I wanted to like it, but the gun play was underwhelming and gameplay kind of boring.
Worst of all was the progression. Upgrades were tiered in ways that made 1 a clear best choice. Perks were uninteresting passives or actives with bizarre activation requirements. No way to upgrade flares or pickaxes. And I’m not a guy that cares about cosmetics, so it just didn’t work for me.
I’m happy for everyone else that got a GOAT experience though.
I think it depends on how you upgrade it though, slight time increase, colors just for the fun of it, range on how far you throw. None of that Crosses over with the flare gun too much.
I couldn’t get into the souls games themselves but fell hard for Bloodborne and Sekiro. Elden Ring has been hard to get into. The open world really detracts from the game which is disappointing because everything else is really polished.
I also hate souls games and Bloodborne didn’t feel much different.
I think the key issue is that Hidetaka Miyazaki is a masochist and I’m very much not. I don’t enjoy fighting the same boss dozens of times being taken down in 3 hits. Even when I win, I feel more tired than satisfied. I’d rather play a more traditional hack’n slash or some other action RPG where if some boss is too much of a pain I grind a little then stomp them.
I enjoyed Dark Souls 1 and 2 a lot, having played through the first one multiple times. I never tried the others with the exception of Elden Ring, and the difficulty just put me off. Something about the first game made it much more tolerable for me. I think it was the overall speed at which enemies move and their combos being more predictable.
They are extremely tedious, needlessly arduous games.
I think that is in part why I loved them all. It brought me into a different mental state where I wasn’t going to be able to rush. I enjoyed that aspect.
My mind can often wander on to various subjects as well, so there was this perverse meditative aspect because of the tension of knowing that I had to constantly focus on the game or it would just kill me in one of its various, unfair ways.
Zelda breath of the wild - it’s one of the worst Zelda games I’ve ever played and I’ve played so many. There were so many bad decisions made with this game from weapons breaking to getting rid of traditional dungeons. It’s a great open world game but a terrible Zelda game.
The Horizon series by Guerilla Games - These games are good for the most part, however they suffer from long stretches of boring open world where you have to fight robot dinosaurs with underpowered weapons. The whole point of the combat is to find weaknesses with the enemies and exploit/attack those weaknesses, but the game never at any point explicitly explains that concept or focuses on that concept. It expects you to just understand what to do. Not to mention the absolutely stupid grinding for mats to make new weapons and armor. Melee combat is terrible, the story for the most part is pretty good but man does it take forever to pick up, it overstays it’s welcome. They are technical powerhouses but just so grindy and boring.
I agree with all you said about Zelda BOTW. As a Zelda game I was really disappointed. But if you set aside the Zelda part it was actually a pretty fun game for me. I really enjoyed the exploration and it was the best open world game I played so far. But too easy forgettable dungeons and too easy bosses and darn weapons breaking really bothered me so I’m not even interested in the TOTK. I’ll wait for the next Zelda game and keep my fingers crossed.
Pretty sure they’ve stated Zelda games will lean closer to the two recent entries going forward, so those of us who think like this really can only cross our fingers that something resembling previous Zelda titles returns.
What I love about the Zelda games is that they try out something new with each title. So who knows, maybe they’ll eventually do a Zelda that’s geared more to fans of the older titles.
Weapon breaking is controversial but I see it as a mechanic with positive impact on the game. Just because your weapons were not permament it actually added choice into which weapon do you want to use in the battle
It does not add any choice. All it did was encourage me to speed run my way to the master sword and essentially go down the line of weapons I had in a boss fight until I ran out. There was no strategy, just a sense of never wanting to use any of the good weapons and hoarding them. It was so bad I marked a spot on the map where weapons would respawn every blood moon so I could at least have some good weapons. Guess what that’s called in every other game? A repair mechanic. Don’t even get me started on the master sword “breaking” for no thematic reason.
I’m on the disagree side on this. As much as I did use whatever garbage the game threw at me, there was no incentive to use your best weapons tactically, because unless you were fighting a boss, breaking a good weapon would not bring an equivalent reward… and then the major bosses were weak to the Master Sword anyway.
