Reply With Quote
I was like maybe 60% complete (platinum hunt) in persona 5 and it took me 115hrs.
Persona 5 is def the longest game Ive ever played. was so long.
Tf? How long did you play it?
BTW, if you hate long story holdups, skip Yakuza 0 right now...
And lol st tlou being a movie. The gameplay in tlou is diverse. Its also one of the must fun multiplayer ive played in recent years.
I was like maybe 60% complete (platinum hunt) in persona 5 and it took me 115hrs
Persona 5 is def the longest game Ive ever played. was so long.
Problem with persona 5..leveling up your social stats can take forever if you play it blind. And Asshole morgana has to play mum everytime. "Go to sleep"
Haven't played Odyssey, talking about origins... Which I played for about 35 hours and filled most of the skill tree before losing interest. If that qualifies for a rpg nowadays? And even if it does, sotr is the same. its so laughable to compare the two, and yet I haven't heard a single argument as to why beyond claiming one is openworld and the other is a platformer. I guess the combat is ever so slightly more complex in origins, and the puzzles in sotr are a tad more difficult, but I seriously have a hard time seeing the difference in two games that revolve around exploration, combat, and collecting .
Don't know what's so funny about pinball, has been going strong for decades and new, non mechanical, highly successful games use the same mechanics
I'll take pinball over CoD any day, and my favorite genre is FPS...
ah, gotcha. i haven't played that either. truth be told i've only played AC 2 in full, and it was loads of fun. i started brotherhood right after (gamefly trial), but sent it back because i wanted a break from the AC story. (in a previous post i misidentified brotherhood as AC 3)
i mean you're basically saying that every game in the action/adventure genre is the same because there's combat and exploration. thats very shallow.
alsopinball
You can't platinum Persona games on a first playthrough. There is always a secret boss who only becomes available to fight on the second playthrough of each of Persona 3, Persona 4 (original or Golden), and Persona 5. They're easily the best boss fights in each of the three games.I was like maybe 60% complete (platinum hunt) in persona 5 and it took me 115hrs
Persona 5 is def the longest game Ive ever played. was so long.
I also play Friday the 13th but not nearly as often. I'm a survivor main (rank 1) and rarely play killer, but I do enjoy playing as Meyers and Freddy (probably the weakest killer in the game) Once you figure out how to loop the mind games is where the fun comes in. If you plan on playing solo like I do, you will often get left on the hook no matter how altruistic you are.
Can't go wrong with either. Clear six months for Witcher 3 though.
Dead by Daylight does not have incredible graphics like the AC games, but the gameplay/replayability are top notch. It was made by a small team based in Canada who are still releasing content (new killer/survivor every 3 months) and patching the game. No mics or chat eliminate toxicity to an extent, but people still disconnect/rage quit.
Not a good generalization tbh.. there are plenty of highly complex games available, just as there are plenty of games that are made to be accessible by casuals.. A lot of these games hide complex systems for those who want to take the time to master whatever system it is..
I'm on chapter 3 in Yakuza 0... so far it's been 60 hours of cutscenes, maybe ~20 fights (including the street encounters)
It's actually much more than Kiwami had.
Yeah of you're a combat/Gameplay guy. Yakuza 0 is probably not for everyone. Its got one of the GOATs story lines but if you're already skipping cutscenes, you've already given up on its strongest draw. becomes like a netflix addiction by chapter 5.I'm on chapter 3 in Yakuza 0... so far it's been 60 hours of cutscenes, maybe ~20 fights (including the street encounters)
It's actually much more than Kiwami had.
Combat is def outdated imo.
Baseblinebum rates it higher than I do probably because he likes the side stuff but its def a story heavy game.
I should probably put it on hold, bad idea to play it right after Kiwami...
story should supplement/enhance the game. thats why TLOU pulled it off so well. the story was great, but it also worked so well because it was such a perfect fit with the gameplay. you feel the dread, you feel how tired they are, you feel how on-edge they are during every encounter, so when you run into a clicker that can one shot you, its just terrifying. not that many games have the story and gameplay work that well together. its also why fallout games work so well, at least in the earlier chapters when you're short on ammo/supply/caps. by about the halfway mark you basically become a juggernaut with more caps than you can spend.
its one of my criticisms of RDR2... like when arthur complains about dutch killing people, its like dude, playing as you i've murdered hundreds of people
Yakuza has great gameplay parts. Most fans of the series talk about its amazing side activities. The sidequest are actually top notch. The Combat is maybe a 6/10. Average.story should supplement/enhance the game. thats why TLOU pulled it off so well. the story was great, but it also worked so well because it was such a perfect fit with the gameplay. you feel the dread, you feel how tired they are, you feel how on-edge they are during every encounter, so when you run into a clicker that can one shot you, its just terrifying. not that many games have the story and gameplay work that well together. its also why fallout games work so well, at least in the earlier chapters when you're short on ammo/supply/caps. by about the halfway mark you basically become a juggernaut with more caps than you can spend.
its one of my criticisms of RDR2... like when arthur complains about dutch killing people, its like dude, playing as you i've murdered hundreds of people
Its an 8.5 out of ten. Imo, but ive seen fans rate it close to 10s because they enjoy the side activities.
