What's an absolutely medium quality game? Not great, incredible or terrible or any single ended extreme. Dead medium quality
-
Following up on this comment since I haven't seen a thread about it: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14639216
Sackboy a Big Adventure. Absolutely no ill will towards it, and the issue may lie more with me than the game, but it just felt very "okay" for me.
-
Following up on this comment since I haven't seen a thread about it: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14639216
The Halo series.
I like shooters, so I got the full bundle and I tried hard to like it.
None of the games gave me a lasting impression. The plot didn't stick with me, the enemies were weird, the guns felt weak and flimsy, the rooms kept repeating in some sections and it got very boring. There were some fun bits with the vehicles, etc., but overall the experience was... pretty much average.
I was expecting something like the Half-Life series, but this wasn't it.
-
Following up on this comment since I haven't seen a thread about it: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14639216
-
Hell no, Mad Max was way more fun than it had any right to be. I'll agree that on paper it didn't look like anything special, with mechanics we'd seen lots of times in other games, but in practice everything came together as much more than the sum of it's parts.
Hmm… sure, but ima die on the hill Mad Max should be a linear game with sole focus on vehicular/melee combat. I don't really think it needs to be an open world game.
-
Following up on this comment since I haven't seen a thread about it: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14639216
I said any Call of Duty from the past decade as answer to the original comment, and I still think that is a solid candidate. However, another game I played recently that qualifies I think is Sleeping Dogs. Perfectly cromulent 7/10 GTA clone but ultimately not pulling up any trees.
-
Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning
Had all the individual makings of an exceptional game (with input from Todd Macfarlane, R A Salvatore and Grant Kirkhope), and while it was definitely enjoyable enough - it lacked any wow-factor whatsoever, winding up an otherwise forgettable 7/10.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]At the time of its release, it's wow factor for me was simply some fucking color, compared to PS3 Skyrim which had released mere months earlier.
I love both games, but there's something about Amalur that I think I love more that I can only think of as it being just medium, average, mediocre but not bad. It's just something kinda fun. Comfortable.
-
Following up on this comment since I haven't seen a thread about it: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14639216
wrote on last edited by [email protected]A hell of a lot of Ubisoft open-world slop released around and in the 2010s.
-
From recent memory: Starfield.
I didn't think it was terrible in and of itself, but it also wasn't very good. It was just missing that certain something Bethesda RPGs had before it. Just a meh experience the whole way through.
I think it was the way that exploration felt like a grind that made it so “meh”. A whole universe to explore, and you’re either going to come to a barren rock planet, or find the same enemy base/outpost 5 times in a row.
For a game where space exploration was one of the main selling points, it felt remarkably unlike exploring at times.
-
Hmm… sure, but ima die on the hill Mad Max should be a linear game with sole focus on vehicular/melee combat. I don't really think it needs to be an open world game.
Fair, although it's less open than it appears at first glance. The world is divided in parts that you unlock as the central story progresses, much like most RPGs.
-
This is a tough question because it's like asking "What's the most forgettable game you've ever played?" I can remember some of the best and worst games I've ever played, but mediocre games are explicitly not interesting.
That said, the first one that came to mind for me was Starshot: Space Circus Fever for N64. It's just a very generic late-'90s collectathon platformer. It's hard to be mad at it, because it's not terrible or anything, there's just no reason to play it. If you've got an N64, there's Mario, Banjo, Rayman, even B- and C-tier stuff like Gex and Chameleon Twist. There's hidden gems like Space Station Silicon Valley or Rocket: Robot on Wheels.
That last one is the only reason I played Starshot, I saw it clearanced at a used game store and was like "Oh yeah, I remember hearing this game was good," but it turned out I was thinking of Rocket. That game actually is good, while Starshot is just fine.
It also makes people say things are mid to them. Honestly, rdr2 was that way for me because I hated the pseudo-rpg elements. But long after I put it away, I started playing actual RPGs. So I may give it another shot, but I have so many on my to-do list.
-
At the time of its release, it's wow factor for me was simply some fucking color, compared to PS3 Skyrim which had released mere months earlier.
