What's a really popular game franchise you just can't get into?
-
There are some stunningly beautiful scenes too though. I get what you mean regardless, its a grimdark setting for sure.
wrote last edited by [email protected]yeah let me just wade through this ocean of death so i can see a dying sun set over a dead world.
things may be beautiful in isolation but the context is what gives them meaning, and the meaning in most fromsoft worlds (and things inspired by them) is "look at how awful everything is here; it's your fault if it doesn't get better".
"haunting" is a better word than "stunning" there. -
Modern DooMs are... strange. The legendary status of Doom is granted by Doom 1 and 2. And those games are very different from Doom 3-5.
Original gameplay is quite saved by GZDoom and similar projects. Add there something like BrutalDoom add-on and you'll get the best from both worlds: old Doom gameplay and more modern graphics.
I still need to finish Dark Age but the level design was quite good. Felt way more like the original Jaquays type maps, lots of loops and alternate paths you naturally explore.
Project Warlock is still better tho
-
D&D
I've been playing RPG for decades, but play D&D less than once a decade, and my impression goes form awful to not worth my money/time. When I was young and broke, having to buy a player manual + a GM guide + a monster manual when tons of RPG would fit in a single book (Yes I know, clan-books for let's say Vampire are also a money-pit), was out of my budget, then every-time I played D&D, feel like the story were not interesting as concept like alignment and some spells like detect lies would kill many interesting plot. Too which you had a lot of character optimisation often over the long-term (If you didn't take that feat a low level you cannot have the killer feat at high level), let alone the people mixing RPG and miniature games
Sure you can have some funs game with D&D and play it differently but there is so many other game out-there (and so few time) , that why would I even bother joining a D&D game rather than another,
I love Into the Odd so much for a single-book game. It just hits me right.
But yeah 100% there are so many better games to play than modern D&D.
-
Assassin's Creed.
Love the historical gameplay. But I cannot stand being interrupted by the modern day parts. Even if they are small. They feel so disrespectful with my time that I've always been unable to play those games. I forced my way through AC2 but I have never replayed it, despite loving the actual gameplay, just for the modern day boredom.
There's gotta be a mod for that, right?
Up until whatever came after Black Flag I was a die hard AC fan. Midnight releases and everything. And I'll admit, the modern day sections are bad and jarring and completely unnecessary. At some point you're a game developer wandering around an office and it's obvious they had no idea what to do with those sections, because at that point the modern day story had been told. There was a brief cameo from some of the people you would remember from earlier games but it never got to the level of intrigue from 1-3.
Though an assassin's creed game set in like modern day Manhattan could be fun. Watchdogs got kinda close to that before going completely off the rails.
-
I'll start. pokemon. doesn't matter if the game's old or new I just can't get into how it plays. idk the gameplay just gets old to me pretty quickly, palworld is an upgrade in every way tbh
I found both Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect completely unplayable.
-
D&D
I've been playing RPG for decades, but play D&D less than once a decade, and my impression goes form awful to not worth my money/time. When I was young and broke, having to buy a player manual + a GM guide + a monster manual when tons of RPG would fit in a single book (Yes I know, clan-books for let's say Vampire are also a money-pit), was out of my budget, then every-time I played D&D, feel like the story were not interesting as concept like alignment and some spells like detect lies would kill many interesting plot. Too which you had a lot of character optimisation often over the long-term (If you didn't take that feat a low level you cannot have the killer feat at high level), let alone the people mixing RPG and miniature games
Sure you can have some funs game with D&D and play it differently but there is so many other game out-there (and so few time) , that why would I even bother joining a D&D game rather than another,
Min maxing is so irritating to me. DnD is bad about it but I find that seasoned players will find a way with just about any but the most basic systems.
unstoppable forces of nature aren't necessary, and are especially unnecessary when the GM refuses to build a force of nature to counter them.
Idk. I like the people I play with, but the gameplay isn't why I come back to the table every week.
-
I'll start. pokemon. doesn't matter if the game's old or new I just can't get into how it plays. idk the gameplay just gets old to me pretty quickly, palworld is an upgrade in every way tbh
One piece
-
There's gotta be a mod for that, right?
Up until whatever came after Black Flag I was a die hard AC fan. Midnight releases and everything. And I'll admit, the modern day sections are bad and jarring and completely unnecessary. At some point you're a game developer wandering around an office and it's obvious they had no idea what to do with those sections, because at that point the modern day story had been told. There was a brief cameo from some of the people you would remember from earlier games but it never got to the level of intrigue from 1-3.
Though an assassin's creed game set in like modern day Manhattan could be fun. Watchdogs got kinda close to that before going completely off the rails.
Honestly, Black Flag is the only AC game I ever come back to. I enjoyed 1 and 2, and 3 was ok, but BF was the pinnacle of the series (only partially because of the ship combat).
