I've NEVER finished DAO because of the Fade. I mean, I finished the Fade, and I even got a little further in the game, but it killed my momentum and drive. I never want to touch that again.
On the other hand, Ill play games that outright have flaws I don't like, depending on how severe, so yeah. I just found the Fade really freaking tedious.
It depends on how fun the game is otherwise and how severe the non-flaw flaws are.
Keep in mind this is for a gaming audience, and they probably thought they were being subtle. I still have to point out to people that this is the inevitability of a recurring theme in the game itself, that this is, effectively, what the whole game was building towards, years after the game dropped.
The thing that turned my cramps on the most is cutscene incompetence. You know, something that's artificially created to stop you from solving the problem normally, like giving up to 2 enemies right after you mowed down 5 others because I can't control the character. See: Tomb Raider.
Sometimes. I really like Dragon Age Origins, but the thought of playing the Fade again prevented me from buying it on the steam sale. I like mass effect but the resource mining in all three games just sucked the life out of them.
On the other hand I can easily turn off how stupid "kill ten rats" cliche is in MMOs and really enjoy them for the most part. If you can do this MMOs are great, if you can see them for what they are, MMOs are just terrible.
I know the Fade is a bit of a drag. But did you know that their is a mod that lets you skip it?
OT: I love Mass Effect but since the ending (don't worry not going to *****) I have been unable to work up enough enthusiasm to replay any of the series.
I can, so long as the thing(s) in question aren't thing(s) that you have to deal with all the time. Although, in most cases, if there's something in the game I don't like it's usually because it is a flaw/is flawed in one way or another.
Keep in mind this is for a gaming audience, and they probably thought they were being subtle. I still have to point out to people that this is the inevitability of a recurring theme in the game itself, that this is, effectively, what the whole game was building towards, years after the game dropped.
Well, that's what bothers me about it I think. If they want gaming to be taken seriously, like an art, they need to start treating us like adults because, let's face it, many of us are.
It's a recurring theme allright, it's been recurring in every R* title they've made this generation. That's probably the other thing that bothers me about it. I have a feeling GTAV will have this theme as well but I hope they take advantage of the three character dynamic so you can at least have one character build an empire of his own. I miss that.
Not really. If a game has flaws (and they are not serious), I can forgive them because nothing is perfect and some are eventually going to get better or be over, but if they are features I will simply not play it because its not the game for me.
For example, consider the difficulty of Demon's Souls or the constant timer on Dead Rising. I don't like either of them, however I don't think they are flaws; they are conscious design decisions and they are central to the games. I get that people like the games precisely because of those things, but since I am not interested in them, I am not interested in playing those games or any of their iterations.
By the way, I consider the pacing of levels like the Fade in DA:O, the Library in Halo, Hades in GOW and many of the examples named here to be flaws. Some of which I can overlook.
Well in Resonance of Fate they sometimes like to make certain characters unavailable for certain chapters.
What if I wanted to go explore that area over there with the really hard dudes?!
Oh well. I got over since I could just rushed through the story part of the chapter and get the character back, so long as I didn't go back to base and end the chapter.
I can overlook flaws easier than things I just don't like.
Because if a game is functioning "properly" and I still don't like it, why am I playing that game?
Take Skyrim, that game is full of flaws. I love it.
Take Black Ops 2, I got through the whole game without seeing a bug, terrible game. Absolute crap. But it works as intended, which is worse because that means somebody thought basing a whole game around cover based shooting was a good idea!
Or like the Multyplayer in Last of Us. Yeah, it works, and it was supposed to be there, but at the expense of all the bugs they didn't fix in the single player. Which makes them harder to over look because somebody thought adding multyplayer was more important than fixing them. I guess Last of Us is sort of a grey area for me, or any game with tacked on MP and bugs in the SP. It begs the question: Did they leave the bugs in intentionally so they could spend more time working in the extraneous bits?
My logic is anything done intentionally deserves more scrutiny than anything done by accident.
I had forgotten about the annoyance of turret sequences. I started my first playthrough of Dead Space and have been enjoying the game. I still find it weird to play a character in third person view and not be able to jump, but I can't hold it againt the game. Plugging away and came to the first "space walk" portion of the game, chapter 4, I believe. Games that are unforgiving of mistakes can mitigate the frustration level by giving some clue/hint about what the player is doing wrong; however, games that use insta-kill, make you sit through a load screen again and then kill you again without any suggestion as to what you are doing wrong or should be doing are poorly designed games. Had it not been for someone else's question on the web, I might have stopped there. Once I got past that portion, I came to a lovely turret sequence with an inverted axis for up and down--something that does not exist in the game prior to this moment. My skills are not finely honed, so now adding to my problems with accuracy on a controller, I now have to reorient myself with how the game wants me to target moving objects. Add to that my sense that the targeting controls feel rather floaty compared to what I was doing on my own two feet and you have a seven-time fail state that caused me to put the game down.
