No. Honestly. I own one, but I haven’t been able to play it for reasons relating to my work and I’ve got a lot of buyer’s remorse about it too. That really sucks, but I really don’t feel like I have missed out on much as far as gaming goes.
My gaming laptop has been more than a viable alternative. I really wish I hadn’t been so impulsive with the purchase of my PS5. I genuinely feel like it wasn’t worth all the struggle it took to get it, and the financial loss/burden/degradation that it caused.
I’ve been considering selling it, for some time now, but I’m having trouble committing…
I’d love to hear your stories/advice, for any of you in a similar situation.
I finished Cassette Beasts a couple of days ago and now I can never go back to Pokémon.
I honestly can’t sing its praises enough.
Don’t even know if I can play any other monster tamers now. Still, I might pick up Coromon and/or Nexomon: Extinction or something else at some point, but man, Cassette Beasts absolutely spoiled me.
Highly recommend to anyone who’d like some chill vibes (with some dark moments to make for good contrast) and no significant stress in terms of strategy. Like, yeah, it technically matters when it comes to type advantages, but sometimes it’s just fun to fuck around and see what fusions you can come up with, regardless of type.
Oh, and if you like games where you aren’t restricted to gender norms and can romance anyone of any gender, also a good option.
I feel like if you enjoyed the vibe of games like Stardew Valley or Spiritfarer or (going old school here) Chrono Trigger, you’ll probably enjoy this, even if the gameplay is entirely different.
Honestly, even if you enjoy Pokémon but might be sick of it for whatever reason, it’s a nice change of pace as well. It has enough in common to feel familiar, but sets itself apart in a bunch of ways which make it stand entirely on its own.
Music is also great, though you might get sick of one song that repeats. And repeats. And repeats.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen Okami featured in one of these lists. Just to be sure I looked up some of Polygon’s and even in their Top 500, its not there, which is kinda depressing?
I’m not a fan of Zelda games - or most Nintendo games - but I do love when people take inspiration from them and make their own thing - Tchia, Darksiders, Oceanhorn, Tunic, and Ittle Dew all come to mind just as Zelda ‘clones’ - and I think there’s no higher example of that than Okami, a game that takes its inspiration and surpasses it in every way. The graphics were at the time mindblowing(frankly, still are), with its japanese classic art style cel shading, the soundtrack is phenomenal and Amaterasu has an excellent mobility, zipping across battlefields or simply open areas with easy and fluidity. The paintbrush is a stellar tool, both to use in puzzles and in combat, and the game boasts a charming cast of characters and engaging story. Probably the saddest tidbit about it is that it was also Clover’s farewell game, after its previous, unfairly lambasted, gem God Hand and two attempts at the beat’em up Viewtiful Joe series.
Nowadays the Zelda series has gotten a whole different kickstart with its open-world entries, burying these inspirations even further, but I still believe Okami easily stands atop most entries of that series, and on its own as well.
Okami is “Zelda-like” in its kind of medieval fantasy, action-adventure presentation, and in the way towns and NPCs feel, and perhaps in some of its bosses, but really it’s not all that much like a Zelda game. Okami is an quite standard all-ages real-time-battles RPG, whereas Zelda usually have no RPG mechanics - usually Zelda enemies are defeated in just one or two hits, with little or no stats, points or inventory. Zelda games usually have a lot of focus on puzzles and dungeons, or dungeon-like outdoor areas, whereas Okami has no puzzles. On the other hand Okami is obviously very steeped in (often silly or humorous) Japanese folklore, whereas Zelda is very much less wacky and often a little more emotional and dramatic, and has its own bespoke theming.
I liked Okami but I felt it was paced really quite slowly, and the battles/enemies were a little too RPG-like for my taste, as in taking quite a lot of real time for even weak enemies. I felt it lacked the mechanical polish that Zelda usually does: I felt generally the movement was a little slow and difficult (except in very open areas) and most disappointing of all was the frankly poor recognition of what brush move I’m drawing.
Okami has a fair amount of puzzles, they’re just mostly smaller to show the wider range of mechanics. Get ball into cup, bring vines to location, memorize dots on a page Simon says style. They’re ultimately not too different from a puzzle you might encounter in something like A Link to the Past, or Breath of the Wild. Not difficult enough to be integral but enough to test your understanding of the game mechanics and later reward you for wit. Some of them also become very important for boss battles or speeding up fights with enemies.
Personally I never had an issue with brush move recognition, but I played both the PS2 and Wii versions and use a Steam Controller for PC which is the closest to the Wii’s. Of all of them, analog sticks are probably the slowest, but keyboard control is pretty clunky for movement since it was intended for controllers. Combat on the Wii was something else entirely, it was genuinely meant for that I think as it has the blended analog stick + high speed but accurate input. For today, mouse input is very good as a very light trackball but so-so for a regular mouse - so the Steam Controller (or Deck these days) is a really good medium, or maybe the PS5 controller if you can use its middle touch thing somehow.
