Definitely Assassin's Creed: Origins since they pretty much took away everything I liked about the franchise.
What do you think you are doing in a dungeon other than exploring it?
I do make a few threads praising games I like.
They do turn me off. There are games coming out I'm excited for and I'm usually playing something I like as well.Are you sure it's a case of games turning you off, or is it more that you're lacking an interest in games now in general?
That's kind of iffy, because even though I guess you could call it acclaimed, it's the lowest rated mainline game on metacritic, etc (though we can only go back to 7 before we have to start counting rereleases (the original XIV is at 49, but that game doesn't even exist anymore ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )).
X and Blade 2 have put me off a fair bit :( The original Xenoblade is one of my favourite RPGs ever.Also, do the Xeno games count? I like Gears, and I absolutely adore the Xenosaga trilogy, but the Blade games just don't seem appealing to me at all.
Really heart skips? Lol it's okay if you dislike the game but we went over this in the other thread. For many people it would be SS, or for many it would be WW or TP, etcetera.My personal experiences are these (not posting in OP to not make the thread be exactly about my opinions).
- Zelda Breath of the Wild
While internet discourse was getting bad towards Skyward Sword, I enjoyed that game a lot. There's something great about high quality dungeons and puzzles that made me love Zelda games so much, but people really wanted a more open world experience.
Then comes BOTW. The rumored Zelda U that I was so excited for. Nintendo announces a whole E3 just focusing on it and people go nuts.
While watching the trailers and treehouse segments, I grow worried about the lack of dungeons, story and towns. Where were the things I liked in that Zelda game? People loved the demo and general hype was at maximum level for that release.
When it did eventually release, I got and played the game. I was worried about it due to everything I read and saw about it even though BOTW was flying off shelves and the reviews were extremely positive.
The start was nice and creative. I even liked the first divine beast. But after that it was a steep decline, open world gets boring fast to me and I didn't get great dungeons and bosses I wanted so much.
The game is a huge success and the best selling Zelda game. But all I can think about is how much it feels like I won't get dungeons like Ocarina of Time anymore.
- Resident Evil 7
Resident Evil to me is all about the action bollocks in a B-movie zombie setting. Hero characters do stupid things and kill the zombies, there's some convoluted story behind it, things aren't too realistic, gameplay is fun.
4 is my favorite in the series, when Mikami went even more action focused. 5 I like less, but co-op is tons of fun. I get that people dislike 6, but I don't even mind the direction it took.
7 isn't what I want at all. It's too grounded, the main character is boring, FPS isn't what I want from RE's gameplay, etc.
The game had great reviews and good profit for Capcom, but it did miss sales goals and sold less than 5 and 6, so maybe 8 can be more appealing to me if they backpedal a bit.
- Smash Bros Ultimate
It's weird. A bunch of the games I like now are due to Smash promoting niche and smaller Nintendo IPs so much with characters and trophies. I got FE7 after seeing Marth in Melee, played Earthbound because of Ness, learned about Famicom Tantei Club due to Ayumi's trophy and eventually played and loved that game, etc.
I associate Smash with the variety in Nintendo's catalogue. It's not just Mario characters & a few big characters, it had others characters in many genres, styles and that got me into these weirder or older games.
I already didn't like Smash 4 DLC with the focus on third parties and a character like Cloud, that barely has any relation to Nintendo. But I still was excited for Ultimate for more Nintendo characters and IPs being represented, posted a lot over months (like I do for every Smash game) and the day the game was going to release I just went to sleep early not expecting anything Smash at the Game Awards.
I woke up with the Joker news and instantly my hype died down. It was exactly the kind of character that had nothing to do with what I liked about Smash and put all my expectations towards DLC to worse.
I still played the game. I 100% it as I do with every Smash. Still, I never felt like I was having that fun I had with the Brawl and Smash 4 releases as I didn't even have expectations anymore of seeing Nintendo characters as DLC and the game shifting the focus more and more to third party characters, even though this is the only game I could hope to see other Nintendo characters in or getting the exposure I think they deserve.
Spirits are nice and fun, but they don't showcase the niche and old characters that I like as much as the trophies did, I dislike the decision of removing them. Most remixes went to third parties while Nintendo franchises didn't get much, some like Xenoblade didn't get anything basically. Only 1 Nintendo franchise was added, Splatoon, and it felt very poorly done. Inkling's moveset isn't very clever, the stage is boring and the remixes aren't that good.
