One of my favorite examples of this was playing The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventure on the Gamecube back in they day. Me and a friend were really into it, but had trouble rounding up extra players. We got his little sister and an unwilling third friend to join. After about 30 minutes the unwilling friend, Marcus, gets bored with the game and starts sabotaging the rest of us. He’d run around smacking us with his sword making us drop rupees or refuse to stand where we needed him. That’s honestly when it became fun for all of us, though.
The other three of us would plan out the room and then we’d figure out how to wrangle Marcus back into place. Someone would hold him so he couldn’t go rogue and hit us while the others got in place to pull some levers before the wrangler would toss Marcus onto a pressure plate or something. He got to continue being a little bastard while we (slowly) made progress through the game. He eventually came around and helped us when it was absolutely necessary, but it was always clear it was just so he could keep being a bastard again. I really enjoy that asymmetrical style of gameplay and wish more things capitalized on it.
Also on the Gamecube of notable mention was Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles. Always fun when someone would get the personal mission of “take the most damage” and become a suicidal maniac in every encounter, much to everyone else’s detriment. Ah the good old days.
I’d love for something like a watchmaker simulator to exist. You’d get broken watches, and you’d be tasked to take them apart, clean them and fix them up. Basically, something very similar to those almost ASMR videos on youtube where someone restores those completely broken things into a pristine state.
One limitation that games like Civ suffer from is that diplomacy is ultimately pretty shallow because there can only be one winner, so even when you’re building alliances or trading relationships it is generally to gain some temporary benefit until you are in a position to defeat your partner later on (whether militarily, scientifically, etc).
What I would love to see is a multiplayer game like Civ but where each player has independent win conditions (so that a game could have multiple winners, or no winners). The condition could even just be to attain a certain level of happiness or wealth. And if you achieve that then you win even if other nations are bigger or stronger, and conversely if you don’t achieve it you lose even if you are the last nation standing. So decisions to go to war, or focus on technological development, or build alliances or trading relationships, etc, are driven by the wants and needs of your own people and not just a need to dominate others.
I think I’d like that if there was a single winner as well. Something like to win you need to complete two objectives, one public and one secret. So other players can still work against you but they dont know what you’re trying to do.
even when you’re building alliances or trading relationships it is generally to gain some temporary benefit until you are in a position to defeat your partner later on (whether militarily, scientifically, etc).
This is exactly what made me gravitate away from Civ games and more towards Paradox strategy, where the AI actually behaves more like a real country would do instead of a player trying to win a game.
All the mainline games are not interconnected at all, they are pretty much very separate in terms of story / settings / characters. So you can jump into any one of the games. Also, their turn-based systems, aka Active Time Battle, aren’t anything interesting, compared to say Shin Megami Tensei’s Press Turn system. All FF games have very linear / streamlined experience compared to other games, i.e. choices don’t matter much, you don’t choose the stats, equipments are streamlined.
Here’s some overview:
First 6 games were 2D games, the best of those bunches are Final Fantasy 6. Great story, great villain, great music
original FF7 is the one popularized the JRPG genre, and probably broke the base between older 2D fans and newcomers. It has memorable characters, music, story about eco-terrorism. The gameplay revolves around materia system, it’s like logic system where say if you connect Fire magic with All-effect and 2x-effect, you can casts double Fire magic that hits every enemies, etc. FF7 Crisis Core is one of the best FF spinoffs out there, while FF7 Remake is a ‘remake’. It’s advised that you finished the original FF7 before playing those two.
FF8 also broke the base. The game is more romance-centric in some way, but still sci-fi. The gameplay revolves around junction / draw system, where you draw magic from enemies to junction it to your stats.
FF9 is kinda back to original game. It’s more high-fantasy setting, and was released during the end of PS1. It wasn’t as popular as FF7 or FF8, but there are definitely fans. I had hard time getting into it, because the animation is kinda slow, but maybe I should replay the HD version
FFX is very well received, it’s a sci-fi romance story that takes place in south east Asian-like tropical islands. The first FF game on PS2. FFX has a sequel, FFX-2, which is also well received
FF11 is MMO, I don’t play MMO, so I have no idea about it.
FF12 is great, it’s more political than usual FF games, because it’s written by Matsuno, who made Tactics Ogre and FF Tactics. The gameplay is bit weird, bit MMO like.
FF13 was not well received, the only mainline FF game on PS3. It spawned two other games FFX-2 and FFX Lightning Returns. The main complaint about FF13 was that the story was incomprehensible, the game is very linear, and the battle mechanics is very confusing. I think what happened is that
they used tons of opaque in-game terms (Fal’ Cie, La’ Cie), that’s barely explained until very late in the game.
the game also opens up very late, there’s a one large wide region for you to roam around and engage in enemy encounters, but they only give it to you very late in the game
the combat wasn’t explained clearly, the paradigm shift system is actually fun, and a step up from ATB
annoying characters, they focused too much on Hope and Snow. Hope is a whiny child, but he’s a child, so it’s ok. Snow on the other hand, is just an annoying character who likes to talk about himself.