I'd love a game that's just the pirate ship parts, that was easily the best part. Setting up supply lines, capturing ships and sinking hunters. Good times.
-
yeah let me just wade through this ocean of death so i can see a dying sun set over a dead world.
things may be beautiful in isolation but the context is what gives them meaning, and the meaning in most fromsoft worlds (and things inspired by them) is "look at how awful everything is here; it's your fault if it doesn't get better".
"haunting" is a better word than "stunning" there.It's okay if grimdark doesn't appeal to you. I like stories about people doing the right thing in a hostile setting,
-
I'll start. pokemon. doesn't matter if the game's old or new I just can't get into how it plays. idk the gameplay just gets old to me pretty quickly, palworld is an upgrade in every way tbh
Just about any multiplayer game. I generally don't like playing with randos (why would I want to listen to a 12 yo squeal in my ear that they fucked my mother in a pitch only dogs can hear?), and most of my friends don't play games I'm interested in.
-
It's okay if grimdark doesn't appeal to you. I like stories about people doing the right thing in a hostile setting,
that was my point yes
-
I'm not sure I'd count Outer Wilds as a space game (assuming you mean something in the vein of Elite Dangerous), despite it objectively including a lot of space travel. It's a detective game, the point is to unravel a mystery
maybe they're confusing it with Outer Worlds?
-
Couldn't agree more with Skyrim, Oblivion was the same when I tried that too I just can't stand it. Easily some of the most over rated games IMO.
Also agree with Zelda but I think the same about all of the Nintendo IPs, they are just boring and the fan base makes me dislike them even more!
Same for me, but starting with Morrowind. The leveling system was too weird, compared to other RPGs of that time. I remember I missclicked, fallen out of the window of some tower, got an Acrobatics skill improved and a level up.
-
Souls games.
I really want to like them too, but they seemingly aren't compatible with how I play games. I need to be able to put a game down for a couple of weeks and not feel like I'm back at square one because the specific muscle memory for that game has gone.
Just kinda kills the fun when the game is effectively telling me to get good, when I don't actually have the amount of free time IRL necessary to do that.
I feel similar. After having tons of people tell me for years I need to get into them, I finally played Bloodborne, which multiple people have told me is their favorite.
I pushed through it on my own first. I actually didn't die quite as much as I expected, though I definitely had to spend time watching YouTube videos and reading 3 different fan-made wiki's to figure everything out. I managed to finish it, but I didn't think it was worth it and would not have finished it if not for wanting to be able to talk about it with my friends.
Then I did another playthrough with a friend doing co-op. When it worked (ugh) it was a way better experience. Partly because of my previous experience - I had a better feel for how to build my character, I remembered most of the environments and enemy placement, and still had that muscle memory from my first run. Partly because it's better as a cooperative experience. Having an ally makes the world feel less desolate. Having another player to take aggro so you can heal is huge- some bosses almost feel like they were designed for multiplayer. And it's fun just cracking jokes and hanging out, making fun of how ridiculous some of the stuff is.
I still don't have the love for it that other people do though. I agree 100% on the aesthetic: everything in Bloodborne is just dark and wet and looks the same. FromSoft makes a LOT of game design decisions that are different from most other developers in terms of what they prioritize. Which is fine, but there are aspects of design where they clearly cut corners and the fanbae seems to laud it as a desirable artistic choice. I shouldn't need to spend hours watching YouTube and researching fan sites to learn how to play the game, and I would argue I shouldn't have to do that to appreciate the story. They simply do not respect my time.
The multiplayer barely works. It's restricted to bosses and the areas leading up to them, and costs Insight (a valuable and kind-of finite resource) to use. Simply connecting is a tedious pain. You can only play either completely online or offline, so if you want to play with a friend you have to accept your whole world cluttered with annoying and distracting messages from random players and the specters where other players died. And that also opens you up to having hostile players gank you. Like... Why can't my friend and I just pair up and play through the whole game together without inviting the rest of the internet too? Why does it cost Insight? Why are the caps for stats never communicated to the player? Why does the Hunter's Axe do primarily Blunt damage while the KirkHAMMER does almost no Blunt damage, and for that matter why aren't the damage types explained anywhere? I'm still not sure why some gems increase Attack, others increase Physical Attack, and others increase Blunt or Thrust, plus there are hidden damage types.
The game feels like it was designed to really get good on your second playthrough and beyond. Especially NG+, although even starting a fresh file again is much better than the first playthrough. Kinda reminds me of how some MMO fans like to say "it gets good after the first 100 hours". For most developers, the player onboarding experience is one of the most important parts to be developed, but FromSoft basically skills over that and outsources it to their community of hardcore fans.
-
The Witcher. I really want to like it. It seems like the kind of game I would love and I recognize that it’s an objectively well made game. However, I’ve bounced off it at least 4 times after getting 1-4 hours in.
