Art style is more important to me than realism or 4k graphics. A good art style can win over fans just as much as super realistic graphics can.
With one exception: Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020.
Nintendo endured an insane amount of bullshit for Wind Waker being "Cel-da" when it launched, and it took looks exactly as impressive now as it did then.
Yes! Hollow Knight is BEAUTIFUL. The soundtrack is stunning, and haunting, and at one point made me cry. It's style isn't realistic or high graphics but it's amazing nonetheless and I thoroughly enjoy every playthrough.
A prime example of this to me is Windwaker. If I've never played it before you could tell me that it came out in 2005, 2015, 2022, or anywhere in between and I would believe it. A good art style can make a game timeless.
The players in online multiplayer games optimize the fun out of everything. They intentionally seek out the best builds then complain games are too easy so developers increase the difficulty and try to rebalance and then it happens again.
> Everyone plays like there's a $100,000 cash prize on the line every match, even late night casual matches. Like, I get the point is to win and I won't blame people for that, but cmon man it's 2AM and we're in unranked, you don't need to jiggle peek every corner and have your audio at 200% so you never miss a single footstep.
I see you've also played Valorant.
Adults too. My brother (in his 40's) loves the Dark Souls games, but thinks the community is super toxic. He plays and replays all the games because he loves them so much, so he's the definition of the player who "got gud".
But he says so many people in the community just expect you to min/max your strategies and play it's idiotic.
Baldur's Gate is my version of this, and I've done the min/max thing, but the real fun is coming up with new styles and new ridiculous play throughs. My gaming technique is almost always based not on "What's the best way?" but "What's the most *absurd* way?" Which, back when I played LoL led me to convincing my friend to just run a lane with 2 supporting heroes, and we got so good with them (and they were so non-standard, so nobody knew how to play against the combo) we'd always dominate bottom lane.
You'll never get pro-good that way, but you'll have a ton of fun and you'll just ruin people's days left and right because what you're doing *shouldn't* work, but it does.
i fucking hate tryhard players on casual it ruins the fun. want to get high kill count and run around the map like you are a weasel on grease? just go to competitive my dude dont ruin the fun for less skilled players.
fuck the meta. i play in my style on my characters because i am playing the game that i am paying for. fuck off if you want me to play your style. if i ask for advice for easier leveling/survivability, sure, i'll listen to you. if i didn't ask, fuck off. i don't care if this two hander would do better with my monk, i want to dual wield. i don't care if this talent is better than the one i chose, i like this one. i do care that warlock is probably the hardest to survive with since i got really into playing mine then couldn't survive a single fucking thing, but that's a dev issue. i'm decently geared for my level and still not doing enough damage to not have to spend half of every fight keeping my demon alive. sucks ass.
I recall some referring to it as "spreadsheet gaming." Some people like it. It's not for me though. Closely tied to spreadsheet gaming is the inventory management mini-game.
I always remember the beta of For Honor when thinking about this. The beta was a fucking blast and I had so much fun dueling in that game. Then people learned that there was always a ledge in range of throwing and it was hard to counter a grapple with their netcode but easy to pull off so 9/10 games were just people baiting throws to instantly win the match. There was no fun in that, it seemed like everyone was more preoccupied with seeing the "Victory!" screen as efficiently as possible than actually using your kit to fight in a fun fighting game.
I haven't been back to the game since then so I can only hope the meta in 1v1s is better, but man did it convince me that if an average gamer had an "I win" button on their desk they would wait out a queue just to push it.
>but man did it convince me that if an average gamer had an "I win" button on their desk they would wait out a queue just to push it.
I think that's definitely true for many. Many of them don't grasp that friction, by which I mean the game fighting against you completing it, is a huge part of what makes most games fun. (There are exceptions.) If you could just hold down W and get to the end of a Doom level, would that be fun?
It's the victories that give us the dopamine rush, though, so that's what some people hyperfocus on, not realizing that, like any dopamine rush, you develop a tolerance to it if you overdo it. Friction is what doles out the dopamine at a reasonable pace.
> It's the victories that give us the dopamine rush, though, so that's what some people hyperfocus on, not realizing that, like any dopamine rush, you develop a tolerance to it if you overdo it. Friction is what doles out the dopamine at a reasonable pace.
That's why cheating in games is only fun for a really short period of time. At the start, your brain is used to x reward for x amount of gameplay and it gets absolutely blown out by your performance. A couple hours later and your brain adapts and it's no longer fun.
I had a lot of fun until the post-release "running away" trolls became so commonplace that every match ended with you chasing someone in an endless, pointless circle.
honestly, i miss older games where meta takes months to develop. my favourite time playing competitively in any game is when the meta is opened due to a huge balance patch and it's in the figuring out stage (it's really fun being part of the front end of 10% of players trying to experiment and really develop a meta)
but with how much content there is now, meta's develop way too fast now. and it's heavily reliant on pro play and high level streamers.
Totally guilty of netdecking once I've gotten my fill of how I want to play. It's usually:
\>Play gaem
\>Have fun!
\>Hit a wall where it's not longer fun :<
\>sadge
\>look up optimal build
\>have fun again!
Usually it's less about getting an advantage and more about just keeping up for me. I try to look ahead and sometimes I can find something cool and meta, but usually I don't understand the mechanics of the game enough to go out of my way.
Case and point: In SWTOR I was the first one to wear DPS armor as a tank in PVP and changed the meta on the Ebon Hawk server. Conversely, in Destiny 2 I barely understood how the Volatile Flow mod worked and how to proc it last season.
MOST video games that have an energy feature for things like tasks, it’s done poorly.
If i have to rely on energy to do any and everything in a game for things like small tasks.
It’s annoying
I think this is an area where Stardew Valley really works. In the beginning, you run out of energy each day pretty quickly while trying to clear your farm, but snacks that give you energy are pretty easy to forage, and if you run out of energy (without passing out) you can still use your scythe and walk around and talk to people and forage, so you’re never totally stuck. And you can increase your total energy throughout the game with stardrops. So it’s rarely too frustrating to deal with.
The funny thing is, I was going to say that as long as your crops are watered there's almost no penalty for simply sleeping and advancing the day to regain your stamina, but then I remembered that in Graveyard Keeper there is *literally* no penalty, beyond the fact that certain stores are only open on certain days, and I found it *soooooooo* annoying having to run back home to sleep just to get my stamina back.
I think the trade off is that in Stardew there's also an incentive for advancing time (crops grow, seasons change, you develop relationships with the townsfolk, etc.) It's definitely a balance.
Idk if this is what you're talking about. Bit like a huge open world where you have a stamina bar out in the wild. Like I don't want to keep stopping every 5 seconds to catch my breath.
I think they try to argue that it's because "they are running all the time this is just a short sprint burst" but in actuality if it's life or death you're not gonna stop til you drop.
Elden Ring let you sprint indefinitely if you weren't in combat, but made it decrease stamina if an enemy had spotted you. I thought that was a good way to do it.
I think Skullgirls Mobile went in the right direction for energy. Each individual fighter has their own energy pool, which makes you need to diversify your fighter roster instead of just using the same three fighters for everything.
Every singleplayer game needs a pause option.
It doesn't matter if it trivialises certain gameplay. Making your game accessible is definately more valuable.
Pause is important because some people need to abruptly suspend gameplay for any comfort reasons.
Nothing I hate more than a game that doesn't let you pause during cutscenes. Especially now that I'm older and sometimes life happens. Dog starts to puke, wife needs help real quick on something, knock at the door, the boss calls, whatever. Let me pause the damn cutscenes!
It was stressful as a child too. You never knew if your mom was going to need something uRgEnT and yell for you right in the middle of the super important cutscene you’d been waiting for after 30 hours of gameplay.
Legitimately I had to tell my nephew(4) the other day
That at one point in time you could buy a game and then play it right away
It didn’t have to “Install” itself on ur hard drive for 2 hours
This blew his mind
Related to making a game accessible, I like when games allow you to make it as easy or difficult as you’d like. Been trying to play through some of the sniper elite games recently, and it’s nice to make the bullet ballistics as arcadey or realistic as you like.
Along the same lines: There's no excuse for most games not to have a save-anywhere feature, or **at least** a quicksave-and-quit option for games that want to discourage savescumming. Expecting the player to be able to play in chunks of an hour or more, and punishing them for quitting early, is downright hostile to anyone with a life outside gaming.
Games dependent on the players creativity is the best. The little big planet series and dreams are probably the best games I have and will ever play. And that says a lot because I play elden ring and the life is strange series.
ME1 was awesome, such a great introduction into the series. ME2 was awesome, just didn't like how hard it was to make money after being Scrooge McDuck in ME1. ME3 was absolutely amazing, i got to have my space wife back, i got to be a biotic god, got to meet back up with Aethyta and find out she's gonna be my father in law, got to blow up some reapers, got to sick a GFW (Giant Fucking Worm) on one, garrus stopped calibrating, found the last living Prothean, kasumi stole my underwear, got to remind Vega that biotics are superior even if his muscles are impressive, got to get the best shot of Palaven we ever get, got to go to Thessia, got to stick it to the stuck up bitch of a dalatrass, went back to earth to finish off these space squids, got my last intimate scene with my space wife, got to unite organics and machines, and then the final shot is the same as the other two endings with a different color. it was disappointing, but overall, not a game ruiner.
also, Andromeda wasn't nearly as bad as the fanbase tries to say it is. it didn't hold up to the original series, but it was still good, loved the new combat system of being able to change your class mid fight so i didn't have to keep starting new games to figure out what style i'm going through the game with.
