What's a popular game series that you just can't understand the hype for?
-
Mass Effect and KotOR
Both have absolutely terrible gameplay. Fans tell me the story makes it worth it but if I want a good story I can read a book.
ME1 is playable if you pick a gun focused class. The caster classes are brutal to play. 2 is a bit better for casters, but ammo and cover mechanics get annoying. 3 is pretty good but has the weakest story and the space exploration is the most annoying.
-
Assassin’s Creed
I think when I tried it originally I wasn’t into the controls and how they felt. I’m more forgiving these days so I wonder if I’d enjoy the series now? I love a good story.
Black Flag was the 1st I played and the only one I enjoyed. Tried others and they were just 'meh'.
(Why is a decent pirate/sailing game so hard to make? - almost 15 years later and still nothing seems to come close to what Black Flag offers)
-
“Souls-like” games - memorise attack patterns, the game. Not hard, just tedious.
Are people memorizing attack patterns? This one comes up a lot and I don't really get it. The boss does a thing and I react, which is how most real time combat games are, I think?
I guess something like Skyrim you mostly just stand there and trade blows.
Memorizing attack patterns IS how you're reacting though. How many of the bosses can you walk in and just wipe the floor with on the first try? You learn that a pull back to the right means you need to dodge left, now; a dash to the right means waiting two seconds, jumping, then dodging towards them; etc., etc.
I know for certain that when I go replay elden ring the only reason I can clear the tree sentinel as soon as I leave the cave is because I know just how to react to the boss' "thing."
-
I'd watch a story recap for the first game, then play all of them after that up until black flag. Origins/odyssey/valhalla are good if you are into massive open worlds that can get pretty repetitive and have about a billion side quests and stealth doesn't matter nearly as much unless specifically required for some rare quests. I love them, but the Ezio trilogy was peak AC imho.
-
I agree with your critique of souls-likes, but there was something really special about the original Dark Souls that none of its successors really captured. This was before they decided that "ultra-hard" was a good selling point and the attack patterns were far more simple. The atmosphere and difficulty were still there, but they made sense and fit with the rest of the game and its ideas very cohesively.
Not sure if anybody will understand this, but it's like the difference between spicy food that's spicy because it has peppers and spicy food that's spicy because they added a bunch of artificial stuff. Spicier usually means tastier, because it has more of the flavorful peppers. But in the case of, for example, Dark Souls 2 or Elden Ring, it's like they just added a bunch of capsaicin (difficulty) without including any more flavors of the peppers. The difficulty is beyond the degree to which it was artistically meaningful in the original Dark Souls.
I love you for the spice metaphor (which I have to use all the time on friends who gift me hot sauces), but did you really think DS2 was harder than the original? It's my favorite, and it's because of the combat being 'slower' and the open vistas of the world appealed more than the first game. Hell, it introduced bosses that you didn't even need to dodge if you learned which way to move during their windups.
-
I really tried, maybe 20-30 hours, but didn't enjoy it much.
Playing as a spellcaster was maybe a mistake.
I recognize it's a quality game though. I might try again with a melee character. Maybe modded?I might try again with a melee character.
Maybe. The sorcery/incantation/various melee is less of a distinction than many make of it. A lot of it ends up feeling the same: you dodge, wait for the opening, hit your 'attack.' If the 'learn to be a badass by learning patience and boss attacks' isn't your thing though, you might never find yourself liking it.
The best elden ring experience is elden ring seamless coop. It makes the game 100000000x better. If you want to play with someone, hit me up. I just got elden ring working again on linux (it had a freezing problem until I reinstalled the OS, probably the nvidia drivers borking out), and am loving it.
-
Everyone is going gaga for Peak rn (including my BF) and I don't see the appeal at all other than maybe the social aspect. The game itself looks boring AF.
I also haven't liked many AAA games since graduating high school. All these things that are cultural phenomena like The Last of Us just... Didnt like 'em. I feel like most of the AAA games that blow up in popularity are only applauded for the story and dialogue, because the game itself tends to be generic and mid and does nothing special, unique or interesting at all.