It also felt incredibly unrewarding to explore and open chests only to find yet another disposable weapon rather than some permanent upgrade like the heart pieces used to be.
Around the time I felt like Horizon Zero Dawn did more to encourage smart use of multiple weapons than Zelda did, by giving them different funcions and making it so enemies had different defenses and weak spots.
I felt the same way about the first Horizon game. I was playing on normal, barely making any progress because A) I couldn’t be assed to care about any of the characters, and B) the combat was really finicky.
I mean, I get it you’re fighting giant killer machines with a bow and arrow, but still. I had a way more enjoyable time when I turned the difficulty down and got a couple mods (just ammo and carry capacity upgrades so I didn’t have to stop to collect resources after every single fight).
Every open world game has turned into the same “do this x times to get y reward that has no relevance whatsoever to the game”
I miss the days of games on rails. I could sit down, enjoy a game and play it through to the end in 10-20 hours. Now it seems like every game is trying to milk 100+ hours of gameplay time out of even the most basic of stories and mechanics.
Open world is really only good if it’s something like an MMO where the content is built up over the course of years and there are multiple story lines.
Aside from that, it works well for racing games not much else.
I tend to agree but then I also have moments where I get lost in the world for a few hours and it’s great. Death Stranding is probably my favourite where I walk everywhere and I spend an hour doing one delivery!
I also miss story driven games such as Uncharted games, playing several open world games in a row can be exhausting, I kinda feel it for game reviewers and such.
I found the three newish Tomb Raider games to be a great mix of a sort of open world feel at times where you have things to explore, while being very much on rails. Each arc in the story gives you an area to explore and your actions in that area progress the story. You get some weapon and ability upgrades throughout. I came in not expecting much and couldn’t put the first one down. I think I finished Tomb Raider 2013 to 100% in about 20-25 hours and it was excellent. Will probably do another playthrough at some point, still haven’t played the third.
I agree there. At the very least with the first of them. The 2nd and 3rd started to add a lot of crafting mechanics, but I really enjoyed the first one (and have played all 3 to completion)
I realize this is an overgeneralization I’m making.
every game made since the ps2 was officially retired. I don’t hate them because they’re hard and I’m just not getting the handle of gameplay. I hate them for specific reasons:
the reliance on online modes. games used to be a singular affair between the player and the game. since 2008 online modes have become increasingly necessary to a requirement. with online modes comes a need for a server dedicated to that game. so what happens when the company shuts that server down? you’re sol. and piggybacking on that
games are released buggy out of the box. before a game wasn’t published until it was done. now it’s released on a target date and patches get released along the way. so if you happen to be in a position where you have the physical media but no internet you could have a broken game and not be able to do anything about it. I just think about that situation with the tony hawk game where the manus didn’t ship the game on the disc and players had to download the entire game as an “update”. and what’s going to happen when that server shuts down?
games are moving to downloads instead of on physical media. I’m a full believer in you buy a game you own it. some game publisher just said recently that players shouldn’t own their games anymore. gaming is going to move to a streaming model where you own a service (console/platform) and games will move on and off it when a licensing deal expires. sorry I don’t want any part of that.
games made that don’t require you to be online to have any kind of gameplay are becoming rare. I’m the game player that plays the game just to play the game and doesn’t want to play against another human player online. my competitive juices don’t flow that way. I’m perfectly fine playing against the game’s ai.
At least back in the day, multiplayer games released with the server you could self host.
Or you’d find a chill one that you liked and it became its own little community of sorts with regulars and whatnot.
Now, some games make it genuinely hard to even play multiple rounds back to back with the same people.
The ranking system and match making superceded the lobby.
There’s still a lot of enjoyable games, gems even, but there’s a lot of hot garbage too.
I don’t think it’s (just) Internet’s fault.
Hell, we’d play Diablo over dial-up and it was amazing at the time.
I think it’s more the corpo greed making its way everywhere. No mTx, no subscription, no battle pass, no unlocking bs, no cosmetics, no unending daily grinds, just you, the game, maybe a buddy if your family didn’t need the phone.
DRM didn’t exist, they’d ask you questions about the game manual instead.
I remember bringing the Fallout manual on a trip and reading through it thinking about what character I’d make. Now everything is digital only, you’re almost lucky if it comes with a wallpaper.
I have the exact opposite opinion, heh. Sniper elite drove me crazy when I'd carefully line up a shot and be just too far inside cover and shoot a wall I couldn't see because my freaking character was in the way
This is controversial for sure. But I dislike all kinds of games that focus on driving or racing or flying a plane. I don’t know but driving a vehicle like you do in real life is kind of stupid for a game idea? I want to do things that I can’t do IRL, like murdering a bunch of bad guys, or building a village, things like that. Also casting magic spells is better than shooting a gun, so I don’t really get FPS games.
Racing games for the most part are because it is something I can’t do irl. There’s no way I’m going to get to be one of 12 drivers running the brand new Prototype race cars, but I sure can get almost as close in a racing simulator.
They are all just ways to “do things I can’t in real life” though. I have no interest in murdering people but I enjoy driving and 18 wheeler across Europe or flying all around the world.
Same here as well. It’s the first game that came to mind.
It doesn’t help that there was so much hype about the storytelling.
Maybe the story’s great compared to sports games and Calls of Duty? I finished it, more out of confusion than anything else.
I know people who like them exist given the sales. But not only do I not play or like sports games - no one that plays games in my social circle does either.
It’s like the Venn diagram for people who play RPGs and those who play sports games is just two circles.
I do find it kind of odd that some people only play the latest sports games and nothing else. Also NFL Blitz on the Dreamcast is one of the best games and I’ve never watch a game irl.
Great, unique, iconic, still fun to play. Its biggest achievement: I have brought a lot of people into the hobby by making them play this as their first video game and there wasn’t a single one not having fun. Tower defense is as a whole an underrated genre if we talk about the best games of all time. It also is a game that offers achievements that add a lot to the gameplay by challenging you to change your tactics.
They of course had to make the second one mobile only and on top ruin it with microtransactions. :( Greed is why we can’t have nice things.
Dark Souls 3 and only Dark Souls 3. I love Dark Souls 1 and 2, Elden Ring, Bloodborne is my favorite game, and Sekiro. But Dark Souls 3 is just so boring and unfun. Even the ingame world feels uninterested in this game, (because it kinda is over the whole age of fire thing.) Everything is gross and brown it just makes exploring kind of icky. DS1 had a good balance of gross and majestic locations and enemies. DS2 suffered from too few monsters and too many generic armored knights, and locations felt too clean and empty.
It feel like this game does not like you to diversify your build. Armor is basically cosmetic, and offers very slight damage protection. Poise sucks, and is basically removed, so making a tank build kind of sucks. Its so damn fast and doesn’t give you a ton of options like Elden Ring does. DS3 is certainly the most actiony of the action rpgs, and idk, I’d like more rpg. I remember watching a video about how playing these games at level 1 is the intended and best way to play. I can kind of see that, I think that discredits a lot of the rpg elements in these games. I always saw permadeath runs as the more fun way to play, especially in DS2, that game was like designed to be run as an arcade game.
The game also feels like it rides on nostalgia pretty hard. Anor Londo? Thats here. Andre? He’s here. Firelink Shrine? Thats here, too. Artorias? There’s a whole cult trying to cosplay as him. I actually think DS2 handled this sort of thing better, it being so far it the future from DS1 that most characters and places from 1 are only legend or ancient history. I think it gave 2 a sense of discovery, even if DS2 certainly has much less coherent lore lol.
There are good things in this game. The dlc is fantastic. Certain areas look downright stunning, often helped by the muted color palette. A lot of the bosses are fun when you use the correct play style for them. Pontiff Sullivan or Champion Gundyr is my favorite boss on my most recent playthrough, but I haven’t gotten to Gale, the Twin Princes or Midir yet.
bin.pol.social
Najnowsze