Things like C&C. If you know current ones, let me know. I didn’t really research anymore. Most of what I’ve seen in the past had some random new spin on it.
Friend of mine just released Terrytorial Disputes. Not exactly C&C, but heavily inspired with a mix of tower defense. It’s got a free demo if you want to check it out
I realize this is getting hyper-specific, but party-based dungeon crawlers that are true 3d and not grid-oriented. Really, the only example aside from Wizardry 8 (that I’m scared to try because it looks like way too much effort and investment for a not-great return) is the Might and Magic series circa Win95, and specifically 6, 7, and 8, all built off the same, almost pseudo-3D engine. I can’t put my finger on it, but there’s something very satisfying for me in that gameplay loop of clearing out dungeons via potshots and backpedaling, selling the loot to level and train your party, and moving on to the next one. The push and pull of skirting groups of enemies so they don’t take swipes at you when they get too close, the thrill of picking up fireball from the advanced magic shop and just nuking low-level mooks, the ecstasy of learning town portal and Lloyd’s beacon and never having to think about travel again.
I think part of the reason these games don’t really get made anymore is that they were always kind of a weird middle ground between first person Action-Adventure-RPGs and top down party-based TTRPG engines, and those genres are fully expressed today by a number of games.
Kind of - the customization options run a little deeper in M&M. You could pick up 6, 7, and 8 for less than $30 on GOG. $10 at most for the pack that includes 1-6, and I’d say of those three, 6 offers the best experience.
Un-skippable cutscenes or tutorials. This really hampers replayability of missions/quests, or even entire games in general.
Artificially limited customization in order to sell more via micro-transactions.
Time-gated features. I hate it when games require a certain amount of in-game time before some things are unlocked.
Pay-to-win in multiplayer games. Preventing or limiting progression with ability to bypass it with a purchase is just gross. If you want to go F2P, do it all the way. I’m fine with for-purchase cosmetics, but getting a leg up on fellow players if you can afford it is just bad.
Love:
Don’t have anything specific. Anything that sucks me into the game.
The junction system in Final Fantasy VIII. The magic system is based on the amount of spells you have left in an inventory and you can also equip them to your character’s stats. If you don’t take the time to acquaint yourself with the system your stats will take a dive because you’re casting spells like in a more traditional game. The upside to this is if you hoard enough spells and equip them to the right stats you can be unstoppable since early game.
I really love Anno for this, 1800 is the only one I have played and I think it’s an amazing game. The base game on its own has tons of content already but the dlc’s add whole new regions and lots of supply chians to the game. It’s a bit of a crossover between a city builder and a supply chain simulator, where the majority of the game is based on providing the needs for your residents. It’s on sale very often, including the dlc’s.
If you were to get it, I recommend getting the dlc’s, maybe after a playthrough of the base game. If you wanna know what dlc’s to get, you can check out these videos:
I would consider them a few different genres, but they are easily my favourite types of games these days. I cateogrize them in my steam list as below.
-Colony Builders: Games about building well, a colony, often from little to nothing. Often lots of You vs Environment friction, with the natural world. Tends to have a bit more focus on the individuals that comprise the colony. Examples: Rimworld (my favourite game of all time), Dwarf Fortress, Oxygen Not Included, Stranded Alien Dawn, Space Haven.
-City Builders: A bit broader in scope than a colony builder, working more on the macro level. Friction is often economic, sometimes adjusted with the natural world. Cities Skylines is kind of the prime exampe of this, but also games like Timberborn or Anno.
-Automation: Games about building a factory that…builds things automatically. Challenge tends to be logistical complexity but some games do feature combat as well. Factorio, Dyson Sphere Program (my personal favourite), Satisfactory, and Captain of Industry are the Four Horsemen of this genre to me. Techtonica is very early still but seems to have some promise as well.
For many of these games, there is a whole world of content to explore if you are interested in mods. Rimworld players regularly run hundreds of mods, my current game has about 350. Factorio has extensive overhaul mods that can take literally thousands of hours to finish in some cases (Py’s). Satisfactory has a surprisingly robust mod scene for an early access game too.
I see a pattern of games mentioned here! What do you call games like theme hospital? I’d love to skim a few recommendations for these kind of games that let you hire different employees to run parts of your business.
I love when games use as few invisible walls as possible, and don’t stop you from exploring weird places or even out of bounds. There doesn’t even have to be a reward, just the feeling of getting somewhere where you’re not supposed to be is enough. Ultrakill and Anodyne 2 both do this really well.
I also love rich, responsive, low-restriction movement mechanics, which kinda ties in with the first point. I love when games let me chain all sorts of moves together for wild bullshit midair acrobatics, zipping and bouncing and flinging myself all over the place constantly. Good examples are Ultrakill, Pseudoregalia, Sally Can’t Sleep, and Cruelty Squad. On the flipside, Demon Turf is a game I hated and dropped quickly because of how artificially and pointlessly limited the movement felt.
You might like the Serious Sam games. The developers didn’t really bother with invisible walls and so on most levels you can go in any direction until either the level geometry prevents you or until you reach the point where the developers finally gave a shit and put an invisible wall. It even rewards you for this on quite a few levels with some really well hidden secret goodies.
Starting with what I dislike: collectibles (or pickup upgrades). They spread these out over the levels and I find myself scouring the map to see if i didn’t miss anything. It ruins the pacing of the game. Some examples of my recent plays that do this are the Last of Us games and the Mass Effect trilogy. If the game is build around exploring your surroundings, it’s a different story of course.