I love both games, but there's something about Amalur that I think I love more that I can only think of as it being just medium, average, mediocre but not bad. It's just something kinda fun. Comfortable.
Oh no doubt, my (vague) memories of it are definitely in vivid bright colours.
I originally got it as I was looking for a single player World of Warcraft-like experience, and I did play through a significant portion of the main story - but eventually went back to WoW as it didn’t quite scratch that itch enough.
I probably should revisit it sometime in the near future - hopefully on the Steam Deck (haven’t checked compatibility).
-
Following up on this comment since I haven't seen a thread about it: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14639216
Avowed was very mid. I enjoyed it enough, but nothing about it was particularly brilliant or terrible.
-
Following up on this comment since I haven't seen a thread about it: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14639216
Ghost Wire: Tokyo.
It sells itself on cool aesthetics, but the moment you get past that you realise it's just a very, very generic open world shooter with incredibly bland and boring shooting layered over an impressively faithful recreation of Shinjuku. And even the aesthetics wear thin very quickly, being largely just a whole lot of "Hey I know that anime" level stuff cribbed from Japanese culture. The game is mostly just running around a map collecting stuff.
-
From recent memory: Starfield.
I didn't think it was terrible in and of itself, but it also wasn't very good. It was just missing that certain something Bethesda RPGs had before it. Just a meh experience the whole way through.
As a big fan of space sims and action RPGs, I wrote that game off when looking at reviews and how the spaceship building system and space travel were.
It's like they choose the worst of Elite Dangerous and mixed it with the worst parts of previous Bethesda RPGs.
-
Following up on this comment since I haven't seen a thread about it: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14639216
Atlas Fallen. Having played it, all I can say is that it doesn't elicit any heightened emotions from me.
-
Neverwinter Nights
The multiplayer is supposedly incredible. But I remember being extremely whelmed by the main game.
But it's hard to remember the mid games. Because it is very likely that they didn't leave any lasting impression.
And especially if previous titles in a series or from a studio were great a mid game would feel disappointingly bad. Although compared to other games they might actually still be considered great.
The original single player is so bad I'm certain it was just cobbled together as a demo of the engine and for inspiration for user content. Then the team had time to develope proper story with the expansions
-
Following up on this comment since I haven't seen a thread about it: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14639216
Greedfall
-
Ghost Wire: Tokyo.
It sells itself on cool aesthetics, but the moment you get past that you realise it's just a very, very generic open world shooter with incredibly bland and boring shooting layered over an impressively faithful recreation of Shinjuku. And even the aesthetics wear thin very quickly, being largely just a whole lot of "Hey I know that anime" level stuff cribbed from Japanese culture. The game is mostly just running around a map collecting stuff.
i still enjoyed the crap out of it. Sometimes zoning out and just running around collecting stuff is just what I need.
-
The Halo series.
I like shooters, so I got the full bundle and I tried hard to like it.
None of the games gave me a lasting impression. The plot didn't stick with me, the enemies were weird, the guns felt weak and flimsy, the rooms kept repeating in some sections and it got very boring. There were some fun bits with the vehicles, etc., but overall the experience was... pretty much average.
I was expecting something like the Half-Life series, but this wasn't it.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I never had an Xbox, so really only grew up playing Halo Reach (I think) co-op when I'd go to a friend's house. But I recently played through most of the halo games with a friend and I have to say, I agree. I can't remember any particular moments or scenarios, no part of the story that stands out in my mind, etc. It was fun enough to run through most of them (though we did get tired of it, which is why I said "most of the games"), and I can certainly see why for when they came out, they received the attention they did but can't say I think the reaction would be the same if it came out now or that it really holds up to the standards it seems to have set.
-
Hell no, Mad Max was way more fun than it had any right to be. I'll agree that on paper it didn't look like anything special, with mechanics we'd seen lots of times in other games, but in practice everything came together as much more than the sum of it's parts.
I bought it quite cheap because it looked like a fun time, and have over the years since played through it 3 times. The gameplay mechanics are a blast.
