|
Post by Sarge on Apr 19, 2024 10:56:26 GMT -5
I agree with pretty much everything you said - these days, it's more using them in exceptional times. I care less now about trying to get a "perfect" run through a game. It's probably worth checking to see if a big RPG has a really good item that's completely missable, but it's mostly best to just roll through normally.
I don't completely dismiss genres, but I definitely don't actively seek out RTSs overall. I guess the closest I've gotten (and loved) is Growlanser, although that has a different bent than your typical PC-style resource management RTS. I've also wanted to eventually play through Warcraft III, which has a much stronger RPG/RTS feel as well.
As far as MMORPGs go, it's obvious I'll play games with that sort of combat (Xenoblade, FFXII), it's just not ideal, and I care not one whit for the online aspect, even if it could potentially be very fun. I don't want the obligations that come with playing with others or the massive time sink most of those embody.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Apr 19, 2024 11:09:22 GMT -5
it's mostly best to just roll through normally Long ago I decided I was fine with missing stuff. Worth it for my experience to be MY experience, rather than a strategy guide's experience. Sometimes after beating a game, I'll go and see what I missed. 95% of the time it's trivial stuff like the "best gear" I didn't even need to beat the game anyway. >MMORPG - I don't want the obligations that come with playing with others or the massive time sink. I agree, and add I don't care for an "RPG" that lacks a definitive ending.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Apr 19, 2024 13:01:15 GMT -5
True, the best gear is only enticing up until you've beaten the game, so I don't stress making sure I find it anymore. I just try to find everything I can, and I do like to check after I'm done sometimes. If I have more time the same day I beat a game, I might mess around in it some more, maybe go do things I didn't do. But usually the next day I don't care about that stuff anymore, cause I've beaten the game after all. Also, Ex , now I'm wondering how bad those footsteps could be. What was the game?
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Apr 19, 2024 14:33:53 GMT -5
I'm wondering how bad those footsteps could be. What was the game? I'll give it another chance someday. Maybe with ear plugs.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 19, 2024 14:36:30 GMT -5
I still want to play through that one.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Apr 19, 2024 14:45:42 GMT -5
It's bad IMO, you're missing nothing. I set out to play it twice and dropped it both times because combat was too tedious. High encounter rate + very slow battle system with just one character actually attacking. I knew it would drive me crazy if I kept going, my patience was already wearing thin a couple hours in. From wikipedia:
"only the front character is actually able to physically attack the enemy. The other two characters serve in a supporting role, taunting the enemy and utilizing certain items or spells. The enemies have the same limitations. Since only one character can engage in direct combat with the enemy at a time, this tends to have the overall effect of slowing down combat when compared to games which allow all of the party to be fully involved."
There is no worse combination in turn-based RPGs than high encounter rates and long battles.
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Apr 19, 2024 14:48:46 GMT -5
I was actually going to randomly suggest Skyrim for toei . Thanks for reminding me that games exists. I still need to give Skyrim a try. I played Morrowind for a bit, enjoyed its aesthetics, but its combat and gameplay didn't hold my attention. I also tried Oblivion out, did not like its aesthetics as much (so much bloom), and fell off of it as well (don't remember exactly why). Both of those attempts were many years ago. But Skyrim was the entry that even casual gamers loved, so it's probably safe to say Bethesda got the gameplay polished out with that one. I've got it on PS4. (Also, Skyrim is now 12 years old... it's already retro by this board's standards.) I don't have anything really positive to say about the story, outside of the Mages quest line. And it's no wonder that so many "Took an arrow to the knee" memes of dialogue from the game exist. Comical weird one liners that get repeated a lot. But gameplay wise it's a pretty damn solid open world. One massive improvement over past entries is that all the dungeons/caves (the 500 of them?) are all far more organic in design. They felt very repetitive in Oblivion. The Dwarves high tech labyrinths in particular could almost pass for something straight out of Thief 2. Those enviros were amazing. But the overworld is a thing of beauty too and with the Nordic theme, it's filled with snowy mountains and awesome "cold" vistas. That's an aesthetic I really like, from World 6 in SMB3, to modern games nowadays (Rise of the Tomb Raider was a snowy setting too that looked incredible). Beautiful places I'd never want to live in. The OST is also incredible. There, I saw mostly positive things about Skyrim! And yes I think it can cater to both casual and hardcore gamers. toei should give it a look.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Apr 19, 2024 16:03:46 GMT -5
I'm not giving any 100 hours game a look, unless I actually get through most of my current list of games to play, and all the PS4 stuff after that, and then I'm still playing games by then.
|
|
|
Post by Chema on Apr 19, 2024 16:15:42 GMT -5
The whiniest gamers are those who complain that Cyberpunk 2077 is a bad game because it "only" lasts 40 hours or that Diablo sucks because there is 20 hours of postgame content. There seem to be a lot of gamers with no real life responsibilities...
|
|
|
Post by toei on Apr 19, 2024 16:32:35 GMT -5
Chema Yeah, that's actually one of the worst trends as it actively incentivizes companies to make games overly long for my tastes. Lots of padding, lots of time wasting, etc. I heard someone defend that idea by saying he only plays a few games a year (a popular youtuber with money, so it's not for financial reasons), so he "needs" to spend 100+ hours on each of them. But I like variety, so to me that whole standard is crazy. Another reason why I'm fine with playing very few modern games. Speaking of Diablo, I remember there was this little controversy where a reviewer (maybe on youtube, don't remember) gave Diablo IV a "bad" review (not actually that bad) and he got a lot of criticism from fans because he "only" played through the main story, and "the real game starts after". But the main story is 25+ hours long! That's ten times too long for "it gets good later".
|
|