FF14 is another MMO, I don’t touch MMO
FF15 is kind of a mess, it was in development hell. I like the roadtrip story, where you just drive around. The open world is bit sparse and serves mostly for enemy encounters. One of the main issue is that some of the stories are gated behind DLCs. The gameplay is bit more weirder than normal ATBs. I like this game, but not as much as others.
FF16 is great. Devil May Cry combat, very streamlined and nicely paced story, those huge spectacle Asura’s Wrath-esque battles, etc. This game is my current GOTY.
There are other spinoff games, e.g. Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, World of Final Fantasy, but they are mostly spinoffs, mostly for fans who want more after playing the mainline.
But there’s one that I want to recommend, and that’s Final Fantasy Tactics. It’s a strategy RPG and it’s amazing. There’s an updated version released on PSP, called Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions, which is probably the one you should play.
There are rumor swirling around about FF9 and FF Tactics remakes, but can’t say anything until we see it.
Final Fantasy is a lot like Zelda in that a particular person’s favorite is going to be the one they played when they were 12 years old. Depending on the age of the recommender, you are most likely to get 4, 6, or 7 as an answer.
EDIT: I seem to have upset the try hards. I’m sorry, but playing the the same part of a game over and over again and then beating it doesn’t make you special or give you any real life accolades… It’s a fuckin’ game. People play games to relax.
Games are supposed to be fun. End of conversation. There shouldn’t be a game that some people can’t beat just because they have slower reaction times or have a disability that prevents them from playing something such as Dark Souls. Dark Souls is a great game, but dying to some of the lower level enemies because they kept hit stunning me isn’t fun or cool in the slightest. It’s just fucking annoying. I can’t even imagine what someone who has disabilities or slower reaction times would feel.
Also, quit fucking gatekeeping games people. Jesus.
Games are supposed to be fun, but they’re not supposed to be fun for everyone.
So, some people will not enjoy dark souls, because the main gameplay - learning movesets until you’re able to not die to them - is not fun for some people. On the other hand, learning movesets at a really slow pace because the run back to the boss takes ages, or a boss that you can learn quite well but takes ages to kill because it leaves very few openings, or a boss that you would be able to learn except it’s in a tiny arena and the camera always fucks up… these are all areas in which dark souls games sometimes let down players who are geared to enjoy them.
Eh, fun isn’t the only thing people want from entertainment but even if that were always true there isn’t any reason niche games shouldn’t exist. Who am I to tell someone what kind of game they should play. Lots of games out there that I won’t play because I know it’s not for me - sometimes that sucks cause I like the art or the concept and wish the mechanics were what I want but they aren’t and I move on.
Catering to “most” also results in games that tend to be homogeneous in some way and that sucks for those that want niche. Also sucks when niche exists and gets ruined to appeal to “most” but that’s just how it goes.
Deep breaths, it’s gonna be OK. You are saying that all games should include a toggle/slider. I don’t agree. Devs should make games they want to make and I’ll play them if they appeal to me and you should too. But don’t get bent when they don’t have a feature you want.
Ugh. You people just don’t get it. You’re essentially saying that people who can’t physically interact with the game like you and I can are just shit out of luck. It’s literally not about me in anyway whatsoever. I can play them just fine.
I love video games, and I just think that they should be accessible to everyone. Whether that be a difficulty slider or just some accessibility options for those who need them. I want everyone to be able to play some of the games I love, so that I can have more people to talk about it with.
Thats the difference between me and most of the other people like you here in these comments. I’m not asking for them for me, I don’t need them. I’m asking them for people who would love to be able to play some of these big franchises but physically can’t.
Again, gatekeeping is such a fucking weird thing to do.
It’s not gate keeping, and the demand is unreasonable. Not all modes of transportation require accommodation for everyone. A paraplegic is not riding a motorcycle. That’s not a dig at them. And despite your frustration it doesn’t make your opinion more valid than a developer’s.
EDIT: Oh WAIT! I just realized I didn’t say anything about your motorcycle example. Get this. They have an attachment, a side car, that can go on the side of motorcycles that can allow a passenger. This passenger can be paraplegic! Amazing!
Ah yes. So unreasonable. I guess all the others games that include those kind of options just don’t exist!
Ah yes. Sticking up for others is a classic crybaby attitude. It’ll be okay! You can still be a “real” big gamer while allowing others to enjoy your favowite wittle games.
This is why it should be even easier for consumers to return games. Playing a game and deciding it’s not for you is one thing. Playing a game and realizing you just flushed $70 down the toilet is infuriating.