I want to see a shift from focusing on telling a story or trying to be High Art and just make a thing that is fun to play as a game that also isn't loaded with MTX and is only fun to play because it psychologically addicts you.
I had a friend try to get me to get peak, and it broke my heart. There are a ton of those types of games, but because it's multiplayer you have to get others to get into them and I just... couldn't do it. They get popular for a few weeks, then you never play them again. I still haven't gotten my friends to beat chained together with me, and I think that's the bee's knees! I'll stick to the ones I already have and try to push folks to buy those because they're under $5.
-
Mass Effect and KotOR
Both have absolutely terrible gameplay. Fans tell me the story makes it worth it but if I want a good story I can read a book.
I'm curious what you thought was terrible about KOTOR's gameplay. It was pretty much D20 star wars (I can't remember if d20 was the ffg or the other company's) with the computer rolling the dice, and D20 games are pretty neat.
-
i spent a couple of dozen hours with hollow knight as a fan of the metroidvania genre, but after a while the barriers to continuing were just too many. after a while, any traversal basically requires combat, and the grindy combat just slows the game to a crawl. add to that the corpse run mechanic, and at that point it's just not worth it.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Since you like Metroidvanias, have you tried Ori and the Blind Forest? Personally I found it to be tuned very well for difficulty. I ended up beating it without realizing there was a triple-jump ability you could find.
Unfortunately the sequel, Ori and the Will of the Wisps, wasn't as good in my opinion. They ended up pulling a few mechanics from Hollow Knight, which detracted from the uniqueness of the first game.
-
Pokemon. I had a blast playing Emerald, but starting leaf green directly after, I lost all interest in the series. It just felt like being punished to have to start from 0 again and maybe Emerald is just a better game. I'd like to give it a try... if you'd let me play it on my phone or pc, Nintendo! old woman yells at cloud
You might try the custom made roms. I personally loved the fire red version that someone modded to make it so you couldn't just grind out levels to win. The gym bosses used strategies and had tms that countered the easy type bonuses.
-
Halo. I've been hearing about how cool and just good the games are. How deep and interesting the lore is.
I was visiting old games I heard good things about but never played. I had finished with the Half Life games and enjoyed them.
Then I decided to get the Master Chief Collection.
Started with Reach. Shooting immediately felt bad. The characters started dying off almost immediately after meeting them. Then the game was finished.
That was... Disappointing.
Well alright. Maybe Reach is a black sheep.
Onto Halo CE. Shooting felt even worse. The open areas were pretty cool, but there were a lot of small frustrations with the game. Story wasn't anything special. Certainly none of that "deep lore".
Well... Halo 2 then? Felt a lot like Halo 1. More story, yes, but it was as if the game assumed I was already invested in the story. About two thirds in I realised I was still waiting for Halo to finally become cool or good.
I stopped playing.
Decided Halo as a whole is very overrated.
Halo was good because it was good when it was released. The concept of 'good story with gunplay' has been massively upgraded by now, AND the story told has been repeated by other games/tales with their own twists so it feels like you've seen it before. Completely agree with you on shooting feeling off. The only reason I would play it in the coop modes is for nostalgia.
-
Really? Which one(s) did you play?
The first 2 are actually great games, and we're especially fortunate to even have the 2nd one considering it's insane budget.
I haven't played 3, but it looked like it tried to do things differently and that didn't work.
3 felt so completely different. 2 was my favorite, and I grew to like 3. I can completely understand someone trying to play the original and not liking it. It feels horribly dated now. I also couldn't really get through the fourth.
-
Hmm, I really liked most of the GTA series.
- So much fun driving around and shooting stuff up. Great humor as well.
- Even better with nice graphics and lighting effects.
- Just wow, GTA but you are actually in a 3D city.
- Vice City had a great vibe and colorful world.
- S.A. huge world (felt like it at the time) and a great radio soundtrack. So much to see and do.
- Depressing, slow and mostly a chore.. Didn't like this one.
- Alive, funny and beatiful open world. Really great if you skip multiplayer and the later milking of the franchise.
- We'll see...
The Lazlo character was also great on the radio show.. He was kind of the voice of reason until they completely ruined him with an apprarance as sleazebag on GTA V.