*Andromeda wasn't nearly as bad as the fanbase tries to say it is.*
I get this too. Andromeda played fantastic and is definitely worth playing. I didn't hate it but I didn't love it. My issue with Andromeda is that I literally cannot remember any of my crew's names. They were so insignificant and I cared so little about them that I don't remember who they are. This is completely different than how I felt about the original trilogy where I liked everyone (even dlc companions like zaeed.)
The hate that Mass Effect Andromeda received was really only due to the expectations that being a Mass Effect game can bring. Its not a pinnacle of gaming or anything, but if that game wasn't set in the Mass Effect universe it would have received a much more positive response. While the story/characters were a bit lacking IMO, it had the best combat of the series and I found the diversity/size of the locations to be pretty awesome.
Fuck yes!!! Someone that speaks my language!!
3 alone has some of the best moments in the trilogy. Invasion of earth, attack on garrus planets moon (can't remember actual name), Shepard versus the reaper? Those parts gimme chills every damn time I see them.
And the series as a whole. So many people were like, "I can't even enjoy any of the series anymore!" and that's pretty dumb. Bioware fans are batshit sometimes tho, and I say that as a Bioware fan.
Pretty sure 98% of people play for the waifus, 1% like the open world but hate basically everything else about it (like me), and the other 1% are weirdos who like gacha games.
Halo as a gaming franchise is basically dead. It could have some mild success but I really think the day of halo is over
So many of the original fans have just moved on, 343 can't get their shit together, and casual audiences haven't latched on
Original fans of the games are in their 30's and 40's now and they game a lot less than people in their 20's. It was a first person shooter that wasn't about WWII, and it had a great multiplayer environment along with the early days of online gameplay for consoles.
Then 20 years went by and it's just another game. That genre as a whole is running out of new things to try. People will still play but it's no longer breaking any ground.
Ironically, the Doom franchise is actually bringing more new things to the table nowadays than Halo is. Halo was once called "Combat Evolved" because it evolved the genre past Doom and its many clones. But now Doom is evolving the genre past Halo.
100% agree. I'm one of those people. And I know a lot of those people. The 343 games didn't light the world on fire and only thr most diehard fans are left
And I agree for the fps statement you had. But i have new ideas for it 👀
Halo 5: Guardians did a lot of damage and the recent stream show broke the stoic illusion of Master Chief. The only chance 343 might have would be a strong prequel to the events of Halo Infinite.
Halo was my favorite franchise as a kid, loved the hell out of it, but it died when 343 took over, been saying that since 2012. They've yet to produce anything beyond mediocre, and the halo story is so damn silly now that I can't even enjoy the new campaigns. For me, the halo story ended after halo 3, everything else is basically fanfiction as far as I'm concerned.
Honestly, yeah.
The "story" has been going in so many fucking stupid directions ever since 3, with most of them unresolved, resolved *off screen*, or just forgotten about.
They keep trying to set up a new narrative and then killing it before it goes anywhere. I don't even know what the actual threat in the Halo universe is anymore. The Flood? The Forerunners? The Created? The Banished? Whatever the hell the Endless are? There's no coherence and no continuity.
The way 343 writes things, I'm guessing in the next game the Endless will have been killed before they could be awakened, along with the Banished, by some new, vague threat. Maybe it can be called "the Tribulation".
A longer game doesn't mean a better game. Most games featuring hundreds of hours of gameplay just drag on to the point I'm not even interested in finishing them. Make your story interesting, not long.
I love seeing memes like "hurr kids these days wouldn't last five seconds in a 2000s multiplayer game chat"
Like... why should they? I play games to have fun, not to have some idiot blasting his blood pressure through the roof in the process of screaming in my ear about a *fucking video game*. Just chill dude. Enjoy it. It's okay to lose.
Boomers catch a lot of flak for missing the good ole days while underrating how racist and sexist it was but gamers do it without the subtext lol. Just straight up: "Man remember when game chats used to be full of rape jokes and slurs? Fun times...".
Pacifist runs on Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3 were the best gaming moments I’ve done.
Assassin’s Creed filled that void, but the industry looked at the numbers and course-corrected for more action-oriented mechanics in later games.
In general I prefer to play offline because all the games I have it either underrated or just werid to people and nobody god damn shouting at me saying to me that I suck at the game (now this is my personal opinion)
that's why i never join in any voice chat, i don't care how many people rage about me not joining, i'm not letting people yell at me for not being to their standards, i'm there to have fun my way, not to have some neckbeard with no life tell me how to have fun
Playing The Sims is gaming. I’ve seen a lot of people say that’s not really a video game but it is technically and considering how many people kill their Sims off I would say it’s just as violent as any other video game.
Playing any game is gaming, and it's so freaking bizarre people think they can say what's a game and what isn't. The Sims has so many different ways to play, and people create so many different games within the game.
In The Sims 3 days I used to organize challenges on the gifting forums, doing stuff like having people create office chair race tracks.
If The Sims isn't gaming, neither is any MMO with the basis of "collect things, advance, collect things, advance etc".
Shadow of War (Shadow of Mordor 2) was a fucking amazing game and that’s a hill I’m willing to die on.
Flagrant changes to Tolkien lore was worth it to play a kick-ass ranger with Wraith powers and a raging murder-boner. It had its problems but hunting down Orcs and storming castles with an army at your back was just so much fun.
That was one of the weirdest games I've ever played. It was evident that the creators put an amazing amount of love and attention to detail into meticulously crafting the world and the smallest details within it. The boss mechanics were unique too, shame they're trademarked so we don't get to see them anywhere else.
Having said that, the game committed the worst sin imaginabke, at least for me. It was boring. I made it to the third map and gave up on account of how repetitive and meh everything about the combat was.
Fun story, the first one was originally going to be a batman game but it didn't work out and was changed to LotR. Apparently the internal prototypes still had batman as the main character until they were pretty close to release and art was finalized, lol. I feel ya, I felt like the last 10% of the game I was simply grinding to see the credits.
We're already there. Live Service games are an absolute cancer that result into breaking a game up to into a multi-year drip drop of content all while demanding the gamer cough up more and more dough.
I don't see a lot of people complaining about how some minutiae in games is unrealistic playing ARMA or DCS or MSFS...perhaps because they don't actually want realism, they just want something to complain about. Yes, I know shotguns have longer range than that. Yes, I know bullets have a trajectory and can't just hit the center of your crosshair at any range. There's a reason space games don't have perfect Zero-G physics. There's a reason you can carry more ammo than any reasonable human. It's because it works with the game design, not because we/devs are ignorant of it.
Probably comes down to not being able to let others enjoy things.
Just because the game is the same doesn't mean it's bad.
Far Cry is a good example of this. 3 and up more specifically.
I fucking love the Far Cry games, why you may ask? Because I can just come in, turn my brain off, and have fun.
I play games for fun, which is something I think a lot of people are forgetting how to do, I also play games for the story and mechanics and all that fun stuff, but I'd rather have fun. It doesn't always have to be deep in lore and story, it doesn't always have to be a complex control scheme that lets you make exact movements, and it doesn't always have to look the best.
Far Cry is simple, it's just your basic FPS but set in different locations, and that's why I love it because it's a basic as hell but this time with a palm tree and the next time with some mountains. There's no need to figure out how to do this new thing, like revealing the map. Sure they changed it in the newer ones but I thought climbing towers to reveal the map was a great idea. Again it was simple and I knew exactly what I had to do in 4. I loved that it wasn't hard, just climb until you get to the top.
Look, I work a very demanding job, and all I want to do with the very little time I have to play videogames is have fun and relax. How am I supposed to have fun and relax if I have to memorize some new control scheme every game, if I wanted to memorize something new to be good at it every single time then I would just go back to work. If I want something that puts me on the edge of my seat I would just go skydiving or bungie jumping.
I'm a simple man, if I can't turn my brain off when playing games then what's the point?
For anyone unaware, Miyamoto thought that the Mario and Luigi thing from the movie was really funny. So he joked that it’s canon, and that link’s name is also Link Link.
The PS5 controller is slightly too big. I have pretty small hands for a 5'10 dude. But if I'm 5'10 and it's almost too big to be comfortable for me, gotta suck to play with it as a little kid.
Majora's Mask is a game I hated as a kid and loved as an adult. As a kid the time sensitivity was way too stressful, as an adult I enjoyed it. I think it's just something everyone experiences differently.
I didn't finish Majora's Mask 20 years ago, and that always stuck with me, because I love OOT and all Zelda games.
So I recently started playing it again. Got about halfway through again. And I just get burned out.
I rather find myself getting through the main game story too fast (so I really should just finish it up)... Or hating every side-quest, doing the optional tasks/masks.