Let’s turn, “I deserve to get my money’s worth” into “I deserve to get my money back.”
Yeah they’re not great when it comes to some stuff for returns.
Last year I bought Assassins Creed 1 and 2 on sale. I played through 1 first, had a lovely time, then went to 2 and noticed some annoying graphical issues. Things that seemingly can’t be fixed after I tried with various mods and patches.
I had only played it for 30 minutes so i tried to get a refund and they declined me because I had bought it so long ago, even though I argued that the game was technically too broken for me to play.
I had to just suck it up and just play it on the PS4 with the Ezio Collection.
Yeah, it should be based on playtime though there’s probably a reason why it isn’t. There are times were I’d have a game in my library that I only get to many months after purchase only to find out its not what I was expecting.
I’ve beaten the Dark Souls trilogy and Elden Ring. I didn’t have fun when I was dying to the combat, I was having a BLAST with the exploration and the rest of the games mechanics. It’s almost like you can have both be fun…
What are the rest of the mechanics? It’s almost all combat and exploration (that leads to more combat). There’s no, like, base building or grand strategy or romance plots.
That said, I don’t think you can please everyone. I found the games enjoyable as they are.
The armor/weapon system is fantastic, the level up system is simplistic, but also super in depth, the level design and how everything connects is amazing, etc. etc.
You can though. You add a difficulty slider, or some options in an accessibility menu. God of War (2018), and God of War Ragnarok, the newer Spider-Man games, and probably some of the other Playstation exclusives ALL have options in game that allow people to play their games. I don’t want to hear that nonsense that it just can’t be done.
I consider the weapon system part of the combat. I guess the leveling system is its own mechanic, but it’s super shallow compared to many other games (eg: path of exile, or even Baldur’s gâte)
Some people wouldn’t be happy with a difficulty slider. Some people would use the slider to make themselves unhappy. Either by turning it too high due to hubris, or too low from lack of confidence. The unified difficulty of the souls games for many people is a plus, and creates a sense of shared struggle they enjoy.
And as I said elsewhere, I really don’t think meta game options are the only way to do difficulty.
Video games are art. Just like a movie can be sad or a painting can be distressing, video games are allowed to explore all kinds of emotions.
Sometimes a higher difficulty is part of the artist’s vision. They get to decide how they convey what they want to convey.
One of my favorite new games is UFO 50. It’s a collection of retro-style games where some of them are genuinely very difficult, and others are just do a great job of simulating difficulty. The difficulty drops off right around the time you start to get a handle on the mechanics, so it’s hard to tell if it’s the game getting easier or if you’re just getting better.
Don’t worry! We have actual letters to read, we have oral ways of explaining things to you, we can even do pictures! What are your needs? I’m sure we can find a way to accommodate you!
So, the fact that I can’t read braille isn’t stopping me from enjoying the medium of reading, just that there are some books that are meant for people other than me? Not all books are meant for me to enjoy and that doesn’t mean I’m being gatekept by braille? Is that the point you’re trying to make?
There are all types of people on this planet. Some of them have the same interests and wants as you, but something happened to them during or after birth that drastically lowered their quality of life. Just because you were born or ended up at this point in your life just fine doesn’t mean that their issues are any less important.
All the books you like, someone with disabilities might want to read. We have the tools to make that book into a form they can partake in the excitement of that book.
That is my argument. No matter what you may have to say, it does not mean others shouldn’t be able to partake in the same activity.
Basketball was probably thought to be a “normal” human thing to do, but instead of being bound by that, we have wheelchair basketball. I think that’s beautiful and a perfect example of being able to accommodate someone’s physical needs.
There is literally no other reason than being an asshole on why someone shouldn’t want more people to be able to play a video game.
Fine. You’re being purposely gatekept from videogames. You’re entirely right and entitled to everything. Have fun being mad about it. Everyone other than you is just an asshole. Have a good one.
Of course not! Only those who took the time to reply and try to defend their hardcore gamer feelings are assholes. Normal people would just say, “yeah. That makes a lot of sense actually. Everyone should be able to physically play my favorite games!” But you can’t do that for some weird reason. Sad.
You’re not really good at this, are you? I’m not a game developer. They have the power to do this, I do not. It was even stated in the OP photo that the director made the game harder, for no other reason than to be a dick. And you applaud that for some reason. It’s mind boggling.
Then develop your own game and do it. Nobody is obligated to make something that is intended for literally everybody to enjoy in the exact same way. That’s just life, not everything is for everyone, and not everyone who is developing a game has the time, budget, or focus to out that element into their game that has a specific need to be a specific thing. And people are allowed to make their game the way they choose, just like any other form of art.
