A gaming community free from the hype and oversaturation of current releases, catering to gamers who wait at least 12 months after release to play a game. Whether it's price, waiting for bugs/issues to be patched, DLC to be released, don't meet the system requirements, or just haven't had the time to keep up with the latest releases.
^(placeholder)^
My cousin's talked me into giving CoD 'one more try' like three times now. It's never worth it. The game is always worse and my cousin also tends to just not play for months after a handful of gaming sessions, so I don't even get the benefit of hanging out.
Generally stopped trying to game with him anymore. Just too flaky.
For me it‘s Darkest Dungeon. I just don‘t enjoy „scraping by,“ I like to take care of and connect with my party, and that‘s just not the kinda game it is. It‘s just bleak everywhere, by design and fully intentional; and just not my thing. Saw a lotta friends play it and thought I should try it.
Half Life 2. Wasn't a big fan of the first one, but the second had tons of hype, so I gave it a shot. The physics stuff was cool, but the gameplay, story and characters were boring and flat. And the "revolutionary" storytelling method of locking you in a box to talk at you rather than making a proper cutscene still sucks.
Damn, that is a hot take.
Honestly impressive for a 20+ year-old game to still inspire hot takes.HL2 remains undefeated.
Because I can't help myself from countering:
HL2 has better, more realistic and detailed and believable mouth and facial animations than many current AAA games, they just have higher res textures and fancier lighting.
That's not to say no game has exceeded it, thats not what I mean, some clearly have.
But... the other side of this is that a lot of modern AAA games, with 20 years of improved/new tech... still can't figure it out.
AAA games that market themselves as being very graphically detailed/realistic/immersive.
I'm not trying to say waaagh how can you not personally have thought HL2 was amazing!
I'm trying to say that the technical advancements it made, which you do not find compelling, well, a good deal of game devs still haven't even reached that level from 20+ years ago, when they say they are trying to.
Probably not entirely on topic, but I ignored Dark Souls for a long time even with tons of recommendations from people I know share my tastes because the main thing they all said was that it was super hard.
It wasn't being hard that made me ignore it but that from watching it, I knew it was just pattern recognition, which--to me--isn't all that hard.
But now it's my favorite genre. Because, yeah, it is pattern recognition in a 1v1 fight; but the layout of a room, the placement of the enemies and traps, and what those enemies snd traps are make so much more of a difference in the difficulty. It's so much more satisfying somehow to learn the whole game and conquer it than just memorizing when to dodge and attack bosses like many games prior and similar to DS were like.
+1 for dark souls. It just felt like playing Space Ace all over again
"It's just pattern recognition!" Bestie, you just described the only thing the neocortex does.
...I'm being real sarcastic for a guy who couldn't beat DS1 without playing a sorcerer.
I totally agree. It isn't that hard, and honestly I think the players ruined the game for a lot of people with that idea. A lot of people will hit a boss they can't defeat and resign themselves to trying to grind out a win, hearing the game is hard and this is just the way it is.
In reality, the game provides all the tools you need to win. You just have to pay attention and find them. If you're struggling with a boss you aren't supposed to grind it until you win. You're supposed to go and get stronger. Level your player and gear, and find new items to help you. Maybe even find a path around them.
The game is easy, but struggling players think they're struggling because the game wants them to, because of the reputation. It doesn't. It wants you to explore.
Counterpoint: Dark Souls is hard, because it gives a lot of options from the get go, and no information on which ones will be approachable or not. NO other major Soulslike I’ve played does this in the way DS did.
It also relies very hard on death alone as a teaching tool even when it says nothing. Players don’t see “You died. This boss is too tough! Maybe you should go back and upgrade your weapons.” They just see “You Died.” and interpret “Should have dodged that 87th swing!”
Worse, it has BAD lessons through the lost souls system. It makes sense as a pressure tool to make you fear death, but it teaches new players the wrong thing: For players to immediately beeline for the spot of their death without considering exploration, build changes, etc.
Counterpoint: Dark Souls is hard, because it gives a lot of options from the get go, and no information on which ones will be approachable or not. NO other major Soulslike I’ve played does this in the way DS did.
I disagree with this. I think Dark Souls does tell you which are approachable or not. It's just not as obvious as other games. Some games will have a sign for the player that says "this path is dangerous" but DS doesn't. It has characters talk about venturing into the catacombs. It has characters point out the aquaduct is the path to the first (and at the time the only you know of) Bell of Awakening. It tucks the elevator into New Londo behind the bonfire, where stuff will be later but you won't see yet. It also tells you a lot about locations in item descriptions.
I'll also say the only bad path is The Catacombs, because the climb out is so bad. I think there's leftover stuff indicating a different start, so maybe it's a fluke it's this big an issue. Every path has a benefit though. New Londo is easy at the start, and has the first blacksmith you can get access to. The Catacombs has the Bonfire Ascetic. The Aquaduct has the Bell of Awakening, and is the critical path. None are that hard when entering. You just get pushed out of getting deep into most.
Most games talk to the player. FS talks to the character almost always. It's less obvious to the player, but it makes the world feel richer. It doesn't hold the player's hand though.
It also relies very hard on death alone as a teaching tool even when it says nothing. Players don’t see “You died. This boss is too tough! Maybe you should go back and upgrade your weapons.” They just see “You Died.” and interpret “Should have dodged that 87th swing!”
