What makes a game great for you
- Thread starter PapaGreg096
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There's only like 6 of the "towers" in Horizon meaning that doesn't make up a large percentage of the game's content. Plus, the towers make sense and fit the world and they are somewhat enjoyable. The hunts make sense in Witcher though the chests really don't. I could understand the occasional chest but they are literally just copy-pasted in the water for busy work, not to mention the annoying enemies in the water and air along with the horrid swimming controls don't make the chest enjoyable at all.Casual Shinji said:
I don't understand how I'm dictating what games should be. Any work of art shouldn't have any content that isn't enjoyable whether its a game, movie or book. I wouldn't say Ico's combat is bad, it's just simple and "meh" plus it takes up far less time than most RPGs with bad combat. Just because 1 thing in a game or say movie isn't good doesn't mean it's a failure. If I greatly enjoyed ~80% of something, then I'd rate it ~8/10.
The point is Horizon's open world is needed thematically for the vast majority of the game. Plus, it's needed for the gameplay too. Just because the player can delay when the world is at stake isn't Horizon or any game's problem as along as faffing about time makes sense to have at points (I don't feel it does in Witcher 3). Aloy is literally discovering and learning about her world while Geralt or Corvo are not, nor do their enemies need such space either. Horizon is basically Monster Hunter areas just linked together really.
You say this, but then immediately follow it up with this...Phoenixmgs said:
A mandate regarding enjoyment. Can you see how this comes across a bit.. dictate-y? You can claim games shouldn't have bugs, movies shouldn't have audio issues, and books shouldn't have spelling errors, but saying any work of art shouldn't have any content (not related to technical issues) that isn't enjoyable is kind of ridiculous. Enjoyment is a personal thing, not a general mandate. And the way you say it comes across as such -- that a game like The Witcher 3 has a majority of aspects that are factually unenjoyable.
Why would the creator of whatever purposefully put something in their work that they think would lessen its enjoyment? Movie directors do commentary on scenes they deleted and why having the scene in the movie makes an overall negative impact (whether it hurts pacing, doesn't strengthen the themes, etc.) even if the scene is good on a standalone level. Of course, enjoyment is subjective, which I've said like 4 times now that nobody seems to read. With that said, developers of games rarely think in that manner and they try to add everything they could (just cuz it's cool as Mark Brown said, add a bullet point to the back of the box, cuz marketing says so, etc.) regardless of if it actually makes sense to the core game they are trying to make. "More is better" is definitely something that is believed by many devs and pubs. I'm pretty sure many (subjectivity and all) would agree that the loot system in Witcher 3 doesn't make any sense, and the map littered with chests and nests are low quality content. The main reason I rate Wticher 3 as 4/10 because I didn't find the gameplay any good at all, which again is rather subjective. I don't see how you're trying to say that I'm claiming Witcher 3 is factually/objectively unenjoyable.Casual Shinji said:
