Games you Hate, But everyone else loves

[D_prOdigy]

Okami, but I'm glad I still discover other intelligent people out there who realise its parts don't add up to a fun or compelling game at all.

 

Same, World Ends With You just felt like a nomura version of Gantz. Plus the whole group of characters were just the same old typical characters you would see in any modern JRPG as well.

 

I'm going to do my absolute best to delete that from my memory, because I really like you.

[Nolan]

I'm going to do my absolute best to delete that from my memory, because I really like you.

 

He is kind of correct, but that doesn't stop me from loving the music art and pure fun gameplay of TWEWY.

[The Bard]

I really dislike too much choice, too. I guess that's why I like more linear games...too much choice can be incredibly distracting. The same goes for having so much choice that you practically determine the entire story...you're usually left with a piss poor plot as a result.

 

Yeah, defs. Of course, some illusion of freedom needs to be there, because when the linearity is overly obvious, you feel as if you have no agency within the game at all.

[Dan_Dare]

I just realised how much I hate sandbox games. GTA, Just Cause etc.

 

I like limitation in a game, by virtue of the fact that every freedom or empowerment they give you seems exponential comparitively within the games own context (games like Metroid being a prime example). The more choice you have, the more apathetic you become towards the decision you have to make, and the things you can do.

 

Personally, I'm in to...constrained freedom: Something where you're given choice in the small details and how you tackle a situation but the actual situation itself is tightly controlled.

DMC or Bayonetta are particularly good examples. Super Metroid involves considerably more pacing than you might think at first and good old Halo remains the best example I can think of.

 

on Tsavo Highway, for example, I'm always going to run in to say 5 brutes, a ghost and 7 grunts at the same spot every time but I might change the weapons I'm carrying or how many grenades I saved from the last battle. Maybe I rescued more Marines for backup than before. Variables inside that structure give me choice and flexability to make the actual playing of the game the thing that changes without sacrificing direction, pacing and level design.

[dwarf]

I detest sandbox games. I seriously hate them.

 

It's because they aren't actually designed for fun gameplay half the time, the same building blocks are repeated over and don't actually make for fun interaction and there's no sense of being somewhere special. Levels that are designed with the player in mind are far better, whereas open-world titles can get away without being play-tested, because each location is essentially the same.

 

I could go on about how shit they are for a fair while, in a lot of depth, but right now I can't be fooked.

[Daft]

Saints Row 2 says go fuck yourself.

[dwarf]

I told Saints Row 2 to fuck itself when I put it on eBay yesterday.

[Daft]

Don't worry, the next one will have trophies for you.

[dwarf]

SR2 would've been better with trophies. But a shit game that becomes marginally less shit is still a shit game. I wouldn't call myself a whore for them, but it would've been nice to have gotten something to show for wasting 10 or so hours with the thing.

 

The trophies in the sequel will probably be made with chavs in mind anyway, what with all the boring character customisation you can do, creating car emblems, different varieties of spray paint you can choose to throw at passing grandas etc.

 

I enjoyed Infamous a lot more than SR2 and I didn't really like it that much. It's probably because controlling a superhero than can zip around at pace and blow up whatever they like is much more entertaining than being a human with big guns that has to conserve ammo and 'sprint energy'. The only good thing about Saints Row 2 was the brutality and the black man banter.

[killer kirby]

I'm going to do my absolute best to delete that from my memory, because I really like you.

 

I swear it's like the only DS game I just didn't get into(THAT I BOUGHT, there are plenty of shit games on the DS I know) I don't think the game uber sucks, as a matter of fact I was able to play the game longer then I did of Kingdom Hearts. I guess playing it after Persona 3 made me not get fazed by the music and the scenes/ setting around it, the main character is as predictable as a wrestler turning bad to good.

 

It was well designed, but not for me. Perhaps if they fix the game gameplay up a bit I might enjoy number 2 (Don't see why not, Square for some reason loves having numbers on the end of games)

[Daft]

SR2 would've been better with trophies. But a shit game that becomes marginally less shit is still a shit game. I wouldn't call myself a whore for them, but it would've been nice to have gotten something to show for wasting 10 or so hours with the thing.

 

The trophies in the sequel will probably be made with chavs in mind anyway, what with all the boring character customisation you can do, creating car emblems, different varieties of spray paint you can choose to throw at passing grandas etc.

 

I enjoyed Infamous a lot more than SR2 and I didn't really like it that much. It's probably because controlling a superhero than can zip around at pace and blow up whatever they like is much more entertaining than being a human with big guns that has to conserve ammo and 'sprint energy'. The only good thing about Saints Row 2 was the brutality and the black man banter.

 

I guess it does require a sense of humour.

[Sheikah]

on Tsavo Highway, for example, I'm always going to run in to say 5 brutes, a ghost and 7 grunts at the same spot every time but I might change the weapons I'm carrying or how many grenades I saved from the last battle. Maybe I rescued more Marines for backup than before. Variables inside that structure give me choice and flexability to make the actual playing of the game the thing that changes without sacrificing direction, pacing and level design.

I'm sorry, but...Halo is seriously one of the most linear titles I have ever played. Determining whether you save ammunition or not is hardly having control over little details; no more than any other game. And I don't remember the marine NPCs ever being good for anything other than being portable ammunition. :p

 

Doesn't stop it being a good game though. I particularly loved the campaign in Halo 1 (it's perfect 2 player Friday night material), and the multiplayer of 3 is good. If it weren't for the majority of the people playing it online, anyway.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Sheikah

[dwarf]

I guess it does require a sense of humour.

The script was cruelly funny, and stereotypical, and very suited to a videogame. I just didn't like the game itself.

