Dunno I guess because its a very specific type of game that is based on a lot of systems working in harmony with each other which is something the Japanese have always seemed to be better at than western devs. Its easy to make a bad fighter but very hard to make a good one. There is Skullgirls which is a great western fighter (and the only one imo) but MK9 and Injustice didnt suck.
OT: Sandbox type games, I just dont see the point of this most of the time. The only one I have seen that does it well is the elder scrolls series. For most of them it entails wander around large possibly boring environment get to a mission perform linear mission travel to next mission etc. Oh and ofc collect the pointless collectibles and probably do some races or other repeatedly repetitive tasks in the sandbox bit because they couldnt think what else to do with it. It almost always feels like they built the world then tried to shoehorn a game in there.
Phoenixmgs said:
I'll go play Bayonetta for not only the better combat but better characters, story, and setting. It's sad that Bayonetta has a more original setting than most RPGs and a better story.
What? you liked the story of Bayonetta I love that game but thats because of the amazing combat the story was frikkin horrendous in my opinion the first playthrough I had no idea what was going on and its attempts at humour fell flat like it was looking at DMC1 (same guys I know) and just tried to copy it. It honestly felt like it was trying to be OTT and wacky for no reason other than to be OTT and wacky a lot of the time. Characters were also terrible and only a few had any personality at all. Sounds like im ripping on the game and I am but its still one of if not the best game of its type out there.
Not sure about the originality of the setting I mean I did like that and talking about originality in these things is largely pointless as everythings derivative of something but Bayonettas setting is basically a fantasy Europe setting and its just about 2 factions who represent Light and Darkness in order to keep the balance shit happens she loses her memory awakens 500 years later and eventually regains her memories and saves the world. I would say its about average in its setting nothing highly original but it at least tries to create something new which is something a lot of WRPGS in particular dont bother with which can get annoying.
Not really a genre, but the common theme between all of these games is - why are they games? They certainly don't do gameplay well. They have great stories (from fantastic to good in the list above), but wouldn't they be better off as movies / TV shows? The gameplay in all of these is just bad or almost offensively mediocre.
Since when is hitting enemies with a murder of crows, chucking a fireball at them to get the crows burning, and having electricity hitting all the enemies (due to your gear) while you go around shotgunning enemies not good gameplay and not fun? Oh, and the enemies that die lay crow traps and other enemies walk into them. When people say Bioshock Infinite has bad gameplay, all I can think to myself is that no FPS will ever make them happy.
You forgot to quote the part where it said I like Halo.
Also, the gameplay was never really balanced well enough and I never had a good incentive to try out the different weapons and powers. They were just visually different, I found. Enemy variety was boring; each one didn't really need its own strategy. And for that reason, none of the fights felt unique and were tedious as a result.
The only good thing I have to say about the gameplay in Infinite was the rail-based combat. It was pretty much the only thing that felt satisfying to pull off.
In addition to all this, the shooting never felt great and the controls didn't feel tight. In your own words -
Bioshock Infinite is kinda like Borderlands to a degree, it's all about combining different things together (powers and gear in Infinite, powers and skills in Borderlands), the shooting in both games are average at best but it's the other stuff that make both games so much fun.
What? you liked the story of Bayonetta I love that game but thats because of the amazing combat the story was frikkin horrendous in my opinion the first playthrough I had no idea what was going on and its attempts at humour fell flat like it was looking at DMC1 (same guys I know) and just tried to copy it. It honestly felt like it was trying to be OTT and wacky for no reason other than to be OTT and wacky a lot of the time. Characters were also terrible and only a few had any personality at all. Sounds like im ripping on the game and I am but its still one of if not the best game of its type out there.
Not sure about the originality of the setting I mean I did like that and talking about originality in these things is largely pointless as everythings derivative of something but Bayonettas setting is basically a fantasy Europe setting and its just about 2 factions who represent Light and Darkness in order to keep the balance shit happens she loses her memory awakens 500 years later and eventually regains her memories and saves the world. I would say its about average in its setting nothing highly original but it at least tries to create something new which is something a lot of WRPGS in particular dont bother with which can get annoying.
I don't get how people didn't understand the story, it's pretty simple. I loved every bit of the cheesy humor, it was like a great B movie. Even Vanquish has its moments; the 2 main characters are basically having a gravelly voice competition the whole game and the Red Dawn-esque plot but in the future (and actually makes more sense than Red Dawn). I love that Platinum doesn't try to come up with serious storylines that fall flat.