I’d say the only complaint I could make about the game is its pacing of the story. In terms of gameplay however, you take it at the pace you want to take it at. Don’t want to fight? Avoid the scrolls. But fighting can be so fast, over in just a few inputs. Only a couple seconds so sometimes the winning battle screens themselves feel like they take longer (but they can be skipped). The isometric style during the battle rewards spacing and the byproduct is the difference in how the movement feels - it also plays into Capcom’s general affinity for artificial difficulty, something like restrictions on camera movements and animation delays for Resident Evil and Monster Hunter. It’s asking how creative can you get in this situation with these limitations?
I think the best analogy for battles with this in mind is to imagine each moment you freeze as the perfect image captured by an artist, but that can only happen when the demons are visible to the human (after Ammy stuns them). With that in mind you stun all the enemies then finish them in one fell swoop!
The game does have some pacing issues in the early game that could have been fixed by allowing to speed up if not skip cutscenes, but otherwise overall I think it nails the widening world adventure game for encouraging the player to really engage with the game engine and their wits to progress forward. I also think the early pacing does a lot for some of the revealing acts of the game, if it was fast and punchy the whole time then later elements like the events of the Ghost Ship of Heaven’s Gate would be less impactful than they are. The stakes start out low as you familiarize yourself and they ramp up as you hit act 2. From there it’s actually pretty easy to skip a lot of side missions as it streamlines you from there, unlike the early game where it can be harder to tell which quests main and side missions. Much like Twilight Princess where in the mid-late game it’s really encouraging you to continue forward but if you take some time to explore you get experiences you’d have missed - although granted Okami is a little less forgiving with the gifts, with the 99 beads being the prelude to korok seeds I swear…
Anyway lol, tl;Dr I agree about the pacing although I think it’s intentionally self indulgent on the story and the payoff is worth it and while the RPG elements you mentioned for battles are accurate, I would say that the speed and movement are more about spacing and timing. If you know the weak spot and the finisher, then each monster can be dealt with in 2 strokes, and placed well that can be the end of the fight right there.
Also not trying to discount your experience, just adding my perspective :)
I only played a couple hours yesterday, something like 5 games.
I like the gameplay: it’s relatively simple and for once my skills are not too shitty.
It seem to require quite a bit of cooperation and unfortunately, as I don’t have my group of friends anymore, I ended playing with randos which led to inconsistent games: one game I had a great team, the other we were too scattered to win.
Finally, I have to play a little bit more to form an opinion, but I’m afraid that the gameplay will be a bit too repetitive for me.
I've been grinding that Diablo 4 and enjoying it a lot.
After I finished the campaign, I made it to World Tier 4 (highest difficulty) pretty quickly, and I'm now level 97. I fulfilled my dream of becoming a bear that punches millions of demons, so that's pretty cool. Although I can't be a bear all the time though, which is pretty lame. In town, I'm forced to run around as a boring human.
The next season begins in 10 days, and I don't know if there's a short break in between. Level 100 should definitely be possible, and a few other "milestones," but I don't know if I manage to do everything I'd like to.
In Diablo 3, I'd usually play at the start of a season for a few weeks, and then take a break until the next one, so I never burned myself out on it. Since I started Diablo 4 at the tail end of the season, I'll probably end up playing a lot longer than I'd usually do, so burn out is definitely possible for me. A new character should hopefully freshen things up enough, and a friend might also play with me.
Network performance was much better this week, although there are still some hiccups here and there, mainly during the Legion events.
Unless they change it with the upcoming season, there's no downtime between seasons for Diablo 4 like there is with 3, but they do give you the whole season to sort through your inventory in the eternal realm instead of just 30 days.
You mean when your seasonal characters become non-season and your items are mailed to you? In the beginning I was sorting through stuff, still keeping some items, but later I just destroyed almost everything, since I don't play non-season anyway, so I'll probably do the same here.
It sucks, that there's apparently no rebirth feature, like D3 had. I liked playing essentially the same characters over and over again from level 1, and not having to delete them and make a new one.
I miss the rebirth feature as well. I've heard whispers and rumors that the devs may add it in the future since it's requested so much, but that's just hearsay.
Alan Wake 2. I’ll spare any commentary on all the things it does well and that make it a one of the most ambitiously distinctive (AAA) games…ever? because that’s been well covered.
On the other hand, I am kinda surprised that the combat is as… deficient as it is. I never liked the combat experience in the first game. I don’t like how the enemies were programmed to run off screen to the sides of view, because Alan isn’t nimble enough to pivot direction sufficiently to track multiple enemies, and it just felt cheap and frustrating. Dodging is clunky too.
Control was the next Remedy game I played, and I thought the combat in that game was fantastic. The gunplay felt right, and the paranormal powers were weighty and responsive. Even the levitate power looks and feels fantastic; the animation is super cool and I love watching it.