Vice City had a great vibe and colorful world.
Vice city is my personal favorite, maybe just because of the helicopter, but the feeling of its setting was sick. The whole mobster schtick really worked, while the later games all felt sort of forced with their criminality.
SA and its multiplayer mods were so freaking cool, though.
-
I'm curious what you thought was terrible about KOTOR's gameplay. It was pretty much D20 star wars (I can't remember if d20 was the ffg or the other company's) with the computer rolling the dice, and D20 games are pretty neat.
The "make the decisions and then spend five minutes watching them play out" thing was the main frustration with that one. Maybe it feels intuitive and natural for someone who grew up with tabletop RPGs, but for someone more used to roguelikes and JRPGS it felt like the feedback loop was too long.
-
Memorizing attack patterns IS how you're reacting though. How many of the bosses can you walk in and just wipe the floor with on the first try? You learn that a pull back to the right means you need to dodge left, now; a dash to the right means waiting two seconds, jumping, then dodging towards them; etc., etc.
I know for certain that when I go replay elden ring the only reason I can clear the tree sentinel as soon as I leave the cave is because I know just how to react to the boss' "thing."
How many of the bosses can you walk in and just wipe the floor with on the first try
A pretty good amount, though that's confounded by playing lots of similar games over the years. But, like, I see the boss lift his weapon way up and I go "I bet he's going to swing. I should get out of the way." Sure, there is an element to "I've seen this before - I know if I run behind him after the big butt stomp I can hit him easily", but that's hardly unique to fromsoft.
What sort of games don't have enemies that you learn their moves? Like, you play Baldur's Gate 3 and you learn "ok, that wizard has Sleep prepared, I should keep my HP up." Or you play Hades and learn "ok, these guys like to charge but then take a second to recover". This complaint is not unique to souls-likes but I don't know if I've heard it brought against any other game.
-
Since you like Metroidvanias, have you tried Ori and the Blind Forest? Personally I found it to be tuned very well for difficulty. I ended up beating it without realizing there was a triple-jump ability you could find.
Unfortunately the sequel, Ori and the Will of the Wisps, wasn't as good in my opinion. They ended up pulling a few mechanics from Hollow Knight, which detracted from the uniqueness of the first game.
yes, i really liked it. it was a bit difficult in some places (i don't know how many times i had to re-do the tree flooding) but the aesthetic really made it worth it.
one of my more recent stand-outs in the genre was yoku's island express, which is also a real treat.
-
How many of the bosses can you walk in and just wipe the floor with on the first try
A pretty good amount, though that's confounded by playing lots of similar games over the years. But, like, I see the boss lift his weapon way up and I go "I bet he's going to swing. I should get out of the way." Sure, there is an element to "I've seen this before - I know if I run behind him after the big butt stomp I can hit him easily", but that's hardly unique to fromsoft.
What sort of games don't have enemies that you learn their moves? Like, you play Baldur's Gate 3 and you learn "ok, that wizard has Sleep prepared, I should keep my HP up." Or you play Hades and learn "ok, these guys like to charge but then take a second to recover". This complaint is not unique to souls-likes but I don't know if I've heard it brought against any other game.
It's not a complaint to me, personally, but I can see how some folks might not like it. A similar feeling for me would be the way racing games are designed, with npcs having 5-10% extra acceleration, while you have 5-10% greater top speed, meaning that you have to be far better at keeping your speed up, which entails learning each race track very well compared to just being good at racing in general.
As to the bg3 or hades, yeah, completely agree. Using enemy patterns against them is one of those things where having played other games in the past means you can play this game better. Elden ring though, specifically adds in false timings and 'gotcha' mechanics that punish dodging at the wrong time, or in the wrong direction. It's much more blatant than in the dark souls games. Melania and her butterfly dance, margit and his golden hammer swing, pause, swing, the crucible knight and his sword dragging on rocks AND his double tail swing and so on. Those aren't bosses you just walk in and fight well the first time (well, margit is such a git, so maybe him).
