goal as a player for a certain type of mission, and I really enjoyed that. I remember seeing in the marketing for FC5 that they changed that, and it killed my interest. I’m not sure what there is to take issue with story missions moving the story forward.
The grand arch-sin of Ubisoft games is that they miss their own point almost entirely and are afraid to be fun.
The simple thing is that most of the game should be the most fun bit of the game.
E.g. if an FPS with good gunplay as a central element has 51% of game time spent in hacking mini games, that’s probably gonna get pretty irritating, right?
In the case of Far Cry 3-5: most fun bit is the outposts. Therefore most of the game should just be approaching, assaulting and solving various outpost combat sandboxes of increasing complexity.
Blood Dragon still has the best scope and scale in that respect, the whole design around a basic linear mission structure feels like it’s out of sync with the fact the fun is elsewhere, so you just end up in a situation like you already having liberated every single outpost, but technically you’re in the beginning of the game at like mission 2, it just doesn’t gel together.
Far Cry 5 has planes and helicopters and outpost-esque or adjacent activities and it’s the only game in the series where it’s those that actually move the story forward.
It’s the same shit with assassin’s creed. The most fun bit is y’know, stabbing people with the thing in historical settings. So it should be most of the game. Instead most of the game is anything and everything but that.
Heck, watch dogs legion even severely limited the amount and variety of hacking in the game when that’s like the whole thing and what made the second game in the series shine.
As for the upgrade and crafting systems I would honestly toss the whole thing out, RPG mechanics don’t belong in action games. A shop at most with all guns and everything unlocked at the start and money made through open world activities would fit Far Cry just right.
I liked the story missions for being one-off unique challenges and set pieces. I liked the outposts a lot, so I did as many of them as I wanted to, which may or may not have been all of them. As far as rising and falling action goes, I didn’t see outposts as a great way to support that, so it made plenty of sense to me to structure the game the way they did. That said, I didn’t play FC5, so OP can feel free to check that one out on your recommendation as well.
There’s a bit where she has to kill somebody in self defence and then breaks down over it, before spending the entire rest of the game plonking arrows through people’s skulls.
How realistic does it need to be? If you’re down with being a Space Cowboy, Borderlands 2 is the best in the series. (So far. I’m still working on 4, and 2 should be cheap enough that it won’t be a huge waste if it’s not your style)
I enjoyed 2 and Wonderland tbh (I return to it often actually) but I’m hoping for something more realistic, impactful, violent. Locational damage, recoil control and headshots vs bulletsponges. That said, I like the rng weapons a lot and jumping around shooting monsters, like I do in SW2.
Not sure I want that after the reviews, which is a shame because a good fantasy city builder is something I’d pay for. But I wouldn’t want to invest time in an unfinished game that’s turning to a mobile idle thing model.
But I am a bit curious about how they are doing this. I don’t think Steam allows different pricing from the wishlist, do they?
Did they just hide the free base game purchase leaving only paid options on the store page? It’s looking like that, technically you can’t buy “Leviathan’s fantasy” alone from the store, only paid bundles (with the new version? and weirdly, this makes Leviathan’s fantasy cost money inside that bundle making it more expensive? so confusing).
Recently, we have been in continuous communication with Steam Support regarding the duration of our game's free promotion. The support team has also walked us through the potential drawbacks, advantages, and disadvantages of the free offering. Additionally, they assisted us in enabling the free access permission this past Monday morning; however, this free version remains hidden—as we still need to confirm the official launch time, it is currently not visible on the store page.
[...]
It seems even the Steam team was unaware that, with the hidden free version active and the paid version not yet fully removed, users could still claim the free version directly via their Steam Wishlist. I only discovered this issue today myself. Immediately after learning about it, I sent a follow-up email to Steam Support to inform them of this situation and requested that they process refunds for players who purchased the game recently (after the unintended free access became available).
To clarify: The original purpose of our free promotion is to ensure that players who have already purchased the game can continue to access the game’s ongoing updates. There are no hidden agendas or "conspiracy" behind this decision. We simply hope new players can enjoy the game, and existing players can benefit from sustained support.