[Cube]

I thought that Saints Row 2 was an open-world crime game made for people who hated open-world crime games. Everything was designed with one thing in mind: fun. It's like a parody film, too.

[Dan_Dare]

I'm sorry, but...Halo is seriously one of the most linear titles I have ever played. Determining whether you save ammunition or not is hardly having control over little details; no more than any other game. And I don't remember the marine NPCs ever being good for anything other than being portable ammunition. :p

 

Doesn't stop it being a good game though. I particularly loved the campaign in Halo 1 (it's perfect 2 player Friday night material), and the multiplayer of 3 is good. If it weren't for the majority of the people playing it online, anyway.

 

I said it was linear.

The freedom comes in the combat. Once your in that cycle of shoot, cover, recharge, repeat there are so many variables and choices compared to most shooters that it's embarrassing.

[dwarf]

Now I usually agree with your usage of Halo examples but this time I don't think that it offers much more choice compared to any other normal FPS games to be honest. Going back to HL2, that game is so linear, but the interaction with the environment made it such a great game and felt like you had choice.

Stuff like using the gravity gun on different objects to kill foes offered even more options, and the sections where you can move turrets around etc further that feeling, to a much greater extent than Halo I believe.

[Sheikah]

I said it was linear.

The freedom comes in the combat. Once your in that cycle of shoot, cover, recharge, repeat there are so many variables and choices compared to most shooters that it's embarrassing.

How on Earth is that any different to any other game? You can choose to kill enemies with any number of different techniques in many games, too. In Half Life 2 I could choose to use the gravity gun to pick up any random metallic object, each with different properties. Or I could use one of many weapons, or grenades. You can also manipulate turrets to work for you.

 

I'm just surprised, since you always knock Final Fantasy for being linear and basically leading you down a narrow path and story. It's the same with Halo, really. Although they're two different genres, I would go as far to say that FF is less linear since there are optional characters, sidequests and alternate endings. If you can appreciate something so linear, surely you can see why people appreciate RPGs that are also linear? And why the majority of people prefer JRPGs to often less linear WRPGs?

Edited April 8, 2010 by Sheikah

[Nolan]

What he is saying is that in Halo, you can play the same battle multiple times and it won't play out the same way twice (of course with exceptions). It doesn't even matter if you have the same equipment as before (like you died and restarted at the checkpoint) it won't be the same as last time.

 

Just using a different weapon isn't really the same in most other games. In HL2 my playstyle only changes with the Gravity Gun (which isn't very good for combat anyways) Crowbar and when there are special enemies that denote such a change.

[Josh64]

NiGHTS Journey Of Dreams! It doesn't deserve the hate!

[dwarf]

^

Games you Hate, But everyone else loves

 

Idiot.

[Sheikah]

What he is saying is that in Halo, you can play the same battle multiple times and it won't play out the same way twice (of course with exceptions). It doesn't even matter if you have the same equipment as before (like you died and restarted at the checkpoint) it won't be the same as last time.

 

Actually, he never said that:

 

on Tsavo Highway, for example, I'm always going to run in to say 5 brutes, a ghost and 7 grunts at the same spot every time but I might change the weapons I'm carrying or how many grenades I saved from the last battle. Maybe I rescued more Marines for backup than before. Variables inside that structure give me choice and flexability to make the actual playing of the game the thing that changes without sacrificing direction, pacing and level design.

 

I just find it odd, since those variables exist in most games (basically deciding whether to keep hold of ammunition until later, and whether you cover NPCs earlier on so they can continue to assist you).

[Dan_Dare]

I heavily implied it.

 

just crank Halo to Legendary then compare it to Call of Duty and you'll get it.

[Shino]

That's ridiculous. Absolutely farcical assertion.

 

How so? I thought that HL2 was widely regarded as one of the best games regarding quality level design and how it forces a player through a seemingly open environment. Halo 1 on the other hand was little more than a corridor shooter, specially when the action takes place in doors.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Shino

[Cube]

I have to agree with Dan.

 

When I play Halo, I tend to do sections differently each time. Especially when on Legendary when I die. Add three extra people also doing it differently each time and it gets quite varied.

 

With Call of Duty on veteran, when I die it feels like I seem to do almost the same thing - mainly because the guards are virtually always in the same place. It's about refining the technique rather than approaching it an entirely different way.

 

I think the checkpoints also make a difference. In Halo they're well spaced, giving you a bit of time before each fight and you don't get another one until each fight it over. In CoD they seem to be after every couple of enemies, vastly limiting your approach.

 

Edit: I'm mainly referring to Halo 3, not 1 and 2.

[Sheikah]

I heavily implied it.

 

No you didn't. You merely said that you could save/switch ammunition, grenades or NPCs to witness variances in gameplay. To be honest, I found the campaign of Halo 3 to be pretty poor, at least relative to online play. No matter how close to a human's intelligence the AI becomes, it will never be human, which is why I find the online combat to be far more variable. Same with most FPS games.

 

just crank Halo to Legendary then compare it to Call of Duty and you'll get it.

Like I said, it's the same level of variation as in many games. Choosing to save weapons, ammunition or NPCs can be the case in so many titles...really. Just because one mainstream title that you've mentioned might be completely set in bricks, it doesn't mean that the same kind of variation isn't present in loads of other FPS games. I've never played a Call of Duty game, but I have played quite a number of other FPSs to make that statement.

 

How so? I thought that HL2 was widely regarded as one of the best games regarding quality level design and how it forces a player through a seemingly open environment. Halo 1 on the other hand was little more than a corridor shooter, specially when the action takes place in doors.

 

While you are absolutely correct that it was a corridor shooter, and that the level design was absolutely uninspired, it still captured the essence of fun and was an incredibly polished title. It also made the two player co-op what it is today.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Sheikah