We're 3/3 with DLC characters being third party and it rubs me the wrong way when Rex, a character from a 2M Nintendo game didn't even get the consideration, or how fan favorite Nintendo characters like Isaac don't get in because they aren't getting new games, but Banjo also isn't and got in anyway, it feels like being third party instantly makes a character more likely to get in.
Sales are fantastic, reviews as well. To most Ultimate is the best Smash ever, to me it just feels like the series isn't for me anymore.
Kingdom hearts Dream Drop Distance.
Both in story and gameplay, it made me feel like the crew was out of touch with what the audience liked about KH.
What do you think you are doing in a dungeon other than exploring it?
I would say BoTW but really it goes back to Wind Waker, though I guess that isn't as highly acclaimed.
That's weird considering GTAV is vastly different in terms of tone, story, characters, gameplay and art direction.
Striker Charged has better gameplay but the super shot from the original is superior IMO.I didn't like "God of War" having just beat 3 Remastered.
The combat felt slow and deliberate, quite the opposite of the hack and slash of 3.
I'm also not quite sold on Breath of the Wild but I gotta play it more.
Red Dead Redemption 2 was much less fun to me than 1 from a gameplay perspective. I haven't played 1 in some time, but I really enjoyed the game whereas I struggle to play 2 at times.
Final Fantasy X was the first FF I played that I had mixed feelings for. IV, VI, VII, VIII, and IX are all classics, whereas X was a step down. From then we had XI, which I never played due to it being an MMO. I also didn't particularly enjoy FFXII. XIII wasn't very good but I did beat it. Never played XIV. XV was not that bad, gotta get back into it at some point.
Paper Mario Sticker Star was a very disappointing title as the previous games were great. Didn't play the Wii U Paper Mario because of this.
Luigi's Mansion 2 mission structure and smaller mansions differs enough from the original to make me not like it as much.
Pokémon X+Y was so easy compared to past games, I still haven't played Sun+Moon.
At the time, Majoras Mask was too difficult for me to understand coming from Ocarina. Replaying the game now is different.
I remember Twisted Metal 3 being a disappointment compared to 2, maybe something about the multiplayer? Then that stupid kart racing game. Also, Black was mediocre and a launch title, and the PS3 version was just way too different. Perhaps Sony should remake 2.
Animal Crossing DS compared to the GameCube version. It was pretty much exactly the same with worse graphics.
Modern Warefare 3 with its horrible lobby system (couldn't connect in same household with another PS3), bad maps, and stats locked behind CoD Elite. Black Ops offered all these stats for free, now all the sudden they want you to pay for it.
Mario Strikers Charged with it's stupid Wii Remote gimmick power up. The original has pure gameplay whereas the sequel kinda ruins it.
Luigi's Mansion 2 mission structure and smaller mansions differs enough from the original to make me not like it as much.
I prefer the darker tone and weirdness of Ocarina and MM, Wind Waker did away with that and it hasn't really come back, Twilight Princess being the exception. Idk aesthetic and tone are extremely important to me.Well they aren't too similar, so what do you dislike about both?
Dude, you know what I mean. Why are you trying to be cute?
"Exploring" a dungeon is fundamentally a different experience than "exploring" an open world. Technically, every aspect of every single game you've ever played that wasn't an exact rote sequence you were repeating was a form of exploration.
The difference is when you explore a dungeon, you're operating inside a deliberate system with an end goal. You go find this key, to open this chest, to fight this mini boss, to get this item, etc.
Whereas open world exploration is often aimless wandering with no clear payoff, if there is one at all.
I play games for the "aha!" Moments. When you solve a difficult puzzle or complete a challenging task. I don't play my games to wander aimlessly. I have other hobbies I engage in to scratch that itch. I know not everyone is like me, and that's fine, but if Zelda is moving in this direction, I'm out after 25 years.
Sullla said:All of the things that I've been criticizing for long paragraphs here in this review - the freebies handed out constantly, the endless filler stuff that looks important but isn't, the One Unit Per Tile combat that makes anyone look like a tactical genius, the simplified happiness system, the passive and reactive style of gameplay - the exact things that irritate many veterans of the Civilization series are the same things that make many newcomers love Civ5. Think about all of the ways that the gameplay has been reworked to cater to less experienced players. It was very common for newcomers to be confused by how the sliders worked in past Civ games. They're gone, replaced with science/culture/faith/etc. counters that tick up automatically in the background. Less experienced players tend to build few cities and fewer workers. (I've introduced many non-gaming friends to Civ games over the years, and this is the number one thing that always jumps out at me when I see them play.) Civ5 tones down the need for expansion, and flat-out gives the players a free worker and a free settler if they take the Liberty tree. Then there's the endless deluge of free stuff that constantly gets handed down throughout Civ5. This is the Facebook style of gameplay introduced to the Civilization series. Who doesn't like getting free stuff? Keep giving out a constant trickle of rewards just for playing the game, and you'll keep players hooked onMafia WarsCivilization 5. Step right up, get your Steam achievements right here!