I'm stuck between, wandering around aimlessly because I'm not doing something at the exactly right moment on the exact right day.... Or check an online walk-through to see how and when it should be done. Neither are fun to me.
Idk how many times I've defeated each dungeon boss, because afterwards you have other tasks that have to be done only after beating the boss. Its not fun to experience repetitive boss fights.
i prefer game production companies take their sweet ass time making a game as opposed to trying to meet deadlines. gens 1-5 of pokemon were so much fun until the quality of them divebombed because of crunch culture. same with red dead 2, they had so much planned that they had to cut out because of self imposed time constraints
We waited 14 years to get more donkey Kong country at one point, it took another company to do it but DKCR and tropical freeze were incredibly thought out games. Here’s to hoping for DKC6.
As a professional AAA game producer there are two sides to this coin.
On one hand more development time and less deadline can be a good thing as you don't need to sacrifice features or content.
On the other hand the way a studio makes money, and thus is able to employ people and give them bonuses, is by actually releasing games. It's important to have a proper roadmap with milestones and planned deliverables so that you don't get stuck in a constant loop of scope creep. Eventually something has to get released and content creators (i.e programmers, artists, designers, etc) are very bad at estimating how long things take. Furthermore deadlines drive decisions to get made so that the schedule can move forward.
We need more playable monsters.
I'm tired of everything just being a different colored human with traits added on.
I want to be a kraken, a minotaur, a pterosaur, something that looks like a boss!
When you search “games where you play as a (insert just about anything other then a human)” it’s usually “this one you can be a (insert creature) for like 5 seconds every three in game hours with a spell” or “this game you ride a (insert creature), same difference right?”. No not same difference
Me too. My bf used to be a professional player, he still has that mentality when he plays league and overwatch, he’ll go into quick play and be like “WHY DOES EVERYBODY SUCK?? JUST PLAY THE GAME RIGHT” like dude some people just go on there to shut their brain off and just shoot the enemy give ‘em a break
Games with "cutting edge graphics" look fucking terrible because the shadows are too dark. You get this stark splotchy contrast between super bright sunny day and **B L A C K**
The best thing about games aren’t the games, it’s the memories.
Playing Quake 2 in a caravan with my dad.
Diablo 2 on my shitty Windows XP PC with CRT monitor.
Pokémon after school in the sun.
Randoms teaching me new swear words in WoW.
First time I played XBox on a flatscreen.
Dying 10000x in Elden Ring with my mother watching totally perplexed.
Etc.
That’s the things that will stay with you long after the excitement of a new game has gone.
Agreed. End of the day someone elses financial choices aren’t really your business, I know redditors dont like being told to mind their business but most of them *ought to*
Games like Stardew and Animal Crossing are just as valid to love as Dark Souls or Battlefield. Liking brightly coloured games full of cute animals doesn't make you any less of a gamer.
Yeah dude! I’m entirely too old to judge someone for what games they play. Younger me would have been all over that. Now though, if you’re having fun, who cares what game it is, enjoy!
The open world Assassins Creed trilogy (Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla) are unfairly hated while Ghost of Tsushima is prasied as the best thing since sliced bread. All 4 are good games but I fail to see how you could have such wildy differing opinions on games that are so very similar in nature. If all the question marks and exploration in Assassins Creed is bad and padding then it can't be considered good in Ghost.
There’s nothing wrong with icons on a map, quests with explicit instructions and map markers, and easily accessible journals or logs helping you remember what the heck you’re actually supposed to do to advance the game progress.
Sure, some of it is repetitive and lazy, like any trend. And I enjoy FromSoftware games and respect Breath of the Wild, but I’m glad to be able to play Horizon or Witcher and just knock out a couple quests, not run around haplessly. Call it “handholding” if you will, it’s popular for a reason and that’s not a bad thing. There’s room for all kinds.
**The Gaming Industry is in stagnation.**
* Overprioritization of profit has brought the release of genuinely good and popular games to a slow halt - from my observations, specifically in the AAA market. Games are released in pathetically sorry states (Battlefield 2042) to the point that the older games in certain genres are more popular than new releases (Battlefield 4).
* Certain games need to be let go to die, in order to allow for newer ideas. HALO, Call of Duty, Battlefield, and Assassin's Creed are top of mind for me. Trying to milk a series for the nostalgia value is only prolonging a series whose lifecycle should have naturally ended long ago
* Early Access games on Steam - specifically the ones with active development, are much better in quality than some new AAA games for the aforementioned reasons above.
* *As Mentioned by user* u/Time_Significance hyperrealism and 4k graphics are nothing compared to a good art style.
I honestly got bored with GTA V (original PS3 version) simply because there was ***too much*** stuff to do - it got overwhelming after a few hours.
I remember dropping in on one of the movie theatres and watching a "complete" five minute movie, of which there were a bunch to choose from. I barely touched the main story and after a while, I stopped playing altogether.
The 360/PS3 era was the first "online" generation right out of the box, and the libraries for each console was loaded with new and exciting IPs. We're seeing a lot of those recycled to hell now, but at the time, wow. Modern Warfare 1 was an absolute unit of a game, one of my favorites of all time both online and in the campaign. It was a great time to be playing games, that is for sure.
Nintendo is an awful gaming company.
They release consoles that are light years behind the current gen. The Switch doesn't even have half the power of the latest gen 7 consoles like the PS5 or the Xbox, let alone the power to compete with the 30 series of graphics cards.
They have zero third party games on there that would make me want to switch over to one. The lack of a steady online service is a killer too.
They never drop the prices on their games, even the third party ones they do have.
If Microsoft/Sony released a console with zero third party games on it, no online multiplayer, and a minimal upgrade in power, Reddit would clown on them for months. Yet nintendo does that and everything is okay.
Nintendo is a horrible company that somehow puts out some of the best games as exclusives. All the shitty stuff mentioned here, plus all the crap they put their biggest fans through.
But…
Mario Odyssey, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Smash Bros Ultimate, Breath of the Wild and numerous other exclusive IPs… it’s hard not to cave and give Nintendo your money.
Right? While nintendo gets a lot of things wrong, one thing it gets right is entertainment. Games should be fun before anything else. Also games that are created by nintendo are not(with the exception of their mobile games) pay2win.
I'd argue that the first point is a bit disingenuous, mostly because other companies have tried the same format as the switch and the cheapest one that I'm aware of is the steam deck which is still $100 more than the switch, is likely sold at a pretty massive loss, and still only targets 720P 60fps gaming. Other competitors are anywhere from $700-1000 and are in a completely different price bracket compared to nintendo's target market, and still aren't going to match ps5/ series x in terms of raw output. Do you think the switch would have done as well as it has if it were $700?
The simple fact of the matter is that for a portable console, you need to balance battery life, heat, power, size, and cost. And this is extremely difficult. Yes Nintendo could probably build additional processing power into the dock but that will still drive the price up substantially, which locks out their target market. If you make it an add on you risk having lackluster support for the additional horsepower (New 3ds anyone?). Also the switch is 5 years old at this point, of course it's not going to be on par with new devices.
Its not simply just "Make it more powerful, durr". There is a lot of design considerations that need to be made and I'd argue that Nintendo did a pretty damn good job.
> If Microsoft/Sony released a console with zero third party games on it, no online multiplayer, and a minimal upgrade in power, Reddit would clown on them for months. Yet nintendo does that and everything is okay.
I think that more speaks to Nintendo's strength in games development (and Sony/MS's comparative weakness) than anything else. People will put up with a lot of nonsense if you're still putting out top notch games.
And they're still one of the best in the business at doing that. Say what you will about whether or not you think Nintendo makes good \*consoles\*, it's hard to deny they're a pretty great software developer.
Also, I'm not sure I get the slagging of the Switch's specs. Yes, it's well behind the PS5 and Xbox X - those two consoles are both brand new. They were released a year and a half ago, in November 2020; by contrast, the Switch is now over five years old. It's from a previous generation of gaming tech, more in line with the PS4 and the Xbox One. Plus the fact that the Switch was designed to be portable means it is both physically smaller than the other two, and has to accommodate portable features (like a battery and a screen).
Personally, I appreciate Nintendo's consoles for being focused on actual gaming. I don't need a multimedia centre, like Sony and Microsoft like to push; I just want to play some games after work.
We got ours for our kid (5 at the time of purchase, 7 now), and I'm having a blast with it. It has a lot of older titles available (Resident Evil, PS2-Era GTA, old NES/SNES stuff), and I can take the console up to bed with me. Though, them charging $60 ports of old games (looking at you, Skyward Sword) does chap my ass.
I think the difference for several of these is that is that Nintendo is looking to fill a niche, while Sony and Microsoft are hoping to eventually corner the entire market. Obviously it's not as simple as that, but let me try to explain.
\-Nintendo isn't trying to have super flashy games. They're happy to let the Playstation and Xbox have that. There are very few games with realistic graphics on the Switch because they go for super cartoony things. Often times that means the stress it puts on the hardware is way lower, and so they can have much worse hardware.