-
I love you for the spice metaphor (which I have to use all the time on friends who gift me hot sauces), but did you really think DS2 was harder than the original? It's my favorite, and it's because of the combat being 'slower' and the open vistas of the world appealed more than the first game. Hell, it introduced bosses that you didn't even need to dodge if you learned which way to move during their windups.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I did find it more difficult than DS1 but, as in my metaphor, in a more artificial way. I'm thinking of the nerfed rolling frames (before you level ADP), more difficult parry timing, far more multi-opponent bosses, and especially the way that dying will reduce your max health. Any of these on their own would be totally unremarkable, but all together it feels like there was much more explicit focus on adding things to make it more difficult (which I believe was also reflected in the marketing of the games).
I also think that the atmosphere and artstyle of DS1 was much more serious and unique, whereas DS2 has comparatively much more ghoulish cartoony vibes, which just made it feel incongruent. Eg: the undead are now green and less scrawny, making them seem more like generic goblins rather than how they were in DS1. I just feel like there was an overall shift in the focus to be less about the unique world and its story and more about a Ghosts 'n Goblins -esque rage game.
I don't think Dark Souls 2 is the most difficult in the series but I think it's the first one where the difficulty started to feel unfair and like it was missing the point.
Basically here's the vibes I get from each game:
DS1: A somber and holy journey
DS2: Ghosts 'n Goblins but 3D
DS3: Killing cool bosses is so cool
ER: All of the above -
I did find it more difficult than DS1 but, as in my metaphor, in a more artificial way. I'm thinking of the nerfed rolling frames (before you level ADP), more difficult parry timing, far more multi-opponent bosses, and especially the way that dying will reduce your max health. Any of these on their own would be totally unremarkable, but all together it feels like there was much more explicit focus on adding things to make it more difficult (which I believe was also reflected in the marketing of the games).
I also think that the atmosphere and artstyle of DS1 was much more serious and unique, whereas DS2 has comparatively much more ghoulish cartoony vibes, which just made it feel incongruent. Eg: the undead are now green and less scrawny, making them seem more like generic goblins rather than how they were in DS1. I just feel like there was an overall shift in the focus to be less about the unique world and its story and more about a Ghosts 'n Goblins -esque rage game.
I don't think Dark Souls 2 is the most difficult in the series but I think it's the first one where the difficulty started to feel unfair and like it was missing the point.
Basically here's the vibes I get from each game:
DS1: A somber and holy journey
DS2: Ghosts 'n Goblins but 3D
DS3: Killing cool bosses is so cool
ER: All of the aboveI'm not complaining about the Ghosts 'n Goblins series though, Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts is one of the best games ever
-
I did find it more difficult than DS1 but, as in my metaphor, in a more artificial way. I'm thinking of the nerfed rolling frames (before you level ADP), more difficult parry timing, far more multi-opponent bosses, and especially the way that dying will reduce your max health. Any of these on their own would be totally unremarkable, but all together it feels like there was much more explicit focus on adding things to make it more difficult (which I believe was also reflected in the marketing of the games).
I also think that the atmosphere and artstyle of DS1 was much more serious and unique, whereas DS2 has comparatively much more ghoulish cartoony vibes, which just made it feel incongruent. Eg: the undead are now green and less scrawny, making them seem more like generic goblins rather than how they were in DS1. I just feel like there was an overall shift in the focus to be less about the unique world and its story and more about a Ghosts 'n Goblins -esque rage game.
I don't think Dark Souls 2 is the most difficult in the series but I think it's the first one where the difficulty started to feel unfair and like it was missing the point.
Basically here's the vibes I get from each game:
DS1: A somber and holy journey
DS2: Ghosts 'n Goblins but 3D
DS3: Killing cool bosses is so cool
ER: All of the aboveAh, I sort of forgot about the slowly reducing max health. I think that and the different parry timing (the best mechanic in all the games, baby baby) made me quit it the first time I played. I don't even remember it bothering me in the second time I tried, maybe because I had played elden ring and dark souls again at that point and didn't try to horde items.
Pre-edit edit: Wait, I remember now. I played the game the way it was 'meant' to be played, with a giant weapon and just beating everything up before they could get me. I remember telling my friend that the openings in the boss attacks felt like they were specifically designed around the giant weapon timings. It just made everything easier.