Sometimes game design makes it physically impossible. Any foot based rhythm game (DDR, PIU. DRS) is not playable by wheelchair bound people. Most good vr games will give motion sickness to people. Those people can enjoy different games that are designed with them in mind
Movies “can be” made accessible to everyone but that would mean shaving off any theme or imagery that might trigger a trauma or phobia, cutting all content that may be inappropriate to children, avoiding any topic that could offend someone’s beliefs. Why are these unreasonable expectations but all video games have to pander to someone with poor reflexes or insufficient free time to learn the nuances of a mechanical system?
Because you’re trying to bring this back to people not being able to play video games? I can see why you’d think that’s a clever comeback, but I hate to break it to you, games can be developed to have accessibility options. I can’t magic you the understanding of what I’m trying to get across to you.
Nobody is obligated to make everything they make to be intended for literally everyone. That’s just a basic fact of life. Some things are the way they are because that is just the way they are. Not everybody gets to ride rollercoasters and if we were to reengineer them to be accessible to literally everyone then what you would have would simply not be a rollercoaster. Some things intended to be what they were made to be would be fundamentally different if they met your demands, you’re insisting there be mandatory limits and demands to art and intentionality.
Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to play every game. Not every game has to be for everybody, and that’s ok. The exact same criticism can be made the other way around, that no game should be too easy because boredom is bad. And it’s exactly as stupid an argument in either direction.
Of course not. I do believe that gatekeeping gaming is a fucking stupid thing to do though. Not every game HAS to be for everyone, and that’s not even what I’m saying so bad argument to begin with.
What I AM saying though, is more people can play the same games and… GASP… actually be able to talk to their more hardcore friends about the game that their friend recommended! Man! What an idea!
There is nothing preventing YOU from playing on the highest, most hardcore gamer difficulty, so again, your point is moot.
My point is preventing people who aren’t able to function on the same level as a “normal” human from playing one of the biggest franchises in gaming history is stupid and there is nothing and no reason whatsoever to exempt them from being able to enjoy the games other than this stupid ass arbitrary gatekeeping bullshit a lot of so called gamers like to pull out.
You can still sit there and run around with no armor and do a no hit run. There is literally nothing stopping you from that… unless… you want to play on an easier difficulty and don’t want to admit it…?
actually be able to talk to their more hardcore friends about the game that their friend recommended!
The journey is often as important to the experience. It would be like your friend telling you about a great hike but then driving to the top just to talk about the view.
God, I wish I lived in a fantasy world. But, unfortunately, I have to exist alongside people who can’t think of anyone other than themselves. Like… most of the commenters here who kept trying to bring up what they believe to be valid points, but really just paint themselves as assholes who don’t want people to be able to enjoy their hardcore gamer games. Oh well. There plenty of people like you out there.
“People play games to relax, they’re supposed to be fun” your preference for relaxing is not universal, your inability to enjoy any particular game is your own problem, the mere existence of shit that was not made for you is not in any way gatekeeping
You have the option to play a different game or none at all, if you choose not to avail yourself of that option then you have voluntarily selected your difficulty
That’s such a lame ass rebuke. It can be done, has been done, and will continue to be done by developers who actually care about the medium and want more people to play their games. Did we not fucking invent braille so blind people can read???
It's not a question of the world being too big or too small, it's the density of interesting things. A giant world with very little worth doing doesn't accomplish much, but similarly a small world where you're absolutely tripping over things that feel like you shouldn't skip them will also feel claustrophobic.
Additionally, the traversal system can help a LOT here. Even a world that has a lot of wide open dead space can feel good if the process of crossing that space is itself fun. Dune: Awakening comes to mind here, where there are large spans of open desert that you need to cross, but ripping across the dunes on my sandbike was so much fun I didn't mind the dead ground.
Do you remember LoZ Wind Waker? Maybe it’s the nostalgia goggles, but ripping through the open water just felt good. I don’t even think it was particularly mechanically fun. Maybe it was just the music.
The music and the bright colors in that cel shading style were great. They also did a really good job with the seagulls and the barrels and the silhouettes in the distance as you were sailing. Maybe it was just the contrast with all of the ‘dark’ games at the time. It was a gigantic mood swing from majora’s mask. The music really helped sell it.
I think wind waker is good example of how to handle ‘open world’ without letting on that you’re controlling the experience. I don’t think any of the official ‘next steps’ ever had you sailing more than three squares away. The teleport was right when the world ‘opened up’ to you doing whatever you felt like, and the easily grasped concept of one square=one island with some interaction made sure there was no loss of focus on the developers or players. Obviously the main islands had more to do than the ones with just a platform/reef, but it worked.
More than not a great start: Only people who have bought the game are allowed to review it, so reviewers are already biased towards liking the game, because only somebody who thinks they would enjoy the game would spend money on it. It’s basically impossible to get a strong negative score by just being run of the mill awful. So “mixed” means that about 50% of people who though they would enjoy the game, didn’t, which is quite damning.
bin.pol.social
Ważne