What's an absolutely medium quality game? Not great, incredible or terrible or any single ended extreme. Dead medium quality
-
But instead of playing the map as a menu screen, you actually play in the world and discover things.
That was the crucial difference for me.
I envy you and wish I could see games through your eyes.
-
This is probably more subjective than best/worst. So...
Vanilla Skyrim.
It was a fun game, but the main quest was so railroading.
-
Portal 1 & 2. Far too short.
Short, but anything but mid.
-
Following up on this comment since I haven't seen a thread about it: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14639216
Ratopia
It's like Oxygen not Included but worse
-
I modded it with the 'no purchasable resources' and it became a totally different game; It was all spreadsheet/logistics and organizing galaxy wide shipping to central hubs where I had to fabricate all my own materials to be able to upgrade equipment. I found that far more enjoyable, but the game is still meh. Not worth the replays like skyrim was.
While I enjoy some logistics management, I'd never punish myself with that in Starfield. Most gear upgrades aren't worth it and you can't even craft your own weapons or suits. This isn't Fallout where advanced machinery can be considered "lost tech" ffs
-
Following up on this comment since I haven't seen a thread about it: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14639216
2 that make fans go bananas.
Torchlight 2; Grim Dawn
Right in the middle of the middle part of the middle part of the middle pack.
-
Following up on this comment since I haven't seen a thread about it: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14639216
Sacred 2.
-
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.
I kinda agree. It was fun playing with my SO but they're pretty boring on their own. The multiplayer is fun, but the actual story mode just kinda exists.
-
I suppose Resident Evil 8? The scares weren't very scary, the exploration was all very fake, and the bosses all showed up for attendance. It definitely functioned, but it didn't impress in the way previous entries did. It wasn't frustratingly bad like 5, nor was it interestingly bad like 6. It just felt like a lesser version of what they've given me before, somewhere between 4 and 7.
My hill to die on is that RE7 and 8 should have been a new IP. I think both the Winters' story and the overall Resident Evil plot would have stood stronger on their own and forcing them together in such a contrived way dilutes both of them.
-
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]If you like space dogfighter sims, try Chorus. You can score it super cheap on sales and I think it's a solid 6/10. Combat is fun and it's nice to look at. Unfortunately the story has terrible pacing and kinda doesn't make sense at times. Also, the missions get kinda repetitive. These two things really held it back for me, otherwise it's a fairly good game.
Another, if you like top down shooters, is Subterrain. Doesn't always go on sale, but when it does it's dirt cheap because it's like 10 years old at this point. It's got some weird survival mechanics that I think are kinda pointless, but the gameplay and story were enough to keep me mildly entertained. I'd call this a "potato chip" type game. Not particularly good, but somehow kind of satisfying if you don't think too much about it. Definitely a 6/10.
On another note, what's y'all's stance on the association that 5/10 = bad? I feel like it's because people equate it to being 50% and associate that with bad due to school grades. I see it as an average score and when I give something a 5 or 6, that means I'm neutral to slightly positive feeling about it.
-
Breath of the Wild was basically a Ubisoft game with a Zelda coat of paint.
Basically sure. But the devil is in the details.
-
Any assassin's creed from the last 10 years, probs gonna get hate for that but they are just so average to me.
Also most Ubisoft games in the last 10 years overall
-
Following up on this comment since I haven't seen a thread about it: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14639216
-
I envy you and wish I could see games through your eyes.
I don’t think Blackmist has a hot take here. The Ubisoft formula is: navigate to a tower. Tower gives you a checklist of things to do. You do the things, then look for a new tower.
Breath of the Wild is different. Yes, you start by navigating to a tower, but then… no checklist is given. You look around, you explore, you find things to do. Maybe you find everything, maybe you miss things, maybe you miss everything. You can always come back and explore more later… and when you’ve done everything, you can’t really be CERTAIN that you got it all. The lack of a checklist dramatically shifts the gameplay from doing a list of events, with little difference from selecting them from a menu, to actually having to explore the world and look around.
To call it the Ubisoft formula is to vastly misunderstand what the Ubisoft formula is. The formula is a list of things to do. BotW does not have that. Not even slightly. The towers are just something to aim for to get you started, and a place you can use your eyes to look around from, also to get you started.
-
Pretty much every modern AAA game. Theres an exception here and there but really smaller studios have been making bangers that AAA studios just cant seem to touch
Yeah, big studios are setting up to create the mediocrest game they can imagine. Taking risks might make the line not go up, and they can't have this happening.