I found the whole witch mythology interesting and way better than the standard pointy hats, brooms, and cooking shit in cauldrons. I just loved the whole hair thing as well. I like how they made demons and angel neither bad or good and what other game has you fighting angels. It's nothing super original but it was refreshing enough.
SKBPinkie said:
You forgot to quote the part where it said I like Halo.
Also, the gameplay was never really balanced well enough and I never had a good incentive to try out the different weapons and powers. They were just visually different, I found. Enemy variety was boring; each one didn't really need its own strategy. And for that reason, none of the fights felt unique and were tedious as a result.
The only good thing I have to say about the gameplay in Infinite was the rail-based combat. It was pretty much the only thing that felt satisfying to pull off.
In addition to all this, the shooting never felt great and the controls didn't feel tight.
The vigors were pretty different; the crows, fire, and shock ones were similar, the charge basically made you into a Mass Effect vanguard, possession was different, and charge & undertow served similar purposes. You had at least 4 majorly different things you could do with the vigors. Most shooters don't have much enemy variety or strategy (you shoot them), Infinite was better than most. The controls were fine, not quite as tight as the best FPS, but you're not really supposed to shoot that much, it's all about using power weapons like the shotgun, sniper rifle, volley gun (that's the anti-handyman gun), etc. I even used nothing but power weapons on 1999 mode while not buying any ammo from the vending machines.
2) 3rd Person, Cover Based: This is the most lame default genre for a game. If a game gets made from a popular movie these days, you can bet after much argument the developers are told to make the game a cover based 3rd person game. Ever since the massive success of the world's most inane soap opera for men, Gears of War, in which you follow a race of aliens (too big and thick to be human) investigate all those fifty shades of gray, publishers have determined that this was the holy grail method to make money on every system. But for me, I see most of them for what they really are: a shooting gallery. Press a button, and your dude goes into cover? Are we that lazy; we can't duck behind a wall ourselves? I really think people bought these for the sweet movie like visuals (Uncharted series), but once this pretty pixels and lights thing wears off the genre will be stripped down to what it really is. In most cases, very very boring.
I know that Gears of War takes a lot of shit for being a dudebro game but if you play it in Insane or against other good players in multiplayer it does become more then a shooting gallery into something closer to X-Com where position and flanking are key.
Of course if you play on Normal or with crappy players that dont use any sort of tactics then it really is a shooting gallery, no doubt about that (its worse in multiplayer since health regenerates for everyone so if no one makes an offensive move then on one wins). Still a good match will leave you trying to figure out a way of exposing the enemy making him vulnerable from every side, kind of like in Brothers in Arms and X-Com. In Insane (and with a co-op buddy) you will really need to use flanking tactics instead of the typical "wack-a-mole" gameplay because the enemies being more agressive will try to outflank you.
Still, I understand that the game can offer that boring gameplay experience, Im just saying that it is also capable of offering much more.
2) 3rd Person, Cover Based: This is the most lame default genre for a game. If a game gets made from a popular movie these days, you can bet after much argument the developers are told to make the game a cover based 3rd person game. Ever since the massive success of the world's most inane soap opera for men, Gears of War, in which you follow a race of aliens (too big and thick to be human) investigate all those fifty shades of gray, publishers have determined that this was the holy grail method to make money on every system. But for me, I see most of them for what they really are: a shooting gallery. Press a button, and your dude goes into cover? Are we that lazy; we can't duck behind a wall ourselves? I really think people bought these for the sweet movie like visuals (Uncharted series), but once this pretty pixels and lights thing wears off the genre will be stripped down to what it really is. In most cases, very very boring.
I know that Gears of War takes a lot of shit for being a dudebro game but if you play it in Insane or against other good players in multiplayer it does become more then a shooting gallery into something closer to X-Com where position and flanking are key.
Of course if you play on Normal or with crappy players that dont use any sort of tactics then it really is a shooting gallery, no doubt about that (its worse in multiplayer since health regenerates for everyone so if no one makes an offensive move then on one wins). Still a good match will leave you trying to figure out a way of exposing the enemy making him vulnerable from every side, kind of like in Brothers in Arms and X-Com. In Insane (and with a co-op buddy) you will really need to use flanking tactics instead of the typical "wack-a-mole" gameplay because the enemies being more agressive will try to outflank you.