I think Angryjoe review is spot on for people who have never played the series. I didnt enjoy the side activities like managing property and bars, angryjoe did..But he also said its got one of the better stories hes played in a very long time and all the characters in the game have strong depth.
The villiains are probably the best ive seen in video games.
What Im saying for a game like Yakuza 0, the gameplay is not limited to the combat. Thats what fans of the series say. So many other things to do..I just personally didnt enjoy them or i guess a better way to say it..I enjoy the main plot so much i just skipped everything ( same thing angryjoe was talking about)
Haven't really touched it since I initially downloaded it for free awhile back on PSN. but Dead by Daylight has actually been fairly entertaining, although incredibly frustrating at times. I can't stand how slow everyone moves
It has huge learning curve but it's one of the only games that I will stay up until 5am playing without realizing it.Haven't really touched it since I initially downloaded it for free awhile back on PSN. but Dead by Daylight has actually been fairly entertaining, although incredibly frustrating at times. I can't stand how slow everyone moves
i can see that. tbh sounds like a rockstar game. story driven, solid yet unspectacular gameplay, and mediocre combat. a lot of side content.
Last edited by spurraider21; 01-21-2019 at 09:02 PM.
I'm primarily talking of the AAA market, yes. It's irritating to see what are essentially movie games praised to no end as "one of the greatest games of all time" by video game journalists (how good or bad the story is should have zero influence on a game review). I think the purest form of video game out there is the racing genre. I'm not necessarily saying it's the best, but racing games check all the boxes of what makes a good game/compe ive activity, forcing you to learn the car's mechanics, track nuances, with customization options through tuning that can be explored for a literal lifetime. Fighting games are similar in this regard.
My basic requirement for what I consider a good video game is rewarding the player with progression (or higher scores) as his skill improves. And those skills should come with a learning curve. Something like the Uncharted series can be beaten easily on the highest difficulties just by being patient. There's really no "system" to learn. Same with many AAA les in general. AAA game budgets are as big as blockbusters, so they obviously want the player to progress to the next fancy set piece they spent months working on.
I don't dislike AAA games necessarily, but I consider them more interactive entertainment than games for the reasons you cited.
But that doesnt' personify "modern gaming" its just a sign that increased budgets and improvements in the underlying tech give developers a lot more variety to work with. you can still play sidescrollers, platformers, shoot-em-ups... but you also have the options to play this sort of game. you aren't forced to play narrative intensive games, and its unfair to suggest that modern games only follow that path.
Modern gaming is kind of defined by AAA les. Whenever I have this conversation, people always mention the indie scene and/or the lower budget les that are inspired by the design of older games as "proof" modern gaming isn't dumbed down, but the irony here is that citing modern games with that design approach proves my point at the superiority of past game design.