What I really like in games is character building and i love it when a character improves depending on your playstyle. A very solid example is Skyrim’s leveling system. It just feels more organic.
I strongly dislike ingame teleporting and pause menu quick travel. I’d much rather the game have more ways for me to get to where I’m going than simply materializing wherever I want to be.
Let the travel itself be part of the game instead of just a way to link the “real” parts of the game together. Make it fun and fast to move around, add unlockable shortcuts, add more in-universe traveling options. Let me get to where I’m going myself instead of doing it for me, and make it fun to do so.
Especially in open world games, not only is this the most true, but they’re the worst offenders. Literally what is the point of making an open world and then letting people skip it? You see everything once and that’s it. If you make an open world full of opportunities to wander and explore, and then players want to avoid it as much as possible via teleportation, you have failed as a designer.
Time is limited. I don’t want to spend 30 minutes traveling from one side of a map to the next if I’ve already done that 15 times. Just let me get there immediately so I can talk to this single person and get this item I will never use.
I’m honestly fine with traveling if it’s interesting. That’s what I disliked most about red dead 2 was even with the beautiful landscape and soundtrack and the random encounters, pretty much every one of your 50 trips to [insert nearby settlement] within a given chapter are going to be exactly the same, and you can’t go very fast because you’re on a horse.
I’m pretty sure Death Stranding didn’t have fast travel, and I think it worked quite well there. Part of the challenge is to learn the best route between the stations, so it’s well incorporated into the gameplay. There’s barely any enemies on your way either, and those that exist are easily avoidable.
Traveling in Death Stranding is the game though. Enemies are only one part of the challenge; there's also terrain and how much cargo you can carry on the way, even if you've taken that route before.
I found Death Stranding to be a game that, even though it has combat in it, it's a solid demonstration of how many different types of mechanics we could be building a game around besides combat, even with a story and high production value.
I would go as far as to say that the combat is the weakest part of the gameplay. I did not enjoy the boss battles and had to turn down the difficulty for them.
I guess the combat was the weakest part, but it composes such a small part of the game that it made plenty of sense. From that perspective, I found it weird that it had any boss battles at all.
Games that give you rapid and fun ways to travel have been ones that I've actually not found tedious to get from point a to point b. Methods I've like have been blink (teleporting short distances), grapple hook, super speed, flying, etc.
But, just old fashioned running or driving gets stale fast.
I am really conflicted on this, and I think there needs to be some balance or cost/reward. I mostly agree though.
An example I often use about this is in MMOs. WoW felt like a huge world, especially back in vanilla. You could fly end to end and never hit a loading screen, it felt awesome. If you gave me a map of Azeroth and asked me to label all the zones, I probably could. It’s moved a bit more to people teleporting place to place, but I still can fly end to end of a continent.
On the other hand, FFXIV is a series of maps with loading zones between all of them (a necessity because of the older console architecture, I understand) and teleports in every town. You never actually go end to end of Eorzea. If you gave me a map of Eorzea and asked me to label only the three majors cities on it, I doubt I could. It is definitely convenient to just be able to warp around place to place for a trivial amount of currency.
It takes a lot out of the feeling of “world” to just have a bunch of arbitrary areas, I admit. It’s a tough balancing act between player convenience and player immersion.
Yeah, FFXIV makes is super convenient to revisit a place once you've already been there via the aetheryte, meaning you're probably not going to visit it on foot more than a few times. This means you don't really make that connection between zones (or at least, I didn't) and thus don't really view it as an interconnected world (the loading areas between each zone doesn't really help).
I'm struggling to give proper credit to WoW because I'm not sure if its the staggering amount of time I played the game, the time of my life when I played the game (younger brain retaining knowledge better?), or the seamless transition between zones which lends it to sticking in my memory so hard as a 'real, interconnected world'... probably a combination of the three, if we're being honest.
I think MMOs need fast travel because sometimes you just want to meet your friends in X dungeon and all the scenic travel is just an obstacle to that. There shouldn't be barriers to the social aspect of these games. MMOs have more than enough padding already, if people want the immersive experience they can choose to do that on their own.
I’d recommend playing in release order if you’re someone who tends to enjoy delving into lore. (And man, is there a LOT of lore.) I did them in reverse order originally, and although I enjoyed DAI a lot, I didn’t quite get why the stakes were so high for the protag. I felt way more connected to the storyline when I returned to Inquisition after having Origins and DA2 under my belt.
My other reason for recommending chronological order is that Origins is one of the best games I’ve ever played. I still fire up my Xbox 360 to give it a play now and again.
Origins struck a good balance between player autonomy and the required storyline. You can pick your character’s race, gender, and class at the start of the game and get a unique back story that informs how you can approach later conflicts and circumstances. Then you find out the central conflict and are presented with the different factions you need to draw together. From there, it’s up to you to decide who you’ll support and how you’ll make it happen. You can be a true asshole to all your companions, or a Lothario, or BFFs. And the combat system is pretty good overall, despite being dated and a touch clunky. The party mechanics are fun when you get used to them.
DA2 is a perfectly serviceable game, but not one I personally enjoy replaying. Humans are the least interesting race in Thedas to me, and I’m sure that contributes.
DAI is definitely an Open World Game and therefore plagued by all the struggles these games tend to have, but I still found it really fun. Jaws of Hakkon is a great DLC for the world building element. Trespasser is basically the real ending of the game, so hopefully you’ll have access to that DLC as well!
I hope you have a great experience playing these games for the first time! DA is my favourite series ever, and I love seeing folks give it a go. :)
bin.pol.social
Ważne