My personal theory is that a lot of the love for The Witcher 3 in particular stems from the fact that very early on it has a sex scene with full nudity, with a female character who is supernaturally hot according to the lore. There's several women Geralt can seduce, and I suspect a lot of people who mostly play hentai games were in shock to play something with more exciting gameplay than match-3 grids or a jigsaw puzzle.
The Witcher 3 doesn't seem like a bad game, but I'm similar to you in that I've bounced off it a couple times after a few hours. There's nothing particularly bad about it, but nothing that really grabbed me and made me want to keep playing more either. I still plan on giving it another shot eventually.
-
yeah let me just wade through this ocean of death so i can see a dying sun set over a dead world.
things may be beautiful in isolation but the context is what gives them meaning, and the meaning in most fromsoft worlds (and things inspired by them) is "look at how awful everything is here; it's your fault if it doesn't get better".
"haunting" is a better word than "stunning" there.Is it particularly more your fault that things don't better in Souls games than in any other game in which you are meant to save the world? I think the only difference is that in the Souls ones and others like them, the world is already horrible and needs repaired in some way rather than on the verge of becoming horrible
Interestingly Elden Ring went for quite a different direction. The world is, unquestionably, still an enormous mess that would be horrendous to live in, but they've left in far more of the beauty. I particularly like how every so often you hear hostile NPCs playing music or singing if they haven't spotted you yet, and how there's a little puzzle side quest about a painter; people are still making art in this ongoing apocalypse. One important allied NPC even actually openly makes an argument that the world is worth preserving if it looks like you're going for the "destroy everything" ending
Of course the atmosphere and gameplay are still heavy going, both in the Souls trilogy and Elden Ring. I get why that wouldn't be for everyone. It's like playable Cormac McCarthy stories, except you can punch your way out of most of the misery if you get it right
-
The legend of Zelda - played Tears and the story and puzzles were a bit too kid friendly
It's actually a kid friendly franchise, all of it. The only surprisingly mature themed zelda game is Majora's Mask, it deal with death and loses and hopelessness way more than BOTW is comfortably touch, and it's made in a year.
Twilight Princess is worth mentioning too. It was rated Teen, and had this scene (no gore or sex or anything, just weird surreal horror).
Zelda is such a diverse franchise it really depends on the game. I love Twilight Princess and Majora's Mask, but didn't like BotW or Windwaker at all. It's almost like 2 or 3 different franchises crammed into one.
-
I can think of lots of series that I don't like, just because I'm not into the genre. I think that everyone has genres that they don't like.
I think a more-interesting question is about popular series that I don't like within a genre that I do like.
I didn't like Frostpunk, despite liking city-builders. Felt like the decisions were largely mechanical, didn't involve a lot of analysis and tweaking levers.
I didn't like Sudden Strike 4, despite liking lots of real time tactics games, like Close Combat. It felt really simplified.
I didn't like Pacific Drive, despite liking survival games. It has time limits, and I often dislike time limits in games.
I didn't like Outer Wilds, despite liking a lot of space games. Didn't like the cartoony style, the low-tech vibe, felt like it wasn't respectful of player time.
I didn't like Elden Ring, though I like a number of swords and sorcery games. Just felt simple, repetitive and uninteresting.
EDIT: A couple of honorable mentions that I don't hate, but which were disappointing:
Borderlands. The gunplay can be all right, and the flow of new guns and having to adapt to them is interesting. But every Borderlands game I play, the always-respawning enemies are a turnoff. Feels like the world is immutable. Also don't like the mindless farming of every container with glowing green dots. And for a combat-oriented game, it doesn't make me mix up my tactics much based on whatever I'm facing. While I finish the game, I always wind up feeling like I'm not having nearly as much fun as I should be having.
Choice of Games. I like text-based games, but a lot of games published by this company, even otherwise well-written ones, have adopted a convention of making one win by playing consistently to certain characteristics of a character, so one tries to just figure out at every choice what option will maximize that characteristic. That's extremely uninteresting gameplay, even if the story is nice and the text well-written. I feel like the same authors would have done better just writing choose-your-own-adventure type games if they weren't focused on the stats. I also really dislike the lack of an undo, to the point that I've put some work into a Choicescript-to-Sugarcube converter.
Frostpunk
I get it. I like city builders too and the idea of a game that's constantly threatening your city with crisis seemed interesting, but every run seems to be the same.
Outer Wilds
Alright, you and I are gonna fight now.
-
Monster Hunter. Probably tried like 4 of those games since Tri and people keep recommending them to me, saying the newest one will surely be the one to convince me. But I found them all to be a boring grind.
They are. I tried them too and was surprised they aren’t free. Boring mechanics, scripts that are too long.
-
I found both Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect completely unplayable.
Curious to know why.
Mass effect for me feels like it's generic scifi, so I can't get into it and appreciate the writing but KOTR has a star wars flair at least.
