Fine, let’s go with BotW was a bad Zelda game and I strongly disliked it. I tried to like it and played all the way through because I was stubborn, but in the end I think it sucked as did my friends (they all quit long before I did). I wish I hadn’t bought it or spent time in it.
Also, I disagree that it changed the open world landscape. H:ZD released before BoTW did, did the open world stuff better (IMO), and still doesn’t seem like it was radically novel at the time other than the story/setting. The only truly novel thing about BotW was that it was open world in a Zelda game.
Your list of games would definitely rank higher for me as well (assuming Divinity 2 means Divinity: Original Sin 2). I’m sure there are a ton of games in there I’ve forgotten that would also quality.
I’m shocked that BoTW was considered the top game of the 2010s. I felt BoTW was mediocre over all on top of not feeling like a Zelda game at all. As far as open world games, I felt that Horizon: Zero Dawn was more compelling in both gameplay and story and I’m still not sure I’d rank it as a top game of the decade.
The list is honestly bizarre and the rank placements are all over the place. Most of your later examples of that I completely agree with. I just think that the mainline FF games not being on the top 100 list of PC games is fairly understandable, and I say that as a huge fan of the series. Ironically, FF14 is quite literally the only game in the series that I haven’t played.
Regarding the FF games, I think it’s actually fine considering some of the more notable omissions. Most FF games didn’t get released anywhere near when they were relevant.
I’m partially with you on this. I was so confused by people being in love with Goldeneye as I had been playing FPS games multiplayer for many years at that point, Quakeword and its many mods were light years better. That being said, it was highly novel for console-only gamers and the game itself was fun enough once you got over the horrid controller.
I think most Atari 2600 games fell into this trap, not just because they tended to have some of the most awesome covers and lacking tech, but some were just awful ports or phoned in licensed games.
I don’t have many specifically coming to mind, but the Raiders of the Lost Ark game had a really cool cover (still does, but also used to), but the game was an impenetrable mess, both visually and from a game play standpoint. It was quite complex though, so maybe there was something interesting beneath the depths that kid me could never figure out.
Ok, I see where you’re going now, but I’m still not sure I agree with you here overall for the genre.
I think the “add tactics” thing is already done to a degree in these games as early enemies in these games tend to be dead simple since players like likely still acclimating to the game, but I suspect that there is only so much you can do before you end up turning later enemies into some sort of frustrating puzzle. Diablo-likes, for better or worse, aren’t generally mind bending affairs, high skill ceiling affairs.
There is definitely room in the genre for more tactical, skill dependent entries, but I not sure the end result would be as fun for most people as that would be a fundamentally different type game. Hey, maybe I am wrong and this would lead to some sort of souls-like Diablo game where skill and learning are all that matters and items and character building are far less important. Come to think of it, that sounds a lot like Hades in a way.
Your desire to dumb down diablo-likes is your own and I hate it. PoE and Grim Dawn are about the only games like this that I have truly enjoyed in a long time. Blizzard ruined Diablo and WoW with this bullshit take.
I got all the way through the game once, it reset back to super slow after level 99. I almost lost when that happened because I was so used to it being lightning quick heh.
Same here, though I also beat Ghosts n Goblins. Honestly once you can reliably beat the first couple of stages, you can probably get through the whole game.