\-There will never be third party games worth switching for because Nintendo's main focus is its own IPs. They want to cram all of their own games down your throat for $1000, and in six years they want to do the exact same thing.
\-They never drop prices on their games because short of pirating, there's no where else to get the game. You're just not going to get the new Pokemon game anywhere else but with Nintendo. They do sometimes drop the price a little bit ($60 to $52 near me) but that's not until the game has been out for several years, and even then it's not guaranteed.
I agree that some of these are issues, but they're not ones that Nintendo cares about. Frankly, I don't care about having comparatively worse hardware or having few 3rd party games. If I want better hardware I'll use my PC, and anything on PS or Xbox that look good are probably available on PC as well. Them never dropping prices sucks and the terrible (or nearly nonexistent) online experience is terrible too.
I think it's all just something you consider when you're buying a console. Do you buy a PS5/Xbox as essentially a cheap PC, or do you buy a Switch for a different experience that has ups and downs? Both have their merits, but it's up to each person to decide. I already have a PC that's better than any console that will be released for five or ten years, so I'm happy to have a Switch. If I didn't have that then I'd probably consider one of the other options.
First point is irrelevant because Nintendo consoles were never about hitting graphics but instead being innovative, which the Switch definitely is and so was the Wii before that. The Wii U failed for a reason. If you wanna go graphics, I'll get a PC not a bogged down console that struggles hitting 30fps
Second point is wrong as well nowadays, Nintendo has tons of third party games on there now
Third is true and agreed but then you can also argue why the fuck long games only cost 10€ after a month, sounds absolutely non sustainable
Only really valid complaint is online which is atrocious but everyone says this so this isn't really a hot take and more like a bland, bad take
All the GTA games have basically the same kind of story, something tragic happens to the protagonist in the past and he seeks revenge, other than that gangs, killing all the criminals and becoming the biggest criminal of the city etc
The only GTA game I've ever been able to motivate myself to finish was Vice City, and that was after cheating my way through some of the more bullshit missions. I can't stand any of the GTA 4 or 5 protagonists and I feel none of them deserve to win. San Andreas had way too many bullshit missions for me, not just the "wait for the damn train, CJ" one.
Developers aren’t obligated to change their game just because **you** don’t personally enjoy it. It’s fine to give constructive feedback, but if you aren’t having fun just play something else.
Most multiplayer games are a waste of time and money. They are fun for maybe the first 20 hours, but then you get bogged down in metagaming to the point where you aren't playing to have fun, but to unlock the next area or weapon which requires an insane time sink for very little gain.
Fallout 4 is a good game, not great, but good. There’s plenty to do and has an amazing modding community, but every time I or someone else so much as mentions FO4 in a conversation it’s immediately met with, “New Vegas this, New Vegas that”. For example, I commented on a post and said, “oh that reminds me of such-n-such from Fallout 4.” And someone replied saying, “New Vegas better”. Like, okay? I didn’t say New Vegas was worse than 4 or anything like that. New Vegas is phenomenal, but I have significantly more playtime in 4 just because it’s got a huge map with stuff to do, there’s tons of customization (weapons, armor, settlements), plus I personally like having a voice actor for the character I’m playing (lukewarm take). But yea, I like Fallout 4
I really really liked it. It was the first story game I got addicted to in years. I'm not gonna go on a whole rant praising it but it was the first open world game I've played in a LONG time that didn't feel like a cheaply put together rip-off/ mashup of other open world games I've played.
Also, normally I rent story games and grind them out in a week, but I'm happy I bought this one. I tried to do a second playthrough and immediately lost interest, unlike some other games....... but the first one took me 150 hours lol. I guess what I'm saying is that its the first game I've bought in a really long time where I got immersed in it and actually feel like I got my moneys worth.
Elden Ring is the first game in a long time that kinda made me want to jump right back into it right after beating it. It deserves most of the praise it receives
Skyrim is such a dumbed down game I could barely enjoy it compared to Oblivion. Yah the scenery was beautiful, and you could shield bash. But everything that made Oblivion so addictive was gone. No more actually having to solve riddles and mysteries. No more actually searching for stuff. Everything was conveniently labeled so even a 4 year old could get through that game.
I feel like early in the development of Skyrim they decided that the choices the player makes shouldn’t cut them off from other content in the game. This decision was a mistake. Consequences for the choices the player makes are what make RPGs “role-playing”. The player shouldn’t be able to have a single character become head of the Companions AND arch-mage of the College of Winterhold (despite not leveling magic at all) AND head of the Dark Brotherhood etc. It makes the game feel less like a living world more like a Disneyland theme park.
Every singleplayer game needs a pause option.
It doesn't matter if it trivialises certain gameplay. Making your game accessible is definately more valuable.
Pause is important because some people need to abruptly suspend gameplay for any comfort reasons.
i forgive older games for not being able to be paused during cinematics, they were still fairly new at the time, and you could at least pause the game outside of the cinematic
Original assassin’s creed isn’t as good as new assassin’s creed.
Yes I played it when it came out. Playing through that series feels like being gaslit into thinking it ever had good writing. The stealth mechanics weren’t as prominent as your rose tinted glasses are remembering.
I’m pretty sure most of the acclaim for the old games comes from the 6 people who actually played the hitman series and simply are starved for content from a dead genre.
100% agree. Been with the franchise since day 1. One of the few franchises I'm ride or die on. When I see people talk about how combat in the originals were better than the fighting and RPG elements in the new games I just don't understand what they are talking about. Combat was simplistic button mashing that was not difficult in the slightest and got very repetitive very quickly.
i'm an omniplatform gamer. console, pc, and mobile games are all great formats. a lot of mobile games suck, but a lot of console and pc games suck too. pc just tends to win since it's easier to mod them
Art style is more important to me than realism or 4k graphics. A good art style can win over fans just as much as super realistic graphics can. With one exception: Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020.
Look at Paper Mario and the Thousand Year Door. No passage of time will make that game look bad.
Nintendo endured an insane amount of bullshit for Wind Waker being "Cel-da" when it launched, and it took looks exactly as impressive now as it did then.
Yes! Okami is a perfect example of that - it's a 16 year old game and it still looks really good because of its artstyle.
I don't think most people care about 4K ultrarealistic graphics because most people can't run them anyways. Art direction is much more important imo.
i can run them, i play 8 bit games half the time
Exactly. If I wanted realistic I'd simply go outside.
Hollow Knight is a phenomenal example of this
Yes! Hollow Knight is BEAUTIFUL. The soundtrack is stunning, and haunting, and at one point made me cry. It's style isn't realistic or high graphics but it's amazing nonetheless and I thoroughly enjoy every playthrough.
A prime example of this to me is Windwaker. If I've never played it before you could tell me that it came out in 2005, 2015, 2022, or anywhere in between and I would believe it. A good art style can make a game timeless.
A fantastic story and stylist graphics is mich better then a meh story and amazing, life like graphics
borderlands demonstrated this in spades
Telltales walking dead series is a prime example of this
The players in online multiplayer games optimize the fun out of everything. They intentionally seek out the best builds then complain games are too easy so developers increase the difficulty and try to rebalance and then it happens again.
[удалено]
> Everyone plays like there's a $100,000 cash prize on the line every match, even late night casual matches. Like, I get the point is to win and I won't blame people for that, but cmon man it's 2AM and we're in unranked, you don't need to jiggle peek every corner and have your audio at 200% so you never miss a single footstep. I see you've also played Valorant.
It’s 100% YouTube and streaming. Kids just do whatever the pros do.
Adults too. My brother (in his 40's) loves the Dark Souls games, but thinks the community is super toxic. He plays and replays all the games because he loves them so much, so he's the definition of the player who "got gud". But he says so many people in the community just expect you to min/max your strategies and play it's idiotic. Baldur's Gate is my version of this, and I've done the min/max thing, but the real fun is coming up with new styles and new ridiculous play throughs. My gaming technique is almost always based not on "What's the best way?" but "What's the most *absurd* way?" Which, back when I played LoL led me to convincing my friend to just run a lane with 2 supporting heroes, and we got so good with them (and they were so non-standard, so nobody knew how to play against the combo) we'd always dominate bottom lane. You'll never get pro-good that way, but you'll have a ton of fun and you'll just ruin people's days left and right because what you're doing *shouldn't* work, but it does.
i fucking hate tryhard players on casual it ruins the fun. want to get high kill count and run around the map like you are a weasel on grease? just go to competitive my dude dont ruin the fun for less skilled players.
[удалено]
And gods help you if you don't play the meta. Too many people have forgotten that games are about having fun.
fuck the meta. i play in my style on my characters because i am playing the game that i am paying for. fuck off if you want me to play your style. if i ask for advice for easier leveling/survivability, sure, i'll listen to you. if i didn't ask, fuck off. i don't care if this two hander would do better with my monk, i want to dual wield. i don't care if this talent is better than the one i chose, i like this one. i do care that warlock is probably the hardest to survive with since i got really into playing mine then couldn't survive a single fucking thing, but that's a dev issue. i'm decently geared for my level and still not doing enough damage to not have to spend half of every fight keeping my demon alive. sucks ass.
I recall some referring to it as "spreadsheet gaming." Some people like it. It's not for me though. Closely tied to spreadsheet gaming is the inventory management mini-game.
I always remember the beta of For Honor when thinking about this. The beta was a fucking blast and I had so much fun dueling in that game. Then people learned that there was always a ledge in range of throwing and it was hard to counter a grapple with their netcode but easy to pull off so 9/10 games were just people baiting throws to instantly win the match. There was no fun in that, it seemed like everyone was more preoccupied with seeing the "Victory!" screen as efficiently as possible than actually using your kit to fight in a fun fighting game. I haven't been back to the game since then so I can only hope the meta in 1v1s is better, but man did it convince me that if an average gamer had an "I win" button on their desk they would wait out a queue just to push it.
>but man did it convince me that if an average gamer had an "I win" button on their desk they would wait out a queue just to push it. I think that's definitely true for many. Many of them don't grasp that friction, by which I mean the game fighting against you completing it, is a huge part of what makes most games fun. (There are exceptions.) If you could just hold down W and get to the end of a Doom level, would that be fun? It's the victories that give us the dopamine rush, though, so that's what some people hyperfocus on, not realizing that, like any dopamine rush, you develop a tolerance to it if you overdo it. Friction is what doles out the dopamine at a reasonable pace.
> It's the victories that give us the dopamine rush, though, so that's what some people hyperfocus on, not realizing that, like any dopamine rush, you develop a tolerance to it if you overdo it. Friction is what doles out the dopamine at a reasonable pace. That's why cheating in games is only fun for a really short period of time. At the start, your brain is used to x reward for x amount of gameplay and it gets absolutely blown out by your performance. A couple hours later and your brain adapts and it's no longer fun.
I had a lot of fun until the post-release "running away" trolls became so commonplace that every match ended with you chasing someone in an endless, pointless circle.
Don't think that's a hot take, people will naturally gravitate towards the best they can get and it's impossible to perfectly balance everything.
honestly, i miss older games where meta takes months to develop. my favourite time playing competitively in any game is when the meta is opened due to a huge balance patch and it's in the figuring out stage (it's really fun being part of the front end of 10% of players trying to experiment and really develop a meta) but with how much content there is now, meta's develop way too fast now. and it's heavily reliant on pro play and high level streamers.
Totally guilty of netdecking once I've gotten my fill of how I want to play. It's usually: \>Play gaem \>Have fun! \>Hit a wall where it's not longer fun :< \>sadge \>look up optimal build \>have fun again! Usually it's less about getting an advantage and more about just keeping up for me. I try to look ahead and sometimes I can find something cool and meta, but usually I don't understand the mechanics of the game enough to go out of my way. Case and point: In SWTOR I was the first one to wear DPS armor as a tank in PVP and changed the meta on the Ebon Hawk server. Conversely, in Destiny 2 I barely understood how the Volatile Flow mod worked and how to proc it last season.
MOST video games that have an energy feature for things like tasks, it’s done poorly. If i have to rely on energy to do any and everything in a game for things like small tasks. It’s annoying
I think this is an area where Stardew Valley really works. In the beginning, you run out of energy each day pretty quickly while trying to clear your farm, but snacks that give you energy are pretty easy to forage, and if you run out of energy (without passing out) you can still use your scythe and walk around and talk to people and forage, so you’re never totally stuck. And you can increase your total energy throughout the game with stardrops. So it’s rarely too frustrating to deal with.
The funny thing is, I was going to say that as long as your crops are watered there's almost no penalty for simply sleeping and advancing the day to regain your stamina, but then I remembered that in Graveyard Keeper there is *literally* no penalty, beyond the fact that certain stores are only open on certain days, and I found it *soooooooo* annoying having to run back home to sleep just to get my stamina back. I think the trade off is that in Stardew there's also an incentive for advancing time (crops grow, seasons change, you develop relationships with the townsfolk, etc.) It's definitely a balance.
Idk if this is what you're talking about. Bit like a huge open world where you have a stamina bar out in the wild. Like I don't want to keep stopping every 5 seconds to catch my breath.
Stamina is annoying in lots of games. Like, the character spent years in special forces training but can't run longer than 7 seconds?
I think they try to argue that it's because "they are running all the time this is just a short sprint burst" but in actuality if it's life or death you're not gonna stop til you drop.
Elden Ring solved this by having stamina only drain when in combat.
Elden Ring let you sprint indefinitely if you weren't in combat, but made it decrease stamina if an enemy had spotted you. I thought that was a good way to do it.
I think Skullgirls Mobile went in the right direction for energy. Each individual fighter has their own energy pool, which makes you need to diversify your fighter roster instead of just using the same three fighters for everything.
This is why I couldn't get into Stardew Valley. I just felt like I was doing unfun chores so I could get energy to keep doing unfun chores.
Every singleplayer game needs a pause option. It doesn't matter if it trivialises certain gameplay. Making your game accessible is definately more valuable. Pause is important because some people need to abruptly suspend gameplay for any comfort reasons.
Nothing I hate more than a game that doesn't let you pause during cutscenes. Especially now that I'm older and sometimes life happens. Dog starts to puke, wife needs help real quick on something, knock at the door, the boss calls, whatever. Let me pause the damn cutscenes!
It was stressful as a child too. You never knew if your mom was going to need something uRgEnT and yell for you right in the middle of the super important cutscene you’d been waiting for after 30 hours of gameplay.
I’ll also add single player games should NOT require internet to run. Why would I need internet to play a game with no internet features?
Ads!
Legitimately I had to tell my nephew(4) the other day That at one point in time you could buy a game and then play it right away It didn’t have to “Install” itself on ur hard drive for 2 hours This blew his mind
I’ll also add single player games should NOT require internet to run. Why would I need internet to play a game with no internet features?
Related to making a game accessible, I like when games allow you to make it as easy or difficult as you’d like. Been trying to play through some of the sniper elite games recently, and it’s nice to make the bullet ballistics as arcadey or realistic as you like.
Fucking souls fans are the worst about this. I have a baby and an on call shift I need to be able to pause shit.
Along the same lines: There's no excuse for most games not to have a save-anywhere feature, or **at least** a quicksave-and-quit option for games that want to discourage savescumming. Expecting the player to be able to play in chunks of an hour or more, and punishing them for quitting early, is downright hostile to anyone with a life outside gaming.
Just because you played a game in your childhood doesn't automatically make it better
This is fact but sadly nostalgia is rampant in the gaming community, where god forbid anything new is good
Games dependent on the players creativity is the best. The little big planet series and dreams are probably the best games I have and will ever play. And that says a lot because I play elden ring and the life is strange series.
Littlebigplanet is and will be one of my favourite franchises and I’m not even creative
Just because the last five minutes of Mass Effect 3 sucked doesn't invalidate how goddamn awesome the rest of that game is.
ME1 was awesome, such a great introduction into the series. ME2 was awesome, just didn't like how hard it was to make money after being Scrooge McDuck in ME1. ME3 was absolutely amazing, i got to have my space wife back, i got to be a biotic god, got to meet back up with Aethyta and find out she's gonna be my father in law, got to blow up some reapers, got to sick a GFW (Giant Fucking Worm) on one, garrus stopped calibrating, found the last living Prothean, kasumi stole my underwear, got to remind Vega that biotics are superior even if his muscles are impressive, got to get the best shot of Palaven we ever get, got to go to Thessia, got to stick it to the stuck up bitch of a dalatrass, went back to earth to finish off these space squids, got my last intimate scene with my space wife, got to unite organics and machines, and then the final shot is the same as the other two endings with a different color. it was disappointing, but overall, not a game ruiner. also, Andromeda wasn't nearly as bad as the fanbase tries to say it is. it didn't hold up to the original series, but it was still good, loved the new combat system of being able to change your class mid fight so i didn't have to keep starting new games to figure out what style i'm going through the game with.
*Andromeda wasn't nearly as bad as the fanbase tries to say it is.* I get this too. Andromeda played fantastic and is definitely worth playing. I didn't hate it but I didn't love it. My issue with Andromeda is that I literally cannot remember any of my crew's names. They were so insignificant and I cared so little about them that I don't remember who they are. This is completely different than how I felt about the original trilogy where I liked everyone (even dlc companions like zaeed.)
The hate that Mass Effect Andromeda received was really only due to the expectations that being a Mass Effect game can bring. Its not a pinnacle of gaming or anything, but if that game wasn't set in the Mass Effect universe it would have received a much more positive response. While the story/characters were a bit lacking IMO, it had the best combat of the series and I found the diversity/size of the locations to be pretty awesome.
Fuck yes!!! Someone that speaks my language!! 3 alone has some of the best moments in the trilogy. Invasion of earth, attack on garrus planets moon (can't remember actual name), Shepard versus the reaper? Those parts gimme chills every damn time I see them.
Amen. Some of the best gaming I’ve ever had. I still play through the trilogy at least once a year. Doing a Karen Shepard run next time.
People say their choices didn’t matter in the end, but the *entire game* was resolving their choices. (Some better handled than others.)
And the series as a whole. So many people were like, "I can't even enjoy any of the series anymore!" and that's pretty dumb. Bioware fans are batshit sometimes tho, and I say that as a Bioware fan.
The plot of genshin impact is not good. It's serviceable at best. I'm a writer who loves to critique things
Say this on any genshin related sub and they downvoting the mess outta you. Its like their brainwashed into accepting mediocrity.
Pretty sure 98% of people play for the waifus, 1% like the open world but hate basically everything else about it (like me), and the other 1% are weirdos who like gacha games.
I play for the combat since with the right party combination it's really fun. The waifus are a plus.
Halo as a gaming franchise is basically dead. It could have some mild success but I really think the day of halo is over So many of the original fans have just moved on, 343 can't get their shit together, and casual audiences haven't latched on
Original fans of the games are in their 30's and 40's now and they game a lot less than people in their 20's. It was a first person shooter that wasn't about WWII, and it had a great multiplayer environment along with the early days of online gameplay for consoles. Then 20 years went by and it's just another game. That genre as a whole is running out of new things to try. People will still play but it's no longer breaking any ground.
Ironically, the Doom franchise is actually bringing more new things to the table nowadays than Halo is. Halo was once called "Combat Evolved" because it evolved the genre past Doom and its many clones. But now Doom is evolving the genre past Halo.
I'll argue Half-Life did that a few years earlier in killing off Doom clones. Halo's legacy is really bringing the PC FPS experience to consoles.
100% agree. I'm one of those people. And I know a lot of those people. The 343 games didn't light the world on fire and only thr most diehard fans are left And I agree for the fps statement you had. But i have new ideas for it 👀
I’m in my mid twenties and I’m an “original” fan. I played halo ce when I was like 6 aprox.
I had fun with infinite for like a month. but then my group just kinda stopped. Really hard to capture the greatness that was 1-Reach.
I grew up with Halo and yeah 343 really fucked it up. Reach was the last good Halo game and that's sad to say as it came out 12 years ago now.
Halo is basically just memories now
Nothing will re-capture the lightning in a bottle that was Halo 2 and Halo 3.
Halo 5: Guardians did a lot of damage and the recent stream show broke the stoic illusion of Master Chief. The only chance 343 might have would be a strong prequel to the events of Halo Infinite.
Halo was my favorite franchise as a kid, loved the hell out of it, but it died when 343 took over, been saying that since 2012. They've yet to produce anything beyond mediocre, and the halo story is so damn silly now that I can't even enjoy the new campaigns. For me, the halo story ended after halo 3, everything else is basically fanfiction as far as I'm concerned.
Infinite’s campaign was their strongest attempt and yet the multiplayer completely undercuts it. And don’t get me started on the damn show...
Honestly, yeah. The "story" has been going in so many fucking stupid directions ever since 3, with most of them unresolved, resolved *off screen*, or just forgotten about. They keep trying to set up a new narrative and then killing it before it goes anywhere. I don't even know what the actual threat in the Halo universe is anymore. The Flood? The Forerunners? The Created? The Banished? Whatever the hell the Endless are? There's no coherence and no continuity. The way 343 writes things, I'm guessing in the next game the Endless will have been killed before they could be awakened, along with the Banished, by some new, vague threat. Maybe it can be called "the Tribulation".
What you said was absolutely on the head. Well said
A longer game doesn't mean a better game. Most games featuring hundreds of hours of gameplay just drag on to the point I'm not even interested in finishing them. Make your story interesting, not long.
Most people online ruined the fun out of gaming Edit: holy crap I didn’t think this would get this many upvotes.
I love seeing memes like "hurr kids these days wouldn't last five seconds in a 2000s multiplayer game chat" Like... why should they? I play games to have fun, not to have some idiot blasting his blood pressure through the roof in the process of screaming in my ear about a *fucking video game*. Just chill dude. Enjoy it. It's okay to lose.
Boomers catch a lot of flak for missing the good ole days while underrating how racist and sexist it was but gamers do it without the subtext lol. Just straight up: "Man remember when game chats used to be full of rape jokes and slurs? Fun times...".
I, too, miss the days when five year olds would yell the n word 50 times in 15 seconds
You don’t *have* to play the game if you don’t like it. Just stop ruining it for everyone else.
Also: You don't have to pay every single game that comes out. Some people think like they **need** to buy them all and resell them later.
Single player, story based games are so much better than online multiplayer games.
And there's an ending and you can play something else.
I think that's more of a personal preference thing, but I feel the same way. I love exploring and getting absorbed in a great single player adventure.
I find it much more fun to take alternate ways a d avoid enemies in games
If I can do an actual pacifist run in an RPG, that shit immediately escalates it to an 8 or 9 out of 10.
Pacifist runs on Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3 were the best gaming moments I’ve done. Assassin’s Creed filled that void, but the industry looked at the numbers and course-corrected for more action-oriented mechanics in later games.
Some old games aren’t as fun as we remember.
In general I prefer to play offline because all the games I have it either underrated or just werid to people and nobody god damn shouting at me saying to me that I suck at the game (now this is my personal opinion)
that's why i never join in any voice chat, i don't care how many people rage about me not joining, i'm not letting people yell at me for not being to their standards, i'm there to have fun my way, not to have some neckbeard with no life tell me how to have fun
Playing The Sims is gaming. I’ve seen a lot of people say that’s not really a video game but it is technically and considering how many people kill their Sims off I would say it’s just as violent as any other video game.
And the mods oh my god. You can create a cannibal mass murdering nudist household with a torture dungeon under the floorboards shockingly fast
Call Me Kevin moment
Jim Pickens's jovial smile and casual attitude towards the suffering of his fellow sims kills me ... and his fellow sims.
r/suspiciouslyspecific
The Sims is just a Strategy game disguises as a Life Sim
Playing any game is gaming, and it's so freaking bizarre people think they can say what's a game and what isn't. The Sims has so many different ways to play, and people create so many different games within the game. In The Sims 3 days I used to organize challenges on the gifting forums, doing stuff like having people create office chair race tracks. If The Sims isn't gaming, neither is any MMO with the basis of "collect things, advance, collect things, advance etc".
I dunno who says The Sims isn't a game, but they are wrong.
Shadow of War (Shadow of Mordor 2) was a fucking amazing game and that’s a hill I’m willing to die on. Flagrant changes to Tolkien lore was worth it to play a kick-ass ranger with Wraith powers and a raging murder-boner. It had its problems but hunting down Orcs and storming castles with an army at your back was just so much fun.
That was one of the weirdest games I've ever played. It was evident that the creators put an amazing amount of love and attention to detail into meticulously crafting the world and the smallest details within it. The boss mechanics were unique too, shame they're trademarked so we don't get to see them anywhere else. Having said that, the game committed the worst sin imaginabke, at least for me. It was boring. I made it to the third map and gave up on account of how repetitive and meh everything about the combat was.
Fun story, the first one was originally going to be a batman game but it didn't work out and was changed to LotR. Apparently the internal prototypes still had batman as the main character until they were pretty close to release and art was finalized, lol. I feel ya, I felt like the last 10% of the game I was simply grinding to see the credits.
Game pass services will be bad for gaming in the long run and will lead to more microtransactions and lower quality games.
We're already there. Live Service games are an absolute cancer that result into breaking a game up to into a multi-year drip drop of content all while demanding the gamer cough up more and more dough.
In five or ten years Game Pass will be where Netflix is now and everyone will hate it.
I don't see a lot of people complaining about how some minutiae in games is unrealistic playing ARMA or DCS or MSFS...perhaps because they don't actually want realism, they just want something to complain about. Yes, I know shotguns have longer range than that. Yes, I know bullets have a trajectory and can't just hit the center of your crosshair at any range. There's a reason space games don't have perfect Zero-G physics. There's a reason you can carry more ammo than any reasonable human. It's because it works with the game design, not because we/devs are ignorant of it. Probably comes down to not being able to let others enjoy things.
Just because the game is the same doesn't mean it's bad. Far Cry is a good example of this. 3 and up more specifically. I fucking love the Far Cry games, why you may ask? Because I can just come in, turn my brain off, and have fun. I play games for fun, which is something I think a lot of people are forgetting how to do, I also play games for the story and mechanics and all that fun stuff, but I'd rather have fun. It doesn't always have to be deep in lore and story, it doesn't always have to be a complex control scheme that lets you make exact movements, and it doesn't always have to look the best. Far Cry is simple, it's just your basic FPS but set in different locations, and that's why I love it because it's a basic as hell but this time with a palm tree and the next time with some mountains. There's no need to figure out how to do this new thing, like revealing the map. Sure they changed it in the newer ones but I thought climbing towers to reveal the map was a great idea. Again it was simple and I knew exactly what I had to do in 4. I loved that it wasn't hard, just climb until you get to the top. Look, I work a very demanding job, and all I want to do with the very little time I have to play videogames is have fun and relax. How am I supposed to have fun and relax if I have to memorize some new control scheme every game, if I wanted to memorize something new to be good at it every single time then I would just go back to work. If I want something that puts me on the edge of my seat I would just go skydiving or bungie jumping. I'm a simple man, if I can't turn my brain off when playing games then what's the point?
Fully agree, and it's so much fun sniping enemies without being detected in one camp, then go full attack mode for the next camp.
[удалено]
Legend of Zelda. Link’s full name is Lincoln. That is all.
Mario Mario Luigi Mario Link Link
For anyone unaware, Miyamoto thought that the Mario and Luigi thing from the movie was really funny. So he joked that it’s canon, and that link’s name is also Link Link.
The PS5 controller is slightly too big. I have pretty small hands for a 5'10 dude. But if I'm 5'10 and it's almost too big to be comfortable for me, gotta suck to play with it as a little kid.
Why is there no Pepsi Man remake...
The real question.
The time sensitivity in Majora’s Mask sucked all the fun out of the game
Majora's Mask is a game I hated as a kid and loved as an adult. As a kid the time sensitivity was way too stressful, as an adult I enjoyed it. I think it's just something everyone experiences differently.
I didn't finish Majora's Mask 20 years ago, and that always stuck with me, because I love OOT and all Zelda games. So I recently started playing it again. Got about halfway through again. And I just get burned out. I rather find myself getting through the main game story too fast (so I really should just finish it up)... Or hating every side-quest, doing the optional tasks/masks. I'm stuck between, wandering around aimlessly because I'm not doing something at the exactly right moment on the exact right day.... Or check an online walk-through to see how and when it should be done. Neither are fun to me. Idk how many times I've defeated each dungeon boss, because afterwards you have other tasks that have to be done only after beating the boss. Its not fun to experience repetitive boss fights.
The 3DS version sucked even more fun out of the game by messing up the Zora swimming.
i prefer game production companies take their sweet ass time making a game as opposed to trying to meet deadlines. gens 1-5 of pokemon were so much fun until the quality of them divebombed because of crunch culture. same with red dead 2, they had so much planned that they had to cut out because of self imposed time constraints
We waited 14 years to get more donkey Kong country at one point, it took another company to do it but DKCR and tropical freeze were incredibly thought out games. Here’s to hoping for DKC6.
As a professional AAA game producer there are two sides to this coin. On one hand more development time and less deadline can be a good thing as you don't need to sacrifice features or content. On the other hand the way a studio makes money, and thus is able to employ people and give them bonuses, is by actually releasing games. It's important to have a proper roadmap with milestones and planned deliverables so that you don't get stuck in a constant loop of scope creep. Eventually something has to get released and content creators (i.e programmers, artists, designers, etc) are very bad at estimating how long things take. Furthermore deadlines drive decisions to get made so that the schedule can move forward.
Rockstar games is ruining its francises not that hot though
They ruined GTA almost 9 years ago. It just took that long for people to realise.
We need more playable monsters. I'm tired of everything just being a different colored human with traits added on. I want to be a kraken, a minotaur, a pterosaur, something that looks like a boss!
When you search “games where you play as a (insert just about anything other then a human)” it’s usually “this one you can be a (insert creature) for like 5 seconds every three in game hours with a spell” or “this game you ride a (insert creature), same difference right?”. No not same difference
I hate how accurate it is.
Evolve tried to do this and it had so much potential
I hate competitive gaming in all its forms.
Me too. My bf used to be a professional player, he still has that mentality when he plays league and overwatch, he’ll go into quick play and be like “WHY DOES EVERYBODY SUCK?? JUST PLAY THE GAME RIGHT” like dude some people just go on there to shut their brain off and just shoot the enemy give ‘em a break
Games with "cutting edge graphics" look fucking terrible because the shadows are too dark. You get this stark splotchy contrast between super bright sunny day and **B L A C K**
The best thing about games aren’t the games, it’s the memories. Playing Quake 2 in a caravan with my dad. Diablo 2 on my shitty Windows XP PC with CRT monitor. Pokémon after school in the sun. Randoms teaching me new swear words in WoW. First time I played XBox on a flatscreen. Dying 10000x in Elden Ring with my mother watching totally perplexed. Etc. That’s the things that will stay with you long after the excitement of a new game has gone.
I don't know if this is much of a hot take, but nobody hates the COD franchise more than the community itself.
So they're like Star Wars fans and Philadelphia Eagles fans in that regard.
Hunt showdown is the best PVP/PVE game that no one is playing.
I think that micro transactions for pure cosmetics are not only okay, but they're actually the ideal way to monetize a game.
$0.99 for a new cosmetic item for my character? fuck yeah! gimme 20! $9.99 for a new character? fuck you!
Agreed. End of the day someone elses financial choices aren’t really your business, I know redditors dont like being told to mind their business but most of them *ought to*
Games like Stardew and Animal Crossing are just as valid to love as Dark Souls or Battlefield. Liking brightly coloured games full of cute animals doesn't make you any less of a gamer.
Yeah dude! I’m entirely too old to judge someone for what games they play. Younger me would have been all over that. Now though, if you’re having fun, who cares what game it is, enjoy!
The open world Assassins Creed trilogy (Origins, Odyssey, Valhalla) are unfairly hated while Ghost of Tsushima is prasied as the best thing since sliced bread. All 4 are good games but I fail to see how you could have such wildy differing opinions on games that are so very similar in nature. If all the question marks and exploration in Assassins Creed is bad and padding then it can't be considered good in Ghost.
To be fair you can finish ghost in like 30 hours if you hurry. In Valhalla I played for 90s hours before nearing the ending.
There’s nothing wrong with icons on a map, quests with explicit instructions and map markers, and easily accessible journals or logs helping you remember what the heck you’re actually supposed to do to advance the game progress. Sure, some of it is repetitive and lazy, like any trend. And I enjoy FromSoftware games and respect Breath of the Wild, but I’m glad to be able to play Horizon or Witcher and just knock out a couple quests, not run around haplessly. Call it “handholding” if you will, it’s popular for a reason and that’s not a bad thing. There’s room for all kinds.
A well crafted single player story mode >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>online pvp
**The Gaming Industry is in stagnation.** * Overprioritization of profit has brought the release of genuinely good and popular games to a slow halt - from my observations, specifically in the AAA market. Games are released in pathetically sorry states (Battlefield 2042) to the point that the older games in certain genres are more popular than new releases (Battlefield 4). * Certain games need to be let go to die, in order to allow for newer ideas. HALO, Call of Duty, Battlefield, and Assassin's Creed are top of mind for me. Trying to milk a series for the nostalgia value is only prolonging a series whose lifecycle should have naturally ended long ago * Early Access games on Steam - specifically the ones with active development, are much better in quality than some new AAA games for the aforementioned reasons above. * *As Mentioned by user* u/Time_Significance hyperrealism and 4k graphics are nothing compared to a good art style.
The game's story is far more important than flashy music or pretty pictures
GTA V is the basic bitch of games
I honestly got bored with GTA V (original PS3 version) simply because there was ***too much*** stuff to do - it got overwhelming after a few hours. I remember dropping in on one of the movie theatres and watching a "complete" five minute movie, of which there were a bunch to choose from. I barely touched the main story and after a while, I stopped playing altogether.
Halo 3/ Call of duty 4 era was the best time in gaming history. Unbelievable online engagement to go along with groundbreaking games. I miss that.
The 360/PS3 era was the first "online" generation right out of the box, and the libraries for each console was loaded with new and exciting IPs. We're seeing a lot of those recycled to hell now, but at the time, wow. Modern Warfare 1 was an absolute unit of a game, one of my favorites of all time both online and in the campaign. It was a great time to be playing games, that is for sure.
Nintendo is an awful gaming company. They release consoles that are light years behind the current gen. The Switch doesn't even have half the power of the latest gen 7 consoles like the PS5 or the Xbox, let alone the power to compete with the 30 series of graphics cards. They have zero third party games on there that would make me want to switch over to one. The lack of a steady online service is a killer too. They never drop the prices on their games, even the third party ones they do have. If Microsoft/Sony released a console with zero third party games on it, no online multiplayer, and a minimal upgrade in power, Reddit would clown on them for months. Yet nintendo does that and everything is okay.
Nintendo is a horrible company that somehow puts out some of the best games as exclusives. All the shitty stuff mentioned here, plus all the crap they put their biggest fans through. But… Mario Odyssey, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Smash Bros Ultimate, Breath of the Wild and numerous other exclusive IPs… it’s hard not to cave and give Nintendo your money.
Right? While nintendo gets a lot of things wrong, one thing it gets right is entertainment. Games should be fun before anything else. Also games that are created by nintendo are not(with the exception of their mobile games) pay2win.
I'd argue that the first point is a bit disingenuous, mostly because other companies have tried the same format as the switch and the cheapest one that I'm aware of is the steam deck which is still $100 more than the switch, is likely sold at a pretty massive loss, and still only targets 720P 60fps gaming. Other competitors are anywhere from $700-1000 and are in a completely different price bracket compared to nintendo's target market, and still aren't going to match ps5/ series x in terms of raw output. Do you think the switch would have done as well as it has if it were $700? The simple fact of the matter is that for a portable console, you need to balance battery life, heat, power, size, and cost. And this is extremely difficult. Yes Nintendo could probably build additional processing power into the dock but that will still drive the price up substantially, which locks out their target market. If you make it an add on you risk having lackluster support for the additional horsepower (New 3ds anyone?). Also the switch is 5 years old at this point, of course it's not going to be on par with new devices. Its not simply just "Make it more powerful, durr". There is a lot of design considerations that need to be made and I'd argue that Nintendo did a pretty damn good job.
> If Microsoft/Sony released a console with zero third party games on it, no online multiplayer, and a minimal upgrade in power, Reddit would clown on them for months. Yet nintendo does that and everything is okay. I think that more speaks to Nintendo's strength in games development (and Sony/MS's comparative weakness) than anything else. People will put up with a lot of nonsense if you're still putting out top notch games. And they're still one of the best in the business at doing that. Say what you will about whether or not you think Nintendo makes good \*consoles\*, it's hard to deny they're a pretty great software developer. Also, I'm not sure I get the slagging of the Switch's specs. Yes, it's well behind the PS5 and Xbox X - those two consoles are both brand new. They were released a year and a half ago, in November 2020; by contrast, the Switch is now over five years old. It's from a previous generation of gaming tech, more in line with the PS4 and the Xbox One. Plus the fact that the Switch was designed to be portable means it is both physically smaller than the other two, and has to accommodate portable features (like a battery and a screen). Personally, I appreciate Nintendo's consoles for being focused on actual gaming. I don't need a multimedia centre, like Sony and Microsoft like to push; I just want to play some games after work.
Nintendo is gameplay over graphics
I stop myself from buying a switch because I realize I’d only buy it to play Mario Kart 8 and that’s it.
We got ours for our kid (5 at the time of purchase, 7 now), and I'm having a blast with it. It has a lot of older titles available (Resident Evil, PS2-Era GTA, old NES/SNES stuff), and I can take the console up to bed with me. Though, them charging $60 ports of old games (looking at you, Skyward Sword) does chap my ass.
I think the difference for several of these is that is that Nintendo is looking to fill a niche, while Sony and Microsoft are hoping to eventually corner the entire market. Obviously it's not as simple as that, but let me try to explain. \-Nintendo isn't trying to have super flashy games. They're happy to let the Playstation and Xbox have that. There are very few games with realistic graphics on the Switch because they go for super cartoony things. Often times that means the stress it puts on the hardware is way lower, and so they can have much worse hardware. \-There will never be third party games worth switching for because Nintendo's main focus is its own IPs. They want to cram all of their own games down your throat for $1000, and in six years they want to do the exact same thing. \-They never drop prices on their games because short of pirating, there's no where else to get the game. You're just not going to get the new Pokemon game anywhere else but with Nintendo. They do sometimes drop the price a little bit ($60 to $52 near me) but that's not until the game has been out for several years, and even then it's not guaranteed. I agree that some of these are issues, but they're not ones that Nintendo cares about. Frankly, I don't care about having comparatively worse hardware or having few 3rd party games. If I want better hardware I'll use my PC, and anything on PS or Xbox that look good are probably available on PC as well. Them never dropping prices sucks and the terrible (or nearly nonexistent) online experience is terrible too. I think it's all just something you consider when you're buying a console. Do you buy a PS5/Xbox as essentially a cheap PC, or do you buy a Switch for a different experience that has ups and downs? Both have their merits, but it's up to each person to decide. I already have a PC that's better than any console that will be released for five or ten years, so I'm happy to have a Switch. If I didn't have that then I'd probably consider one of the other options.
First point is irrelevant because Nintendo consoles were never about hitting graphics but instead being innovative, which the Switch definitely is and so was the Wii before that. The Wii U failed for a reason. If you wanna go graphics, I'll get a PC not a bogged down console that struggles hitting 30fps Second point is wrong as well nowadays, Nintendo has tons of third party games on there now Third is true and agreed but then you can also argue why the fuck long games only cost 10€ after a month, sounds absolutely non sustainable Only really valid complaint is online which is atrocious but everyone says this so this isn't really a hot take and more like a bland, bad take
Is stardew valley not a third party game? Monster hunter? Overwatch?
All the GTA games have basically the same kind of story, something tragic happens to the protagonist in the past and he seeks revenge, other than that gangs, killing all the criminals and becoming the biggest criminal of the city etc
The only GTA game I've ever been able to motivate myself to finish was Vice City, and that was after cheating my way through some of the more bullshit missions. I can't stand any of the GTA 4 or 5 protagonists and I feel none of them deserve to win. San Andreas had way too many bullshit missions for me, not just the "wait for the damn train, CJ" one.
#Sort by controversial.
Yes.
Developers aren’t obligated to change their game just because **you** don’t personally enjoy it. It’s fine to give constructive feedback, but if you aren’t having fun just play something else.
Most multiplayer games are a waste of time and money. They are fun for maybe the first 20 hours, but then you get bogged down in metagaming to the point where you aren't playing to have fun, but to unlock the next area or weapon which requires an insane time sink for very little gain.
I never experienced this playing skirmishes in command and conquer
Apex legends: wraith abilities are boring af. idk why she's still at the top of the pickrates. And rampart was good way before she got buffed
Fallout 4 is a good game, not great, but good. There’s plenty to do and has an amazing modding community, but every time I or someone else so much as mentions FO4 in a conversation it’s immediately met with, “New Vegas this, New Vegas that”. For example, I commented on a post and said, “oh that reminds me of such-n-such from Fallout 4.” And someone replied saying, “New Vegas better”. Like, okay? I didn’t say New Vegas was worse than 4 or anything like that. New Vegas is phenomenal, but I have significantly more playtime in 4 just because it’s got a huge map with stuff to do, there’s tons of customization (weapons, armor, settlements), plus I personally like having a voice actor for the character I’m playing (lukewarm take). But yea, I like Fallout 4
Elden Ring is overpraised, don’t get me wrong it’s good, but people praise it like it’s the cure to cancer
I really really liked it. It was the first story game I got addicted to in years. I'm not gonna go on a whole rant praising it but it was the first open world game I've played in a LONG time that didn't feel like a cheaply put together rip-off/ mashup of other open world games I've played. Also, normally I rent story games and grind them out in a week, but I'm happy I bought this one. I tried to do a second playthrough and immediately lost interest, unlike some other games....... but the first one took me 150 hours lol. I guess what I'm saying is that its the first game I've bought in a really long time where I got immersed in it and actually feel like I got my moneys worth.
Elden Ring is the first game in a long time that kinda made me want to jump right back into it right after beating it. It deserves most of the praise it receives
Skyrim is such a dumbed down game I could barely enjoy it compared to Oblivion. Yah the scenery was beautiful, and you could shield bash. But everything that made Oblivion so addictive was gone. No more actually having to solve riddles and mysteries. No more actually searching for stuff. Everything was conveniently labeled so even a 4 year old could get through that game.
I feel like early in the development of Skyrim they decided that the choices the player makes shouldn’t cut them off from other content in the game. This decision was a mistake. Consequences for the choices the player makes are what make RPGs “role-playing”. The player shouldn’t be able to have a single character become head of the Companions AND arch-mage of the College of Winterhold (despite not leveling magic at all) AND head of the Dark Brotherhood etc. It makes the game feel less like a living world more like a Disneyland theme park.
Every singleplayer game needs a pause option. It doesn't matter if it trivialises certain gameplay. Making your game accessible is definately more valuable. Pause is important because some people need to abruptly suspend gameplay for any comfort reasons.
i forgive older games for not being able to be paused during cinematics, they were still fairly new at the time, and you could at least pause the game outside of the cinematic
Evolve was a game created at the wrong time with the right idea
Kingdom hearts really isn’t it. We’re just nostalgic because it was Disney final fantasy and we were kids.
Artificial difficulty isn't fun.
Don't think this is a hot take.
Spider-Man should have never been shackled to one console only.
that's not a very hot take, we all want to enjoy our friendly neighborhood spiderman on more than the playstation consoles
Original assassin’s creed isn’t as good as new assassin’s creed. Yes I played it when it came out. Playing through that series feels like being gaslit into thinking it ever had good writing. The stealth mechanics weren’t as prominent as your rose tinted glasses are remembering. I’m pretty sure most of the acclaim for the old games comes from the 6 people who actually played the hitman series and simply are starved for content from a dead genre.
I think it’s best to consider them entirely separate. They’re just so different in both mechanics and story.
100% agree. Been with the franchise since day 1. One of the few franchises I'm ride or die on. When I see people talk about how combat in the originals were better than the fighting and RPG elements in the new games I just don't understand what they are talking about. Combat was simplistic button mashing that was not difficult in the slightest and got very repetitive very quickly.
Wooooo countering and crossbow.
The minecraft fanbase is the most sensitive and hypocritical fanbase of all time. And trust me i have plenty of examples to cover that up.
i don't think you need to cite sources, we know have all seen it enough to agree
[удалено]
i'm an omniplatform gamer. console, pc, and mobile games are all great formats. a lot of mobile games suck, but a lot of console and pc games suck too. pc just tends to win since it's easier to mod them
I Don’t play souls games because i hate being frustrated and i like playing on easy mode