|
Post by toei on Mar 1, 2022 16:07:21 GMT -5
Yeah, I mentioned Warriors of the Shinsengumi. The other is a romantic visual novel, so I'm really not interested.
I remember hearing about Lumines. I'll check out some gameplay vid.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Mar 1, 2022 16:19:31 GMT -5
The other is a romantic visual novel, so I'm really not interested. Never know till you try. Could turn out otome visual novels set in feudal Japan are your true calling in life.
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Mar 1, 2022 18:10:07 GMT -5
I don't really think of Origins as a legit prequel, even though I thought it was decent. It was written and made by entirely different people, so why would it clarify anything? It's just pretty decent fan-fiction, in a way. Maybe ORIGINS and Alessa might kind of imply some predetermined expectations as a prequel to SH1.
But yeah for a Silent Hill game with trucker Billybob, it was cool enough.
I think Silent Hill Downpour is the only non-Team Silent game that had some soul. But it had a $5 happy meal budget as Konami loved to show much they despised their own franchises around that era. But yeah, most of the Western Silent Sill's are super average at best.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Mar 1, 2022 18:29:44 GMT -5
Xeogred What's your point? The publisher's marketing department or some random suits named the game with that intention, because the business is set up in a way that gives them that power. But they didn't make the games. Team Silent made the original run, so some random Western dev assigned to develop a SH game later on (and didn't they have a different dev for every post-4 SH?) won't know more about what a prequel's story should be like or what may have been intended than any other random person off the street. It's an official prequel because of money and business realities. But it's not a legitimate creative prequel. It's entirely possible that I only liked those two games because they were my first survival horror games. One thing they did reproduce pretty well is how the moment-to-moment progression takes place.
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Mar 1, 2022 18:56:58 GMT -5
This is a dumb argument.
What I am simply saying is that I went into Silent Hill Origins and it opens up like it's going to explain more about SH1's events. But it was a laughable attempt. Not like I want any extra context around it anyways. We're both fans of SH1 and it's fine as is. The end.
I like your logic because that's how I view Disney Star Wars. They're illegitimate.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Mar 1, 2022 19:41:03 GMT -5
This is a dumb argument. What I am simply saying is that I went into Silent Hill Origins and it opens up like it's going to explain more about SH1's events. But it was a laughable attempt. Not like I want any extra context around it anyways. We're both fans of SH1 and it's fine as is. The end. I like your logic because that's how I view Disney Star Wars. They're illegitimate. Yeah, there was no good reason to make a prequel in the first place, other than it gave them an excuse to redo a bunch of locations from the first game. Honestly though, even though I thought the games were basically ok, I can never remember which is which. I grabbed them on a whim because they were selling them used for cheap where I bought my PSP and I wanted to bring home some games. I'd always thought Silent Hill sounded cool. And I went into them with zero expectations because I played them first; otherwise, I may have hated them too. They are largely a weaker rehash of the core SH. Except for how one of them only has those running away sequences instead of fighting, but that's not a good addition. Those sequences were very straightforward, but in general I won't play horror games where you're only allowed to run or hide. I don't care about the whole "it's scarier because you're powerless" idea, I don't like fleeing all the time. EDIT - One thing I remember being surprised by when playing around with PS2/PS3 era open-world games is how bad the hand-to-hand fighting was, even in such huge franchises as GTA. I don't know if they fixed it since, and I guess it wasn't central to the game, but it was really amateur hour. I just did 3 missions in Gangs of London - a tutorial including some very basic stealth and an awkward gunfight, a driving mission where I had to destroy a car (the most competent part by far), and a mission where I was fighting with a pipe, and man, that last one was garbage. People can block steel pipes barehanded. Every fight is hit 2-3 times, block 2-3 hits, hit 2-3 times. The camera gets crazy close and you can't even really see yourself. You're just stuck against the enemy and it looks ridiculous. There's no feeling of impact whatsoever. It plays like a bad prototype. I hope there's a lot more driving than fighting, because that part is fine.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Mar 1, 2022 22:12:16 GMT -5
PS2/PS3 era open-world games is how bad the hand-to-hand fighting was, even in such huge franchises as GTA This is one reason I recommended Sleeping Dogs to you. It's got great martial arts and environmental combat in it: Also a decent plot, good open world to explore, driving doesn't suck. Compared to the GTA games I'd played before it, Sleeping Dogs was excellent. Edit: Here's my review of the game: gamefaqs.gamespot.com/xbox360/981376-sleeping-dogs/reviews/164661In case anybody is wondering, this was originally a 2012 release. So it's HRG compliant on this side of the board now.
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Mar 1, 2022 22:24:20 GMT -5
...Except for how one of them only has those running away sequences instead of fighting, but that's not a good addition. Those sequences were very straightforward, but in general I won't play horror games where you're only allowed to run or hide. I don't care about the whole "it's scarier because you're powerless" idea, I don't like fleeing all the time. EDIT - One thing I remember being surprised by when playing around with PS2/PS3 era open-world games is how bad the hand-to-hand fighting was, even in such huge franchises as GTA. I don't know if they fixed it since, and I guess it wasn't central to the game, but it was really amateur hour. I just did 3 missions in Gangs of London - a tutorial including some very basic stealth and an awkward gunfight, a driving mission where I had to destroy a car (the most competent part by far), and a mission where I was fighting with a pipe, and man, that last one was garbage. People can block steel pipes barehanded. Every fight is hit 2-3 times, block 2-3 hits, hit 2-3 times. The camera gets crazy close and you can't even really see yourself. You're just stuck against the enemy and it looks ridiculous. There's no feeling of impact whatsoever. It plays like a bad prototype. I hope there's a lot more driving than fighting, because that part is fine. Yeah. From Haunting Ground to more modern stuff, I'm not a fan of chasing/hiding mechanics superseding or completely replacing combat. I know the point of horror games is to be scared and powerless, but eh. I'm glad RE has continued to nail the perfect balance for me.
The Wiimote "puzzles" with Shattered Memories looked hilarious too. I think I watched DansGaming play through it and him waggling that stupid thing to get some keys loose from a fence or whatever... ugh, so dumb lol.
I think Ex has a nice idea recommending you Sleeping Dogs. The combat in that was pretty dang awesome indeed and the story seemed cool. I didn't beat it though, because it still suffers from repetitive game design ideas from that era. Go here, do this, open up the 70th power box, unlock the map, etc. I think by the point I got around to it my patience for city sandbox open world games was drying up.
Assassin's Creed and Batman Arkham kind of became the blueprint formula for the combat in open world games around that era, for better or worse. You're mainly just countering people and locked into 1v1's even if there's a big mob. I don't even know how to describe it. But if you've played anything like them, there's a lot from this era that wanted to do that. The GTA's in general have always had weird controls I think. I liked GTA3, Vice City, San Andreas, and GTA4 a decent bit. But I feel like a lot of this stuff I wouldn't care for now, even for a fresh first run.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Mar 1, 2022 22:27:58 GMT -5
it still suffers from repetitive game design ideas from that era It took me 21 hours to finish, and I did a lot of optional stuff. I don't know how that completion time compares to a standard GTA game though.
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Mar 1, 2022 22:29:17 GMT -5
That sounds pretty dang brief actually, compared to newer open world games.
It did get a remaster I think. So that is one I kind of think about giving another shot someday. It has a niche' hardcore following for sure.
|
|