Still, I understand that the game can offer that boring gameplay experience, Im just saying that it is also capable of offering much more.
Eh, for me the problem wasn't the generally "meh" gameplay. The problem with the Gears of War series is the boring story, boring cliched characters, repetitive nature of the gameplay and *TERRIBLE* riding/vehicle/turret sections. I mean seriously. Most people
wanted to murder Dom in the face after the second game, but now he gets a big boo hoo when he finally eats it in 3? I wanted to throw a party.
Anyway, I'm sure on harder difficulties, the game can be challenging. However, challenging doesn't necessarily rise to the level of fun. X-Com is fun. Gears of War is a giant repetitive snooze-fest.
1) Spunkgargleweewee: Otherwise more professionally known as Gun-Wank games. You know 'em, you've probably all played them, you guilty maggots! I'll admit it, I own two (okay three) of them. But I'm not buying 'em anymore: why? Because they have gotten to a point of terminal bloat. I crap you not, the CoD: Ghosts trailer features Megan Fox, for no reason, other than they have money and they can, which has become the mantra of these games as they've maxed out the basic premise years ago. Why not have a dog, with animated dog hair? The programers already lifted all the stuff and guns they needed from the old games, what else are they going to do? These games make mountains of cash, but as far as I can tell are on the way out. They are no longer intelligent (not that they ever where about that), they keep slapping out the same game, with poor pacing, slave-like player mechanics, and poor stories, in which your role as player seems bizarre to useless at best, besides shooting things. So here is me hoping Ghosts flops, to show the industry CEOs this kind of thing can't go on forever unchanged. But some of you've probably already pre-ordered the deluxe super ultra collector's edition*. Ho-hum.
To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure what sort of slavering primitives you take the fans of the game for, but was it really necessary?
It's a simple game, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Think about sports games, is it not the same thing game after game? Don't the updates tweak and add features just like Call of Duty and Battlefield?
I find it hard to believe how people can just ape the insincere phrase he came with for what I thought was known as Modern Military Shooters and just pile on venom. I appreciate that you don't like the game, I honestly, really do. That said, it seems like you're judging an apple for being an apple and not an orange.
Let's take this in an itemized fashion:
I'm not sure what this indicates at all? Other than the fact that they have enough money to hire Megan Fox to plug the game? Dante's Inferno had a gigantic multipronged marketing scheme that used dates with models, cakes shaped like body parts and even joke-bribery. I can't quite link how a game is advertised with how a game is, or plays. They are separate departments, with seperate intentions.
Was it a good idea? Perhaps. I'm not sure any celebrity really appeals to a demographic. ActiBlizz even hired Mr. T and Chuck Norris, and a slew of other folks to plug World of Warcraft. They were amusing if nothing else.
This closely relates to my original statements comparing these games to sports franchises. If the product is successful, which you admit it is, would it not be prudent to refine it rather than end the franchise or go in a competely different direction? Either way, it just comes down to our opinions on the tactics being employed.
Forgive me for not quite comprehending what you imply with the phrase "slave-like player mechanics". In regards to the pacing and story, consider the following postulate: If we agree that these games are predominately played for the multiplayer, then how much of a critical impact does the storyline have?
Of course, unless you relate to Mr. Croshaw in the respect of playing what are essentially exclusively multiplayer games for the single player. I know some people play the campaign and are done, that's fine. These people would still fall into a minority when it comes to the game's central demographic.
Other than posturing your bias claims in such a way that attempts to disarm defenders of the game, I'm not sure what other reason this comment serves in regards to the topic at hand.
Essentially, what I'm getting that is this: The fact you don't like the game is no small secret, but why do people clamor so much for change to something they might not be a fan of to begin with? You may not like the way the game is, but other people may. The fact that these people who are content to play through whatever offerings ActiBlizz puts out doesn't minimize their desires. I would even claim that these 'invisible supporters' have enough sway with their wallets to justify (in the Publisher's eyes) the way things are done.
It's incredibly bizarre how some can confidently deride games that they may not play or aren't interested in at all in order to encourage a change for something that doesn't appeal to them. What does it matter that Call of Duty does what it does? If people like the game and are happy to play it, then what exactly is the issue you have?
This ended up being fairly lengthy. However, Ruhsey, I appreciate the dialogue you've put forth and hope we can joyfully debate this in a civilized manner.
Yes well it is easy to write off my argument as my opinion, because it is, but that does't mean my critical opinions don't take weight, in my eyes and others. Just because something exists, as it is, doesn't make it good or correct. Nothing would ever change if this remained true in history. But, Call of Duty certainly doesn't hurt anybody. So it is perfectly okay to like it as it is (and you can). But, I believe though that I have the right to expect something new, because I believe the entire genre is becoming a waste, and I believe it could be better, potentially a lot better. Call me hopeful, call me dreaming, but I'd rather see attempts rather than constant stagnation, and for that I also hate repetitive sports games too. The difference is if one wants to better the gaming industry, push it into a means of producing art, or only foster entertainment. And notice the "only", I am not suggesting the entertainment value needs to fade, only it needs to come with more intelligence and thought. Think about Modern Warfare 1 and Spec Ops, those games shook up your expectations. They pushed your cultural narratives to new heights, aka surprised us. The nuke in MW1, raised the stakes, and my emotional investment. The twists in Spec Ops, darkened my understanding of the horrors of war and insanity. While it didn't take away from the fun. Whereas you may find entertainment from video games, understand that I look for more. And you call me out for it, but don't be surprised that people (like me) expect more. I'd rather have a culture that moved, over one that reflexively and constantly self-referenced and copied itself for pleasure. I already have the apple, now I want the orange too!
I don't get how people didn't understand the story, it's pretty simple. I loved every bit of the cheesy humor, it was like a great B movie. Even Vanquish has its moments; the 2 main characters are basically having a gravelly voice competition the whole game and the Red Dawn-esque plot but in the future (and actually makes more sense than Red Dawn). I love that Platinum doesn't try to come up with serious storylines that fall flat.
I found the whole witch mythology interesting and way better than the standard pointy hats, brooms, and cooking shit in cauldrons. I just loved the whole hair thing as well. I like how they made demons and angel neither bad or good and what other game has you fighting angels. It's nothing super original but it was refreshing enough.
Each to his own I suppose I agree the story was simple but it was very badly told and very boring imo as for the humour for me it felt like they were going for cheesy (but entertaining) and failed instead it fell flat on its face and wasnt entertaining at all a bit like Dante was after DMC1. I dont care whether the storyline is serious or not but I to am glad they had a bit of fun with it and didnt make it super serious but instead they just ended up with a non serious story that fell flat rather than a serious one that did at least for me anyway.
Not sure what game you are referring to with the standard witch trope there I cant really recall many witch games there was a bullet witch game which I never played but I think it was all about guns and magic powers bit like Bayonetta (probably done no where near as well). I did like the hair thing as well that was cool. Cant think of any game that has had you just fighting Angels but they have been enemies before in quite a few RPGS and ofc there is one in Tekken, I get what your saying though but I could apply it to other games like Worms what other game has you fighting worms as enemies?
Demons and Angels being various shades of grey is also nothing new. I guess I was just disappointed with the characters and story in general and the fact that I still hold the game in high regard shows just how much I loved the gameplay (on hard and above anyway hated normal for some reason). I have been impressed by what I have seen of Bayonetta 2 though the setting already seems to have more life to me but then its hard to say for certain with only small previews to go on but damn I want that game.
I know a lot of people in RL who liked Bayonetta but I honestly dont know anyone who found the story more than bearable at best, guess we just had different experiences and tastes there. For cheesy humour I think Platinums Anarchy Reigns did it better and of course Asuras Wrath did it very well imo totally nailing its tropes with its tongue firmly lodged in its cheek (and yet still deliver a decent story).
I know a lot of people in RL who liked Bayonetta but I honestly dont know anyone who found the story more than bearable at best, guess we just had different experiences and tastes there. For cheesy humour I think Platinums Anarchy Reigns did it better and of course Asuras Wrath did it very well imo totally nailing its tropes with its tongue firmly lodged in its cheek (and yet still deliver a decent story).
It's not like I'm praising the story or anything. The story serves it purpose like say how the story in Army of Darkness serves its purpose. And the story was more interesting to me than most RPGs that are supposed to have good stories.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