First playthrough was also on hard, and I didn't find that to be my experience at all. Also, a problem with modern games, even when played at the highest of difficulties, is the forgiving checkpoint system, which is why they're tensionless. True tension in this regard is spending 40 minutes to get to the final boss of a shooter and knowing if you up, it's all the way back to the beginning. Again, the forgiving checkpoint system is implemented because the designers want to move you along to the next set piece.i dont understand your gripe with the last of us. lets say you dont care for narrative/storyline that much, since you want a "game" and not a "movie game." even then, my first (and so far, only) playthrough of that game was gripping. i played on hard difficulty, not survivor or grounded (though i definitely am itching to go back and play on grounded)... and the atmosphere of the game was flawless tbh. on hard, there are a lot of moments where you find yourself pretty short on supplies, and you want to scavenge, but with your unfamiliarity of the levels, aren't sure if you can freely roam about or if some infected is sitting around the next corner. or more specifically, when you're in the basement and need to start the generator, it's ing terrifying
When I say older games, I'm not necessarily just talking about the arcade, 8 and 16 bit eras. Games like Godhand, Viewtiful Joe, Ninja Gaiden have relatively steep learning curves to their combat system but are 10-20 hour games. And yes, the health pack system in old first person shooters is far superior to regenerating health. You can't just go hide somewhere. When you're low on health, it changes your approach to the situation (i.e, you tried to go in guns blazing with full health/full shields, but caught a missile. Now you're at 30% and have to play the situation stealthily. In a modern shooter, you just hide, get full health, and go in blazing again), making for more dynamic gameplay and a greater generation of tension.older games required massive learning curves because those games are able to be beaten in less than 1 hour once you've learned it, and the developers could never justify a full game price. so the "game over" concept was a necessary strategy they pulled from quarter-eating arcade games. but a lot of modern games do come with similar learning curves, but you have to play at the appropriate difficulty. again, as developers want to reach a wide range of audiences, they can dumb down difficulty in games where your character is a near invincible damage sponge. play the arkham asylum on hard difficulty... its not the most challenging game, but you realize how quickly batman goes down. play it again on normal and you realize just how much more of a margin of error you have. i agree that turning enemies into damage sponges is a poor method of ramping difficulty, but ramping down YOUR character's health is more intuitive. it means you cant be half paying attention and lazily spamming buttons. you need to be precise. you previously claimed you preferred old shooters because you died in one shot and didn't have regen. that's purely a damage threshold preference, and not a game design quirk. heck you can play HOD on hardcore difficulty online and basically have that same dynamic.
i dont think this is a one sized fits all description though. i think it perfectly defines rockstar games. and they're great for what they are, but nobody is playing GTA games because they feel accomplished for managing to beat the game.
that's your prerogative. and even then, god of war is a big AAA le that won all sorts of awards. i haven't played it yet, but from what i've read, has moved on from its button-mash origin and has a new tactful combat system. you can always find what you're looking... taking a handful of big name games and claiming thats what this generation has to offer is lazy.Modern gaming is kind of defined by AAA les.
that "superiority" is just your opinion. people are saying you can still find modern games that are designed in the manner you may like. there are times when i enjoy the grinder games, there are times i just want to sit back and casually get through a game. and there are plenty of in-between games that demand your attention (when played on appropriate difficulty settings) that aren't getting you to pull your hair out.Whenever I have this conversation, people always mention the indie scene and/or the lower budget les that are inspired by the design of older games as "proof" modern gaming isn't dumbed down, but the irony here is that citing modern games with that design approach proves my point at the superiority of past game design.
i need to git good thenFirst playthrough was also on hard, and I didn't find that to be my experience at all.
i dont agree with this criticism at all. whats the point of making you spend 38 minutes doing the same thing flawlessly over and over and over again just so you can master the last 2 minute segment. its just a waste of time and lazily increases the lifespan of the game instead of simply adding more content.Also, a problem with modern games, even when played at the highest of difficulties, is the forgiving checkpoint system, which is why they're tensionless. True tension in this regard is spending 40 minutes to get to the final boss of a shooter and knowing if you up, it's all the way back to the beginning. Again, the forgiving checkpoint system is implemented because the designers want to move you along to the next set piece.
i will grant you that some games have absurd checkpoints, like in between stages of the same boss. but those are very few and far between.
but again, that's not every game. sure, that's the case in call of duty... but if you're playing on hardcore, there's no health regen. in games like TLOU, max payne, you need to use resources. the brilliance of the TLOU was making you decide between crafting health packs and molotovs, as they drain the same two resources, which are very limited, particularly at the higher difficulty settings.When I say older games, I'm not necessarily just talking about the arcade, 8 and 16 bit eras. Games like Godhand, Viewtiful Joe, Ninja Gaiden have relatively steep learning curves to their combat system but are 10-20 hour games. And yes, the health pack system in old first person shooters is far superior to regenerating health. You can't just go hide somewhere. When you're low on health, it changes your approach to the situation (i.e, you tried to go in guns blazing with full health/full shields, but caught a missile. Now you're at 30% and have to play the situation stealthily. In a modern shooter, you just hide, get full health, and go in blazing again), making for more dynamic gameplay and a greater generation of tension.
Anyone played divinity original sin 2?
Its got 10s and 9s in metacritic. Curious tbh.
Midnightpulp talks about ninja gaiden. Did he forget that bloodborne is basically ninja gaiden in steroids.
Smdh.
Would love to midnightpulp do a lets play of bloodbrone and get zoned
Ninja Gaiden 6-3 is much harder than anything in Bloodborne IMO. Ninja Gaiden 6-3 is that brand of stupidly unfair you see in a few NES games.
There are currently 9 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 9 guests)
Posting Permissions