They should make a parody action movie where the protagonist in the end lets the antagonist live, because of moral reasons. Then they walk away and the camera zooms out and you see them walk over hundreds of dead bodies. Maybe Austin Powers or Naked Gun did this already.
Some history is in order. The two most influential JRPG developers are Square Enix and Nihon Falcom. Square Enix gave us Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy.
Uhh… credibility lost. They’re saying history is in order and they immediately begin by rewriting history.
Squaresoft and Enix were two different companies for decades, particularly when they were giving us Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest.
Immediately after saying “some history is in order”.
Square Enix didn’t give us the original Final Fantasy nor the original Dragon Quest. They give us those games now. But writing as if they were always one company feels like rewriting history.
I think there might be a small misunderstanding. I wasn’t saying they’re one company—just noting the influence they both still carry today. However you look at it, Square Enix are the caretakers of Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, much like how Bandai Namco continue to carry Pac-Man forward.
Instead of focusing on the negatives, why not celebrate what these games have meant to so many of us? Their impact is still worth appreciating.
My flatmate used to call that Tomb Raider (the first of the new trilogy) “PTSD Simulator”. It’s as you say, the first few deaths are entirely survival-driven, with her constantly crying and then she becomes an emotionless one-woman army.
But she’s the Hero™ fighting against the Bad Guys™. Branding is everything.
But yeah, viewed objectively from a third party perspective, a lot of heroes in games and movies are actually borderline villains. Inserting themselves into a situation they don’t need to be involved in, and then the end justify the means. They may murder tons of no-name henchmen, but a greater threat to society has been eliminated!
I actually find it interesting that a lot of superhero characters came from healthy, sane family environments and fight to protect the Status Quo™, while most villains come from hardship and trauma and attempt to change the Status Quo™ that allowed their injustice of a life to exist, so others don’t suffer the same fate.
But some happy-go-lucky hero always comes by and stops them because their plan changes the Status Quo™. And we can’t accept changes to our structured social environment!
DC’s Poison Ivy is always one of the best examples of this.
I want to say she is from the 70s? And “evil lady eco terrorist” is both sexy and evil. Except, as time went on, more and more of the readers/viewers started to REALLY like the lady who murders the patriarchy while destroying chemical factories and oil refineries to protect the planet. So she became more of a plant monster and DC Editorial learned how many of us are into bondage and so forth. Which has led to the modern day where she is basically an anti-villain, at best, alongside her lesbian lover Harley. Although the Harley Quinn show did a great job of playing with that with everyone more or less thinking her an annoying goodie two shoes even though she is torturing and murdering children and whatever else her background atrocity of the week is.
But a lesser known example that might actually be one of my favorite movies at this point is Donnie Yen’s Raging Fire. Yen plays the hero cop, as he always does, who is older but has morals and butts heads with his bosses who are too political. Except that, years prior to the movie, he was on a case with his protege and partner and they were told to do whatever it took to find a rich business man. Oh noes! His entire unit accidentally kills a suspect and now then Oh Noes, Donnie narced on them because of his morals so they went to prison and had a REAL bad time.
And now they are out and killing the corrupt cops and business people who betrayed them. Also it is basically Heat (right down to getting caught because the psycho killed a hooker) and the movie does a REAL good job of showing why Tse’s criminal is the way he is and why Yen’s cop is pushed to his breaking point and outright fighting the system he is supposed to uphold when his loved ones are in danger.
Until the final sequence which is the bank robbery from Heat. Except the writers realized the CCP is REALLY not going to like a movie that is this anti-cop so suddenly they are mowing down civilians left and right and lobbing grenades everywhere just to make sure you understand these ex-cops are actually the bad guys. And Donnie Yen and his CCP mouthpiece ass still has it.
Its a deeply problematic movie, like most of Donnie Yen’s post 2010s work, but it is also incredibly fascinating when you think of it from the perspective of sympathetic villains and state mandated “tone”. Also, like ALL of Donnie Yen’s work, it is a beautiful spectacle of martial arts coming from a guy who is even more frustratingly charming than Tom Cruise.