Yeah, I don't know how to fix this without speaking to the player. I guess they could take the typical Crestfallen Warrior character, but instead of getting depressed and dying he upgrades his kit and talks about how upgrading helped him overcome a challenge?
Worse, it has BAD lessons through the lost souls system. It makes sense as a pressure tool to make you fear death, but it teaches new players the wrong thing: For players to immediately beeline for the spot of their death without considering exploration, build changes, etc.
I agree with this. I think the need to have an infinite homeward bone item from the start. There should be a way to return to your bonfire once you recover, because yeah, sometimes people get stuck in FOMO mode and can't give up a few souls. Once you're used to the games it becomes obvious the souls are next to worthless and to not worry about it. You can always farm more. But for the struggling new player I agree, it re-enforces a playstyle.
I disagree with this. I think Dark Souls does tell you which are approachable or not. It’s just not as obvious as other games. Some games will have a sign for the player that says “this path is dangerous” but DS doesn’t. It has characters talk about venturing into the catacombs. It has characters point out the aquaduct is the path to the first (and at the time the only you know of) Bell of Awakening. It tucks the elevator into New Londo behind the bonfire, where stuff will be later but you won’t see yet. It also tells you a lot about locations in item descriptions.
That's...false.
The very first NPC you find at Firelink Shrine tells you there are two bells - one above, and one far below. It strongly implies both are equal options. There are at least 3 ways out of Firelink Shrine; one happens to go below, just like your friend the NPC said, to New Londo.
For players still acclimating to the basics of the combat, New Londo is a terrible novice experience. It requires perfectly tight positioning on teensy platforms barely visible through the water, and relies on limited items to even make a single attempt through the ghost-ridden area. That is a ton of mechanics that would be fine to slowly introduce players to, but it's like putting the "Allspice Turducken while in a tornado" level of Overcooked first.
Then you're talking about the Catacombs? The area whose entrance has infinitely respawning skeletons? Give up, man.
Dark Souls' failure isn't talking through NPCs - dozens of games that give your character a radio do just that. It's from literally lying to you with misleading tripe and having no interest in any form of teaching - be it Half-Life 2's nonverbal teaching or any verbally direct form. I had to play games by other devs, imitating the better parts of their formula, to learn FromSoft is just uniquely TERRIBLE at it.
The only one I can currently think of is Gris - and I say that because I can't recall buying a game that made me want to get my money back upon finishing it.
Gris is very highly rated across the board, so clearly there's something I'm missing as to why. I enjoy walking sim games every now and then, but it'd be hard for me to even call this one a game. People point to the story as being beautiful and deep, but it felt like nothing new and, for me, a bit trite. There was nothing engaging about this game to me. The worst part? It's like 3 hours long.
Sorry if whomever reads this really likes Gris. I'm glad you could enjoy it. To me, it's one of the worst recommendations I've ever received.
It was recommended to me not as a game, but like an interactive movie. As more art than game. Going into it with those expectations is probably why I loved it so much. I can definitely see how someone might get a very different experience with very different expectations.
Dark Souls 2. A coworker gave me a steam code for it after I told him I wasn't really a big fan of games where you just have to memorize opponent movesets. He said he'd gift it to me if I gave it an honest try, and I did.
And I didn't like it. Didn't understand the hype, didn't have any idea what was going on with me dying and transforming or something, or why there were weird ghosts of other players all over the map. Maybe it makes sense if you know the genre but I didn't like the gameplay and didn't get any lore/story, so I ditched it.
I’m not a console gamer, so the day Horizon Zero Dawn was released, I bought Mass Effect: Andromeda. It was meh.
When Horizon came to PC and I played through it for the first time, I was stunned: the graphics, story, and gameplay were so much better than Andromeda’s. I’m still not a console gamer, but Horizon had me considering a PS4 (and later 5) for a while there.
Grim Dawn. "hey remember Diablo 2,the best ARPG ever? This is that but better!"
No it's not. It's not bad, but it just doesn't click.
I got several, I've found that some people really think about what I like in a game and nail a recommendation and some people just recommend things they liked, regardless how I feel on them.
The big ones would be Breath of the Wild and Helldivers 2.
Assuming the (not) is optional, I loved both Soma and Subnaitica. Two great recommendations
Last of Us.
When the first one came out everyone was ranting and raving over it so I picked it up for my PS3. Granted the beginning of the game was an absolute gut punch and I thought I was hooked, I was not. I found the rest of the game so damn boring. I didn't like the story, I felt it was forced fed to the player, and honestly I just never bothered finishing it. for me it wasn't fun.
For me is suffered from "show, don't tell" problems. There are numerous weeks long skips between scenes and you're just supposed to understand that Joel and Ellie became close during that time. But as a player, you're basically being asked to babysit someone you've known for 10 minutes. It was basically one long escort mission and the "OMG SO AMAZING SCENE" is.... giraffes walking by. Like really? That's what it takes to wow people? Some giraffes walking outside the building????
The world was a generic apocalypse setting, the "story" can be described in a few bullet points, and the big "emotional gut punch" at the end is so cliche.
I'll die on the hill that it didn't do a single groundbreaking thing. Nothing about the game wasn't already done before and better. It's the equivalent of a summer blockbuster movie: a fun mindless take on an idea but otherwise generic.
There's a lot of games people recommend me based on cozy things which is good cause I do like them.
Then they get confused when I'm going deep into the Warhammer or the rogue likes/lites cause those are not very cozy.
And I do not like visual novels despite being in the demographic.