I'm already playing on easy, as I'm more interested in the story than anything else. I can only imagine what this sequence might be like on hard difficulty.
So there are two more reasons (turret sequences and lack of feedback coupled with insta-kill/load screen) why I find I cannot forgive something that is not an actual flaw but detracts from the experience.
I can overlook being in first person for battle ONLY if the rest of the time is in 3rd person like in Dragon Warrior or Shin Megami Tensei; Devil Survivor and similarly styled turn-based JRPGs.
Wait you played a porn game but don't like porn? Do you also often find yourself running head first into walls?
If I remember correctly there are only a mere million billion dating sims that you could play instead and not have the porn part in there.
Anyway I don't really ignore anything unless it goes unnoticed, it's a simple balance of good parts vs bad parts... no game is perfect after all and if the good outmatches the bad then I'm still ok playing it, but that doesn't mean I approve of any bad part.
Oh, definitely. I'm a big player of Dust 514, despite CCP still bungling simple stuff like weapon balance and not getting caught on level geometry. It's still a decent game regardless, and I'm hoping that once they finally wrangle all the bugs, imbalanced BS, and otherwise crappy stuff out of it that more people will give it a shot.
I suppose. I liked Neverwinter Nights 2 despite the fact that the game doesn't seem to want you to actually play it. I even started to enjoy the combat after a while. Turning off ALL the AI helps, although you then turn into an OCD control freak because you have to micro-manage your entire party all of the time. It was maybe just a case of playing it until I liked it, and the familiar D&D 3.5 rules carrying me through. The writing was good and occasionally pretty funny, and I liked that I could build pretty much any 3.5 class\race combo.
Mon-Musu Quest, Monster Girl Quest.
I've been talking about this game a lot, haven't I?
'But D-Class-a-bunch-of-numbers-not-even-you-can-remember, what does your silly porn game have to do with this thread?' I hear you cry.
Well. After I sat my butt down and played through all three parts, I realized I thoroughly enjoyed the game. The gameplay was simple but functional, the monsters were varied but not so much you had to switch tactics entirely, the story was actually very good, the characters were likable, and in some cases, adorable, such and such. Hora hora nobody cares.
And the only reason I liked it so much is because I overlooked something that wasn't really a 'flaw', and more of something I didn't really like about it - the actual porn bits. I say it isn't a flaw because that's what the game was made for, and it seems that a great storyline with good characters were accidentally thrown in.
So...I have a question. Are you able to do the same? If you play a game, can you overlook things you simply don't like, or not?
Well, as much I would like to lie and say that I didn't like all of the porn bits in Monster Girl Quest... I will say that there were some instances where I just didn't want to see how they would go down with some of the monsters... (No pun intended...)
However, whenever I do replay Jak 2, there is this one mission that, on Hero Mode, was so difficult that I felt like some of the times I died were due to cheap shots done by some of the Hellcats... I had no problems with this particular mission on normal mode, but on Hero Mode it seemed like there was no way to truly beat this mission without making a truly perfect run on the first of the three sections of the mission... or to become Giant Dark Jak and destroy one of the first spawning points... It not a flaw, by any means, since you can still beat it regardless... It was just a point in the game that I never liked playing through if I want to beat the game again on Hero Mode...
I tend to see flaws as inherent and generally okay. I don't mind flaws. They;re part of what makes a game a game. Flaws, of course, being bugs, glitches, and things that just don't work. Elizabeth in Bioshock: Infinite freaking out over her first witnessed murder, then not 5 minutes later gleefully helping you slaughter dozens, is a flaw with the game. Dishonored having so few options for non-lethal options, yet specifically pushing you in that direction, is a flaw. Skyrim and the royal mess of bugs was nothing but flawed. These are three of my favorite games in the past few years.
Something I dislike? Can be a very big deal breaker for me. Flaws I can overlook as inherent to gaming, disliking a part of the game is disliking a core of its systems. Someone who dislikes pineapple, for example, probably doesn't have too much fondness for Hawaiian Pizza. Sure, you can pick the pineapple off, but then you may as well have just ordered a ham pizza, and even then you have bits where cheese was removed with the pineapple and there is still some pineapple flavor, due to the juices mixing with the pizza during cooking.