I don’t read many comics, but there was a Wonder Twins run by Mark Russell that was amazing.
The villain had a plan to scramble everyone’s identity on Earth, so one day you could wake up and be in a horrible economic situation. His thinking was that with the deadline approaching, people would have to work to make the world more fair for everyone.
SpoilerThe world leaders are so relieved when he’s finally caught, because they can stop wasting money on improving the lives of poor people.
That was very clearly on purpose, she starts panicking about the first guys she kills to survive (and there’s a very obvious rape vibe when she gets ganged up on), and near the end she’s screaming I’m gonna kill you all. That is the narrative arc. Welcome to trauma stories?
I couldn’t keep playing that game after the first few hours. It felt like some kind of Lara Croft torture simulator fetish thing and made me feel icky.
It bothers me because TR2013 didn’t have to be like that. The dogs were challenging and scary. The puzzles were good. The bow and melee combat was tense. Hunting and exploration could’ve played a bigger part, the game so rarely took you off the rails and it was good when it did.
The game could’ve been made with killing humans being rare dramatic moments, with the guns being tools of last resort.
Shadow definitely went off the deep end as it tried to up the stakes. Most of her personal motivation (frantic survival and then the mystery of her father’s death) were out the window and it was just a nebulous “I want to stop the bad guys”. And… it plays with it but it is very clear the intent is that she is unleashing the apocalypse as she steals these artifacts before the Bad Guys can. Whether the Bad Guys would have still done it without her is, of course, up to the viewer. It’s Indy and the Ark/Grail.
But I think the game overall does a good job of getting to the status quo and establishing Lara as having a Very British reason for looting everything and shooting every dinosaur she ever sees. If she doesn’t steal it, err, have it gifted to her, then somebody much worse will and they’ll be a lot meaner about it.
On the scale of “it belongs in a museum”: She is definitely much more psychotic than Indiana Jones. But she ain’t got nothing on Nathan Drake.
Personally? I loved the first of the reboot trilogy (actually strongly disliked every Tomb Raider up to that). I felt the second wore out its welcome by the end. And I actively disliked the third but it was short enough I finished it. But I think that is also why I will probably never bother to play Uncharted 4. I am just done with humping walls looking for yellow paint and waiting to see when my character reaches for something so I know to hit the jump button.
Stopped right before Uncharted 4? But that one has the “jump off a high ledge and punch a guy in the face to break your fall” move. It always felt so good.
I think the writers pretty much admitted they had no plan for Trinity, seeing how their goal completely changed from immortality to apocalypse between Rise and Shadow. They were just the reason for Lara to track them across the world and stumble on ancient stuff.
The second game of the reboot trilogy starts with Lara in therapy session about how she became a thrill addict from her survivor’s guilt from the first game and how she’s liking it.
I’m looking up the opening scene for Rise of the Tomb Raider and I can’t find the therapy session itself. Maybe it was only in the trailer and they cut it from the game, I remember people thought it was weird when they released that trailer because it was unexpected at the time that this was the direction they were taking? But the game does have you find tapes of Lara’s recorded sessions talking with the therapist, like how she’s having control issues and it turns out she has become a different person in a bad way.
Maybe. The bad guys show up with a lot of guns to take whatever they want. She shows up for archaeology first, and ends up having to stop the objectively bad guys.
The third game of the reboot trilogy starts with her tracking this evil organization that’s been screwing with her family, finding the item they’re trying to steal to trigger an appocalypse, stealing it first, and almost triggering that same apocalypse because she doesn’t know what she’s doing, thinking she’s doing good. Second game also started with her tracking the same organization to figure out what they’re doing, and from that, she stumbles into some archaeology. It’s a long character arc, she was looking for unrelated answers, but she learns that she can be good at figuring out ancient stuff, and she finds out the hard way that she can also fuck up badly when she doesn’t know what she’s doing. It’s supposed to end at the point where she’s mature enough to do better. We just see all the “fucking up” parts.
oh man I think there is a video somewhere on youtube where the dev talks about Lara’s “growth” from the first game to the third like lmfao I think this was intentional.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne