If we're sharing honest opinions minus filter here: if you worded your question differently, more people would answer, and they would be less defensive and have more interesting answers. You've limited the people who will reply.
Condescensing and annoying people like myself will still have a lot to say, but people with fun stories and heartwarming anecdotes will not want to put themselves out there for what seems like will be a snarky put-down as a response.
Specifically, the "kiddie game" opening was fine, but the way you worded the followup came across less like you were confused and more like you wanted to have a group shit-on of adults who play mario kart. Being a little more vague would've been your friend here. "but it looks like i was wrong" might've convinced people who don't want to be shit on to give an answer.
The part about it being unfair by design was fine, but the last paragraph again comes across as "anyone want to hang here and make fun of the losers who like this obvious bullshit?"
anyway, i don't play party video games generally but my impression is they want to appeal to different skill levels, abilities, and ages, so they often have additions that level the playing field so it's not just Gamer Frieda winning while everyone else gets bored and gets out the playing cards (which can also have a random quality that means sometimes the newbie will win or at least not be bored and frustrated).
These catch up elements add extra elements for dedicated players to account for, which is more memorization and reflex training, which is a kind of fun for the type of people who play outside parties.
Honestly? Not really. My best memories of gaming were in my 20s in my student flat. Lots of Team Fortress 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2.
I played games in the early '90s and don't have much nostalgia for most of the games themselves. The late '90s had the PSX and N64 and whilst Mario Kart 64 is probably the best in the series I can't say I feel most of the games of those platforms were "the best".
I think I would say that the best games are the PC games that came out between 1998 and 2002. Those I can genuinely enjoy today.
I cannot say the same for much that came out in the 1980s. Most of them entertain me for about thirty seconds, without hyperbole.
Once we get past the early 2000s I'm hard pressed to find any games that I think are truly "the best". 2007 was pretty damn good as was 2009.
When it comes to gaming with friends any game can be good. The game is practically just a framing device. I've not made many friends whilst gaming. I've gamed with friends but mostly I've found that people either just want to be arseholes or are extremely serious about playing online. In person I've found that the skill disparity means that it's a complete crapshoot. I played a lot of Mario Kart 64 over a ten year period and don't have any outstanding memories of it being the best thing ever (I think it's the best MK game but that's because the others are worse).
Mostly I like games that I can use as escapism. Exploring fun places and getting away from the day to day. I've rarely had all that much fun gaming with other people. Exceptions exist though - playing through the recent TMNT game with my teenaged niece was a blast. Playing KeyWe with my wife was also great.
Not really. I am just a bit younger, growing up between the 80s and 90s. I still play old games, only those that aged well though, but sometimes decades after their prime. I play new games a lot too. And games from any time in between, as long as they do something right.
And there are many, many games around which you can bond just as well as you could back then. Not even talking specifically about multiplayer games (which I don’t play very much at all) I’ve always been a fan of “co-piloting” games, just sharing the experience of playing, spectating, commenting around a game.
Some games are fantastic for this. Some games are rich enough that you can share your experience and discover other people do stuff completely differently. This sort of always existed (for example, what’s the right way to complete Legend of Zelda?), and this is still true even for somewhat simple games, but possibilities have only increased in range. I am pretty sure nobody plays a game like Rimworld or Tears of the Kingdom the same.
I was born in the same year, 1976, and I really don’t feel the same way. Pretty much every era has bangers and also really bad games.
I have really good memories from the '80s (games like Pitfall II or the MSX Konami games), the '90s (playing MUDs with my college pals, the classic SNES JRPGs like Chrono Trigger or the classic PC CRPGs like Baldur’s Gate and its ilk), the '00s (games like Silent Hill 2, Morrowind or GTA: San Andreas), the '10s (pretty much every FromSoft game from that decade, NieR:Automata or the Rocksteady Batman games) and the '20s (games like Elden Ring, Hades, etc.). And many more games I didn’t mention.
Some decades have been better than others, but there are incredible games in all of them.
trying not to have too much of a spoiler___ The game has a new game + type mechanic that allows you to grow stronger in a specific way that I won’t ruin. Unfortunately that means focusing on an outpost or series of outposts becomes somewhat pointless. Depending on whether you care about the extra strength or not, you could either play through a few times to build up that strength, or just stick to your single game and build your outposts there.
Aside from what I wrote in the spoiler (which I hope really didn’t spoil anything) if you’re on PC I really suggest giving the Star Wars Genesis mod a try when you’re done! It’s a complete overhaul and it’s pretty damn cool!
I’ll have to give it a try if I end up enjoying it. I’m not much of a Star Wars fan outside of the prequels but it would be cool to see it with the engine
Its funny because I have no issue killing or robbing NPCs no matter how good or friendly they are. But the second any multiple choice response pops up, pictured below is me any time I hover over the rude answer.
The 80s had some great games. Donkey Kong. Pac-Man. Galaga and Galaxian. Super Mario Bros 1,2,3. Zelda 1 & 2. Contra, Castlevania, Megaman
But the 90s had Mario World and Mario Kart. Super Metroid. Link to the Past. Donkey Kong Country. Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time. Crash and Spyro. Sonic. Medal of Honor. Goldeneye. Half - Life.
I’d probably take the 90s slightly over the 80s. Heck even the 00s have Half-Life 2, the GTA series, the good Call of Duty’s and Halos. And the 2010s had RDR2 and GTAV.
2020s haven’t had any super great games yet though.
If you’re not having fun with Mario Kart you should play Drinking Mario Kart. Everyone gets a beverage of their choice. By the end of the race it has to be empty. But because we are all responsible adults we don’t drink and drive. In order to take a sip (or down the whole thing) you have to drive off the track (or to the side, whatever is possible) and come to a complete halt.
Loser drinks one more because they are a loser. And the winner drinks one more to celebrate.
You know, it’s funny, I’m about halfway through DMC4, and I’m loving it even more than 3 thus far, but even through cultural osmosis, I know a turn is coming. Other than that, I was surprised to find how much I agree with you, having not played 5 yet, but maybe I’m not as fond of the first game as you are; nothing seems to flow in that game compared to later entries, and I’d argue it often has more in common with Dark Souls. I went down this road playing this series because Hi-Fi Rush knocked my socks off, and I’m still expecting that game to have the most in common with DMC5. So far, I’d still say Hi-Fi Rush beats them all, but it got to learn from them, after all.
OK, so I'm gonna say this about action games: if you approach them like you do every other game—one playthrough and you move on—most are gonna disappoint you. DMC5 in particular is possibly the worst culprit; however, if you're willing to commit to exploring their depth and play on the highest difficulties, holy shit some of the best gaming you'll ever experience.
This is why I cannot take casual reviews of action games seriously because any action game fan knows the first playthrough is the tutorial, while for most people it's the whole game.
I can't really fault people for wanting to move on after one playthrough, but when they say stuff like "I played DMC… and it's not that good" I just wanna say: yeah, no shit, because you didn't stick around to explore why everyone else is praising it—you played the tutorial and moved on.
We could argue whether this is bad game design, but the truth is not only does it work, I don't believe there's any way for a game like DMC or Bayonetta to feed all of its combat depth to players in one playthrough. Hell, it's not enough for the muscle memory to kick in to get even close to mastering everything, so I cannot really blame devs that much.
Ohhh well because it’s casual fun I suppose. Why is Mario party fun? Sure it’s RNG bullshit but the fun part is playing with friends.
Mario Kart World is not a 9/10 game. It’s a 7 at best compared to Mario Kart 8 Deluxe
I’m waiting for Sonic CrossWorlds to see what a Game it brings. The creative director was passively trash talking Mario Kart so let’s see if it can back up the talk
I do not understand how world is as highly rated as it is. The levels are awful, too big and lacking anything to make them stand out, moving between tracks is dull and just leads to extra win-moring, auto attaching to rails fucks up more often than not causing you to over compensate or just jump off of it by accident, it feels like they game just overrides your input sometimes even without auto steering, 24 players adds nothing but chaos if you aren’t leading the pack and is likely the reason levels are way too wide and featureless, and I miss custom horns per character.
World is a 7 at best and 8 is like a 9.
Edit; oh yeah free roam is worthless. The list of events in DS was better without contributing to fucking up the level design to fit the gimmick
bin.pol.social
Najstarsze