A great example is Dragon's Dogma. There is no fast travel, somewhat clunky combat, and most high-end armors for rogues and mages lack character. Then, there's the issue of my character; for shits and giggles, I made the smallest, youngest girl possible as my character. So here I am as a twelve-year-old girl, and everyone instantly sees me and respects me as the greatest warrior in the land. The duchess falls in love with me at first sight (despite being a prepubescent girl). I end up banging the ugliest love interest in the end of the game because I did one quest for her (again, little girl).
All of those? Flaws. Despite all of those things, I would love to play through it more and more. However, then I killed the Dragon and started act 2. And now I refuse to play any more of the game, knowing how it all ends up.
Half of the Capital city is destroyed with the Dragon. The duke loses the dragon's blessing and withers, then condemns me to death for it. There is nothing left in the game at this point other than to explore bleak, dreary dungeons and catacombs while collecting goods for the endgame. Sure, I can explore the countryside and fight powerful monsters, but there's no goal in that; only grinding and monotony.
Not to mention the end of the game, where you get to live out the rest of your days as a ghost; with no one remembering you and what you did, and those that do despise you for it. All you are is an immortal spirit doomed to live out the rest of your days watching the world condemn and forget you, only to finally end it in suicide, dying alone, forgotten, and forlorn.
THAT is disliked. THAT is terrible, as far as I'm concerned. It it's not the flaws, but rather the dark, terrible turn that Act 2 takes that burns me out on the game, and makes me want to avoid it.
Well, that's what bothers me about it I think. If they want gaming to be taken seriously, like an art, they need to start treating us like adults because, let's face it, many of us are.
Considering how blatant they were and how many people were confused and/or pissed, I think treating us like adults is a bad idea if they want to sell games. I don't know, I'd like to be treated more like an adult. I just think that we're probably in the wrong hobby for that.
Well, anyone can overlook the minor flaws in the games they like. No game is devoid of flaws, and there are always a few things you would rather work differently, but if you tossed out every game that had bits you didn't like, what games would you ever play?
In my case, I happen to be very forgiving in this area. I can rationalize a lot when it comes to a game doing something I would have done differently. I just put it down to, "Hey, I didn't make the game, I don't know the specific situations the devs were dealing with, I don't know what happened to make them reach this decision, but they did, I'm stuck with it, and as long as it does work the way they wanted it to, who am I to make a big deal out of it? Why should this ruin a game I otherwise like?"
Seriously, I have even been able to make myself enjoy certain parts of certain games that I normally would dislike, simply because I can forgive the devs who put a lot of work into the game and I just want to enjoy playing it. The Mako sections is ME1 are a favorite scape goat of fans and haters alike, but I just turn my judgment switch to "off" and let those sections happen without getting worked up about them. I can find the fun in just bouncing around in that 50 ton brick, squishing geth and driving up vertical slopes.
I'd argue that narratively speaking John's death was a lot more about the inevitability of escaping your past and the general theme of the death of the old ways in a changing landscape. And the effect was achieved at least to the extent that I generally had the idea we got him home clean, only for his past to come knocking on his door one last time.
But they really beat you over the head with that theme don't they?
I got that. In fact I think that everyone got that before getting halfway through the game. That coupled with the fact that I'd already seen the guy get shot, trampled, fall off a cliff, get mauled by a bear, and set on fire; it all just made his last stand seem pretentious, predictable, and as such, a little unnecessary. The federals couldn't do anything to that guy the world (or me for that matter) hadn't already done to him. I didn't really care about his death at that point.
Same thing with the guy at the end of LA Noir. Or GTA4; it's hard to feel for the character's loss when you have him driving top speed through pedestrians on the sidewalk. It's like hiding a delicious meatloaf... but inside a delicious chocolate ice cream cake. Sure you enjoyed the ice cream cake, but why would they ruin the meatloaf like that?
You're right to say that some of those aspects are hamfisted to you. But regardless of some gameplay mechanics (i.e. you can die in a lot and often hilarious ways), it does fit and is in a way the logical conclusion. John Marston as the living embodyment of the Old West fought till his last straw to preserve his way, but change waits for no one. And it can be seen how we, as a whole, can be ruthless (almost zealot-like) in the name of progress. Was it forced on you after all was done? Perhaps, but maybe despite what we all wanted and what Mr. Marston wanted, the story was NOT done until then. It was as much forced on him as it was on us, the player, so to say.
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.