Ironically, this leeds to creation of absolute dogshit more often than not. -
I don’t think Blackmist has a hot take here. The Ubisoft formula is: navigate to a tower. Tower gives you a checklist of things to do. You do the things, then look for a new tower.
Breath of the Wild is different. Yes, you start by navigating to a tower, but then… no checklist is given. You look around, you explore, you find things to do. Maybe you find everything, maybe you miss things, maybe you miss everything. You can always come back and explore more later… and when you’ve done everything, you can’t really be CERTAIN that you got it all. The lack of a checklist dramatically shifts the gameplay from doing a list of events, with little difference from selecting them from a menu, to actually having to explore the world and look around.
To call it the Ubisoft formula is to vastly misunderstand what the Ubisoft formula is. The formula is a list of things to do. BotW does not have that. Not even slightly. The towers are just something to aim for to get you started, and a place you can use your eyes to look around from, also to get you started.
And to add to that, it also gives you the tools for discovery. It's not just "Ubisoft, but they hide the icons".
The shrine detector (which can become an anything detector), the ability to look through binoculars or whatever it is and stamp a limited number of visible waypoints onto the map. Tears of the Kingdom gives you a slightly obscure ability to highlight all the cave entrances nearby, which you can then try to mark up and see if you've been there.
Other games have started trying to do some of this, but I think a lot of it is added late on in development and doesn't really work well. Like Jedi Survivor gives you the ability to mark things with icons, but what for? You can't see the markers when you're walking around. There's not really much to discover from a distance, and it's pretty far from being a vast open world.
Is it perfect? No. The last few shrines are often a complete ball-ache to find, although a lot of them are just a generic fight and they're pretty optional, it feels like you should do them.
Is it better than a world as a menu screen as offered by Ubisoft and those that copy them? Yes.
I think in general a lot of developers should take a long look at what they're actually trying to make before going with the open world approach. It's getting tired, and they're mostly doing it badly.
-
I thought The Outer Worlds was violently mediocre, and yeah, its really long uninteresting fetch quest, but:
-
Parvati says she's not interested in physical affection, but I don't recall her ever saying she was aromantic. The closest thing I remember is that she feels like she's better at dealing with machines than people, which definitely doesn't mean the same thing.
-
I also don't recall her ever saying anything sexual about Junlei?
-
how old does this woman look to you that you think she could have a 28 year old daughter?
The quest was nothing new sure, but the reason I'm doing the quest? I want her to have the best dam date ever. I just wanted to see her happy and help her get ready for her date. Not sure what they were talking about with her being aromatic, don't remember that. And about the age thing? not sure what they meant by that either, she looks the same age as Pavarti to me.
-
-
Following up on this comment since I haven't seen a thread about it: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14639216
First thing that came to my mind was Crysis 2. Absolute mid-tier FPS, which was unfortunately pretty disappointing coming off of the first game.
Definitely worth a look if you just want to run around and shoot shit.
-
2 that make fans go bananas.
Torchlight 2; Grim Dawn
Right in the middle of the middle part of the middle part of the middle pack.
Torchlight 2 is fun when you start out, but gets really repetitive quite fast. Good fit for a right in the middle
-
If you like space dogfighter sims, try Chorus. You can score it super cheap on sales and I think it's a solid 6/10. Combat is fun and it's nice to look at. Unfortunately the story has terrible pacing and kinda doesn't make sense at times. Also, the missions get kinda repetitive. These two things really held it back for me, otherwise it's a fairly good game.
Another, if you like top down shooters, is Subterrain. Doesn't always go on sale, but when it does it's dirt cheap because it's like 10 years old at this point. It's got some weird survival mechanics that I think are kinda pointless, but the gameplay and story were enough to keep me mildly entertained. I'd call this a "potato chip" type game. Not particularly good, but somehow kind of satisfying if you don't think too much about it. Definitely a 6/10.
On another note, what's y'all's stance on the association that 5/10 = bad? I feel like it's because people equate it to being 50% and associate that with bad due to school grades. I see it as an average score and when I give something a 5 or 6, that means I'm neutral to slightly positive feeling about it.
I don't think a 5/10 game is necessarily bad, but it needs to have some kind of - I dont know, character? Niche appeal? - to shine for the players who are going to like it.
I'll throw out Krater as an example. It's not great, but it has a unique setting, great atmosphere, and some interesting ideas driving it. I kinda love it for its eccentricities in spite of the overall experience being a bit meh.