The gameplay in Civ5 has been deliberately set up to appeal to this sort of less experienced player. When I watch my non-gaming friends play one of the Civilization games, most of the time they're just sitting around hitting next turn. "Do something!" I think in my head. Build more cities and units, come up with a plan, something, anything. But no, they're just having fun experiencing the ambiance of the game, they don't have any particular goals or strategy in mind. Civ5's passive style of gameplay is a perfect fit for this sort of player. You can sit back and keep hitting next turn without doing much of anything; eventually, the game will keep popping up to give you free rewards, and tell you how awesome you are for playing the game. Remember, Civ5 is a game where stuff largely happens to you, not the other way around. It's the exact opposite of a game like Civ4, where if you don't MAKE things happen, nothing WILL happen. That's boring to newcomers! People who are not bigtime strategy fans are far more likely to enjoy Civ5 than they are Civ4. They don't have to build many cities. They can automate workers and generally do OK (since the tile improvements are a lot simpler in Civ5). They don't have to bother much with diplomacy, with no techs to trade. If they do get attacked, then they can show off how awesome they are by exploiting the horrendous incompetence of the combat AI. Keep in mind that they vast, VAST majority of people playing a Civilization game will not be playing on high difficulty, and they'll only play a couple of games before moving on to something else. We had a rough number when I was working on Civ4 that something like 80% of all players would never try anything other than Chieftain difficulty. The complex breakdown of the gameplay mechanics that I'm mentioning here are completely irrelevant for the overwhelming majority of the Civ5 playerbase. They could care less about this stuff! Most of them are just enjoying moving units around and building wonders, and Civ5 does a tremendous job of making that a pleasant experience with its beautiful graphics and lovely orchestral music. Civ5 is winning these customers over in a big way.
Since we're in a Nintendo thread, I'll make this comparison: things like Civ5's hidden-information diplomacy (which the lead designer, Jon Shafer, himself repudiated as a bad idea) are directly analogous to the random tripping in SSB Brawl. Personal preference doesn't magically turn it into good design. I like Brawl; I actually played it a whole lot more than Melee; I loved the wackiness of the stages and the inspired roster additions and just about everything except for Subspace Emissary. But I would never in my life claim that the mechanics were more tightly designed, or the skill cap more amenable to advanced/competitive exploration by people experienced with fighting games. That would be a challenging stance to take and an easy stance to refute; one almost suspects it must be wrong.
With something like Brawl, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that I squeezed more fun out of the game that was, in its mechanical core, worse. And I'm not sure why the "la la la, don't listen to the Civ4 players" crowd has so much trouble with that when it comes to Civ5. In fact, I'm quite happy to acknowledge that Civ5 is easier to sit down with on a laid-back or escapist/role-playing basis. The interface is friendlier, there are fewer things to manage, it delivers a satisfying power fantasy without making you work too hard to earn it, it's beautiful to look at, and there are tons of new toys to play with that are firsts for the series. I can absolutely see why someone might enjoy it more. But if a strategy game designer ever came along and said they took a lot of positive inspiration from Civ5 for how to handle things like gold sinks, expansion penalties, and diplomatic AI, that would be a red flag to stay far, far away.
I state with confidence that it's Super Mario 64. It may well have left an impression on me but I never found it all that compelling and I think its greater focus on traversal and collecting stuff (vs. reaching a standard goal) combined with the series' propensity for one-hit kills makes it pretty drudgerous to progress through in some cases. And as I've mentioned before I always felt that the limited jump control was a significant step down from the looser jump provided in Super Mario World.
Between the significant increase in checkpoints and the greater movement control from jumps I think Galaxy was the first 3D Mario that really felt right.
EDIT: Ironically, BOTW is the opposite for me from most posters, where it really is the only Zelda game that I've been able to properly get into.
Persona 5.
Massive Persona fan and not sure I will be playing the series going forward. Bloat after bloat after drawn out bloat: the game. I didn't like the dungeon design, the repitition in the story drove my mad. I didn't make it to the third dungeon.