So I had high hopes for Alan Wake 2, but the combat again feels too imprecise and unbalanced. Dodging is still clunky, projectiles clip through objects, etc.
Oh well. It’s a bummer, but in a game like this it’s well overshadowed by the strengths.
It’s kinda insane how much people dismiss “System Shock.” It’s a serious bedrock of a title, so much of what we take as a given of games was really pioneered by LookingGlass. I think a big chunk of that was due to the gameplay not really holding up to modern times, but hopefully now that Nightdive’s remaster is out, more people can experience it and realize just how much of the game holds up.
Probably a close second is the original “Half-Life”, in terms of really cementing the story-based first person shooter, but I don’t think anyone is going to call Half-Life snubbed.
I loved the first level of System Shock, now that it's been modernized. Then I got to the second level, and resources were no longer scarce, and it didn't appear to be shaking up the formula from level to level, so now it feels like Doom with an inventory system rather than the games that took inspiration from System Shock.
Half-Life is still pretty great, but as far as organically teaching the player, it's far behind even its own sequel. There are a lot of cheap deaths that you just have to save scum your way through. My go-to example is that when Half-Life 1 introduces a sniper enemy, you see a hole in the wall that could look like a sniper's nest if I told you that they existed in the game and if you squint at it a little bit, so you just get shot in the back. In Half-Life 2, you emerge from Ravenholm, and a combine sniper with a laser sight is clearly trained on some escaping zombies, so that you know that snipers in sniper's nests are now a thing you'll have to contend with, and you get to observe it safely once before dealing with them in the game. That kind of thing. 90s PC games seemed to be worse at this than their successors and console games at the time.
Sonic 3 & Knuckles and Kirby Planet Robobot for the same reason: while not the most innovative games and not necessarily my favorites in their respective franchises, they represent nearly flawless implementations of their respective franchise’s ideas.
Sometimes I feel like Mario and a couple popular indie games are the only platformers that get taken seriously honestly.
Hellblade II is almost certainly coming out this year, perhaps very soon, so I got Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice for a few dollars on the recent Steam sale. It's certainly a looker, but I would prefer if the mechanics were a bit more sophisticated. Maybe it'll get there, but I'm a few hours in now, and I'm pretty sure I've seen the entire loop. The combat and puzzle mechanics are both what I'd call serviceable, but it's really the presentation in this game that they knocked out of the park, yet I still don't know if that's enough for me to give the game a glowing recommendation, even if I am enjoying the game.
I'm still making progress in Pillars of Eternity ahead of Avowed's release, finally getting into some of the White March content, around level 6. The game remains great, but my biggest criticism thus far is still that the intended player level for a given area or quest should be better communicated. I end up timidly doing the stuff that I'm confident is around my level rather than the content that appears to be most interesting to me at the time.
Some friends and I started up a co-op game of Quake II in the remaster, and holy cow, this is so much better than our time in the first Quake, due in no small part to that compass feature they added. The era of FPS games I'm most into would be the era just beyond Quake II's initial release, and the biggest difference, I'd say, between those two eras in level design is that the older "boomer shooters" would let you get lost in a maze while their successors would close off access to most of the areas that you don't need to bother with yet/anymore, alleviating frustration. It also just feels so much better right out of the gate than the previous Quake, and the levels are somewhat trying to approximate a space that would exist in a fiction created for the game rather than just being a vague labyrinth with monsters in it.
In another co-op group, I'm in the early hours of Titan Quest, as a way of dipping my toes into the loot game genre, which I hadn't really had a taste for in the past. I figured with the sequel on the way, and no desire to touch Diablo with a ten foot pole, this would be a good time to do it. We just had to fight a centaur that I'm not sure whether it counts as a boss or not; hopefully bosses in this game are more interesting than that one was, because with the skills we had access to in the early game (not many), the fight was mostly just running around in circles and taking shots at him when we could without getting pummeled.
You’ve seen everything Hellblade has to offer in the combat department. I enjoyed it personally; it’s really slick in its simplicity, but you are right that it’s not the main draw. Hellblade shines in its performances, journey, and presentation, like you said. Some of the set pieces are just striking in the best (and worst) ways.
It’s a really effective and unique experience overall.
IMO, it’s hard to claim best game of all time unless it ages well, and not just some unique gimmick the game provided at the time.
Ie, I don’t like Tetris but for sure it is one of the best game of all time.
However, if what you mean is good games that somewhat get outshined by others or lacks media attentions, then I agree. There are plenty of other games, and I think people would have bias toward their favorite genre/type.
“Best” and “most important” are also two very different things. Like tetris, pong, doom and some other trail blazers might not be the kind of long-term engaging many people would think of when coming up with best games. But their impact and long term effects on the tech, the market or design of games is impossible to ignore.
that’s why I argue you can’t put “best” and “all time” together. If the title says “best game of their time but got snubbed by medias” then I might have a couple of my own to provide as example.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne