Any weird/controversial opinions? I’ll start. Before the remake, the best version of Resident Evil 4 was the Wii version. The Wiimote controls old Resi’s tank controls better than any other controller at the time. The PC version had a bunch of little bugs and detractors that the Wii version just doesn’t have.
I’ll extend this by saying that the Wiimote is actually pretty damn good for shooters, and particularly good for accessibility. Not having to cramp up my hands to press buttons is awesome for having arthritis. Aiming with the Wiimote and moving with the nunchuck just feel really natural, you barely have to move your fingers for anything.
Games are designed like this because too many gamers still subscribe to the extremely flawed “dollars per hour = value” assessment. XP systems and bloated open worlds cater exactly to this fallacy, because more is always better…right?
Games like the Tony Hawk 1+2 remaster for example did not need an XP system shoehorned in (not to mention an “achievement” for reaching level 100). Games can have inherent value that isn’t tied to how many hours you have to interact with them.
Agree with you, but I don’t think all achievements should be easily accessible.
Reaching level 100 should be an achievement. And I’ll never get it, and that’s ok.
My issue with that achievement is that it’s strictly an enormous time sink - it stands in stark contrast to the other elusive achievements in the THPS remaster that are genuine tests of skill.
It doesn’t help that the game caps the max XP you can earn per session, so even if you are a THPS savant you still can’t earn XP any faster than everyone else who has to cheese it past level 80.
I posted a comment on Reddit talking about how disappointed I am hearing that the AC set in Japan is going to be made by the Valhalla people and I got destroyed for it. Like I wanted Japan since brotherhood and now I get this? I don’t like the newer games because they just don’t respect your time and that’s a bummer for me.
I agree. I’m also a bit of a completionist by nature so it’s doubly as painful since I can’t just do the main story…
I have gotten a bit better about it in the last few years to be fair. Though sometimes I relapse and realize I’ve wasted 80% of my free time that day doing mediocre side content.
I personally do enjoy long and open games. But Valhalla managed to go way too far even for me. It very noticeably came at the cost of quality, with many dull side quests. The map was actually too big. It needed to drop a region or two, because there was just soooo many regions.
Odyssey had the same issue. In fact, I found it worse there, because I recall I completed even less of that game.
The DLCs for all the AC games have at least been much tighter and a better example of a reasonable size.
Red Dead Redemption 2 isn’t a good game. Everything is ridiculously time consuming, buggy, and slow for no reason. Painstaking attention to detail on insane things nobody will ever see or care to look at (like horse balls shrinking in cold weather) is not a good enough reason to be considered a good game.
I feel like modding is sometimes a good answer to situations where a developer has spent a lot of money creating assets, but the gameplay that they made with those assets is limited.
I wonder if there’s potential for ways to try to take commercial advantage of that, like have another developer basically bulk-license the assets from an existing game and then just produce new gameplay. I can’t really think of many examples off the top of my head. Some commercial FPS mods, but usually they make larger changes than to just gameplay.
Paradox Interactive is eventually going to release so many DLC that they eventually collapse inward from their own gravity and implode, taking the company’s future with them.
That isn’t a hot take though, everyone and their mother makes jokes about how many DLC there is for Paradox Interactive games.
Here’s the real hot take -> I don’t mind the amount of DLC on Paradox Interactive games. Every game of their I’ve played was really good on its own, and I only buy any DLC after I’ve poured tens of hours into the main game, usually not because I feel like anything was lacking from the main game, but just because I want an excuse to keep playing it. So for all I care, they can keep making all the DLC they want if the base games keep being this good.
I guess you can spend a lot of money if you buy them on release, but I personally never do. And both their games and the DLCs pack are always on some sale. I’m pretty sure I bought Stellaris for like 10 euros and eventually bought a bunch of its DLC in some DLC pack for another 10 euros. The same for Cities Skylines basically. 20 euros for the amount of fun I took out of those games is hardly a lot.
How’s it any different than buying a new game though?
In the end, is paying $30 for DLC and getting another 50 hours of gameplay really that much worse than paying $60 for a new game?
As long as I actually use the DLC, to me it’s equivalent. I’m paying money to extend the hours of entertainment I’m getting.
Ive got collective thousands of hours in paradox titles. The good dlcs (and there are trash ones I haven’t bought) adds dozens of hours of playtime. They also keep the mod community active which adds hundreds more.
It seems expensive but 10-20 bucks every few months is reasonable to me.
My bigger issue is some of them are starting to feel very paytowin with the feature/power creep (compare vanilla Russia/Ottomans in EUIV to dlc versions for an example)
I’m fine with paying money as long as what I’m getting for it is commensurate to what I’m paying. I don’t think that Paradox is a particularly bad actor there (not the best, either). I mean, the DLC model permits funding production of more stuff for a game that one likes in a direction that one would like.
There are a number of games where DLC is sold by publishers at vastly higher prices than the content in the base game, though, and where the base game is kind of indadequate on its own. That is something that I’m not really enthusiastic about.
It probably works out about the same as buying a subscription for a game, which many do for lots of games. I still think it’s egregious, but then again I own all Stellaris DLC, so…
Honestly whenever I see a game on sale for <$20 and I open it only to see 5+ DLCs that increase the price, I just close the page and move on without even bothering to research whether or not I should buy the DLCs. Fuck that mess.
I always hated complex combo systems in fighting games like Tekken and Street Fighter. Fighting games shouldn’t be about being able to input 50 super precise key combinations in the span of 1.5 seconds. It should be about positioning, timing, improvisation… Guilty gear strive and super smash bros is proof of this. Every game that gatekeeps new players for not memorizing the built-in combo that takes 60% of your opponent’s HP feels like it’s still stuck in the 90’s arcade game era. Most fighting game series refuse to move forward. There, I’ve said it.
I think the combos in Street Fighter are already too much.
How should I twist the stick to make the special attack for this character? Hold on, pause the game so I can look up. Oh, I filled up the ultra attack meter, let me check how to perform it for this character.
They should just adopt the control scheme they implemented for Ryu in Smash Bros. Forward + B for Hadouken, Up + B for Shuriyuken, etc.
They did, SF6 has “modern controls” as the default, that get rid of motion inputs entirely.
Guilty Gear Strive and smash have these combos though, and just like street fighter they aren’t required to do well at beginner levels(even at higher levels you can get by with basic bnb combos).
The main thing fighting games need to do better is teach new players, as it isn’t clear what you should be learning as a beginner. That’s probably why so many people think its combos they have to learn.
The other things you mentioned, “positioning, timing and improvisation” are all infinitely more important in every fighting game when compared to combos. Long complex combos don’t matter if you can’t land a hit.
If the only combo you know is a 3-hit combo that does 20% HP, and your opponent has a 15-hit combo that does 70% HP, then you just need to hit the opponent 5 times while avoiding getting hit 2 times. If your spacing, reactions, and adaptation are much better than your opponent’s, you can win consistently.
Of course there’s always gonna be different variables when it comes to stuff like specific game knowledge, but that’s usually not as much a skill issue as it is a knowledge check. In the end, stronger fundamentals will always reward you more in the long-run.
@simple @LeylaaLovee I think where we are now with fighting games is exactly where it should stay. Auto combos and modern controls make it so the bar to entry is super low, but they need to be scaled down so that they do less damage and the incentive should always be learn pure combos to get better. At the end of the day there’s no interesting high level play if you can press a button three times and do 30% damage.
People who get video game burnout or say gaming is dead or whatever are victims of AAA marketing.
Most of the time I see posts like this they complain that they bought all the newest games with great reviews and aren’t having any fun. Normally it’s Sony games and other cinematic experience kind of games. Or they are games that they put 100’s of hours into. They are doing the same stuff over and over and getting bored.
Unfortunately critics care more about production values and polish than novel game mechanics. Plenty of interesting games get overlooked due to being a little weird or not fitting in modern game conventions. If you only play the big budget AAA stuff you are going to get burnt out because they all copy each other trying to be the next “big game”. If you play games that get bad reviews, have weird mechanics, or do something different you won’t get burnt out. I like to recommend the Gravity Rush games to people who have a playstation and are burnt out on the “cinematic” games. They typically have never heard of it and end up having a blast with them. Makes me sad when I see people still buying games based on metacrtic scores. They miss out on so much.
I know this post is about games specifically, but this is so true about all media. It’s wild how many people bemoan how “bad” movies/tv/music/etc is, when it’s super obvious their only frame of reference is mainstream media that’s mostly doing the same thing all the time. If they took a look just once at indie content creation, they’d see there’s so much cool stuff out there. But their so locked into the “right” media that they don’t consider anything else.
Getting back to games, I rarely ever buy AAA games anymore. There’s so much cool indie stuff being released all the time, it’s simply not worth it to me to deal with all the downsides that come along with AAA games.
Ugh you’re not joking. Many of my friends that game complain about the same thing, yet getting them to try any new game that isn’t League of Legends, Apex, Dead by Daylight or Destiny is like pulling teeth.
The worst part is that most of those games have an endless grind or some sort of FOMO mechanics that encourage people to keep playing even though they’re having an awful time.
Perhaps they’re the kind of people who see anything that doesn’t require at least 100 hours per month to progress as a waste of time. I used to play that often until I found a job. Went from 5+ matches of league daily to maybe 2 per week.
There’s legitimately 0 purpose to playing a bit of a game when it won’t change the status quo of your life.
All we want is a game that’s worth wasting our life on.
I guess that is how people in monogamous relationships see polyamory…
I still don’t know how to go about finding these. I’ve had so many bad experiences I hardly know what I like anymore. All I “know” is I’m not big on FPS games. But at the same time I loves The Last of Us.
It’s hard to find something unique but I’ve found some of my favorite games by taking a gamble and playing a game I don’t know much about. If the box art looks cool or I like the trailer I give it a try. Game critics don’t help much as they only like specific kinds of games so I can’t rely on them too much.
