• Uncommon opinions about games
    591 replies, posted
I liked the Kane & Lynch series. Gameplay aside, real criminals, murderers, thieves and contract killers aren't well-spoken cartoon villains, strutting around us quoting fine literature and sipping port. They're nasty. They're violent. They're uncaring psychopaths who kill and steal and are generally deeply unpleasant, and the world they inhabit is even moreso. The developers of Kane & Lynch got this, and they created two of the most unpleasant and (for me) memorable characters gaming has seen in quite a while. Yeah, K&L 2 was more Dog's Dinner than Dog Days, but I still loved the vibe and themes in both games. I even loved the handycam thing in K&L 2. Also, anything Jesper Kyd touches has something magic about it.
/negativitystartup San Andreas did not age well, same with Vice City. ENB mods and high-poly real cars look like fucking shit in these games and detract from their perspective satirical worlds. In general, car nutters in modding communities are terrible, as there are more vehicle mods than other sections combined(arguably). GTA IV was a step in a horribly wrong direction(realism, restrcitions, dramatic main character, surrounded by usual satirical GTA world looks like game just rips itself apart, and shooting wasn't very fun, since you were dead by the time you took an aim) and only good thing about is physics, I've spent more time running people over than story itself. Because of shit games produced nowadays, any average game with overly complex(actually simple, but with prententiousness) will be declared as GOTY. Games with shoehorned morality systems were while you have a chocie, there is still obviously good (and by extension, profitable decision) and bad(only a person fed up with black and white story will choose it) should not exist. Bad writers who write aforomentioned stories should be sacked and AAA companies should not be ashamed/distrustfull of small teams that produce quality material. COD is not that bad, the target audience is. Dead Space was never a survival horror and is a proper modern-gen Resident Evil successor as opposed to shit that RE5 and 6 are. Also, it was never scary. Dead Space 3 had shit story(shoehorned love triangle in a middle of the end of the humanity) and enemy spawning was terrible, but gameplay mechanics(aside from real money) were good. Isaac should've died in DS2. Survival horrors were the way they were because of console limitations, and they while they had interesting stories, they were uncomfortable to play, and as a genre, they are pretty much dead, replaced by action horror, because now consoles can do action-y shit and publishers prefer to play safe and cater to HOLYFUCKINGSHITFALLINGFLAMINGHELICOPTERSOMG setpieces. Max Payne 3 was pretty fun and a good noire story and served as perfect ending to Max's story. While gameplay fun and playability are important, let's not forget about well-written characters(villains AND positive characters). While story is important, let's not forget about fun and playability. Companies (particulary Nintendo) should start some new IPs instead of milking existing ones. PR departments cater to hyperactive #YOLO yelling, gun, military-nut, testosterone poisoned children, our opinions don't matter and they never will. Action adventure games like Uncharted and Tomb Raider are fun and are they are supposed to be: spectacular action games. Oblivions and Skyrims are terrible, shit writing, dull dungeons, bla bla bla. /negativityend
[QUOTE=Mashak;41672208]San Andreas did not age well[/QUOTE] Even as a major San Andreas fanboy (I'll defend that game to the fucking end of the earth if I want to), I can't help but agree with this. Despite my continual replays of the game, it hasn't aged well. For a 2004 game, it looks a bit arse; the animations and physics show their age very noticeably. The only reason I really play it is probably nostalgia and if I wanna knock a good 30 hours out of my life or so. Speaking of GTA, here's another very uncommon opinion. Niko Bellic is a very annoying character. I get that he's supposed to be a sympathetic war veteran and he's very wise and intelligent but Rockstar seemed to drop the ball with him. He's just fucking confusing. He says one thing, does another. He can't get his priorities straight. And then he talks a whole bunch of philosophical stuff (a growing trend in Rockstar games I've noticed). I'll get laughed for what I'm about to say, but at least CJ got a reality check after Los Santos. Niko just seems to bumble around the story confused and acts surprised when everything he's done comes back to bite him in the ass [sp]"Don't worry Kate, everything's fine, I'll protect you." *Kate dies five minutes later due to Pegorino* "WHY DID THIS HAPPEN EVERYTHING WAS FINE!"[/sp]. I want GTA V to function like a cheesy action movie that parodies and pays homage to famous movies like all the other games, not GTA IV's noir-ish depression fest. Not everything has to be super serious.
SA's graphics were thoroughly outdated on release day, yeah not getting your point with Niko and the game's darkness, though
[QUOTE=cheetahben;41665916]The best example of a masterpiece franchise where each game is unique, fun, and playable is [sp]Touhou[/sp].[/QUOTE] People seem to be extremely nitpicky about the art in the games.
Dota 2/LoL style gameplay bores me to death
I hate pretty much anything multiplayer now. It's usually more frustrating than it is fun, and the inclusion of multiplayer seems to be justification for 4-hour long singleplayer campaigns. Games held in high regard - especially recent ones - tend to be awful from my perspective. Bioshock Infinite is a shooting gallery game with barely anything in common with Bioshock. It's a good story, but if I wanted a good story with nothing else, I'd read a fucking book. I didn't like The Last of Us. CoD is horridly overrated, as is BF3. I have a lot more fun with dumb little games like Euro Truck Sim and Kerbal Space Program because it isn't the same shit with a new coat of paint. TF2 turned from a solid shooter to a boring economy simulator. Zombies are a dumb fad especially with DayZ and the whole "deathmatch military simulator with zombies" thing. I want a game where you're forced to work together to fight the zombies, damnit.
[QUOTE=Simski;41671270]TF2 has a good F2P model, but a terrible implementation. What Valve did to TF2 is like turning a Rolls Royce into a Monstertruck. Sure it's still the same car and a lot of people think the change only made it more awesome, but there was never anything wrong with the car to begin with and the people who liked the original car can't really enjoy it in the same way anymore.[/QUOTE] Best metaphor for what happened to TF2 I've ever seen. I'm still really disappointed that valve turned the Rolls Royce I used to love and cherish into a Monstertruck. It's one of those things that really just enrages me and I'm usually pretty docile. It's almost embarrassing how someone will mention TF2 and I have to remove myself from the conversation or change the subject because they usually already know and I don't want to harp on it. Some of the most fun I've ever had playing a video game was during vanilla TF2. [editline]1st August 2013[/editline] Also I am fucking sick of zombies. They're always boring and it's always the same shit. It's as generic as generic enemies get and it needs to stop.
RO2 was a fucking abomination of a game devoid of any enjoyment and sacrificing any notion of fun in the name of "realism". I don't play games that either have 1 hit kills or have the capacity to cheat because it's just fucking awful design on the part of the devs to artifically make a harder and longer rather than putting the effort in to make a game genuinely more difficult. If I play a game that I feel cheats I will use cheats too. GTA games are just fucking tedious and dull. Criterion are dreadful developers. [QUOTE=WoodzyX88;41673526]Dota 2/LoL style gameplay bores me to death[/QUOTE] MOBAs aren't just boring they need to just die so that more people play real RTS.
[QUOTE=IMA SHAARK;41674012]Also I am fucking sick of zombies. They're always boring and it's always the same shit. It's as generic as generic enemies get and it needs to stop.[/QUOTE] And it seems like some games need them now, even if they don't fit in with the game at all. Best example would be Dishonored I think. It's got a great setting and already interesting enemies, why did they have to add "weepers"? They don't even do anything, they're so slow you can just run past them the entire game, it's so pointless. And why would the rats' plague turn them into zombies anyway? Another example to a lesser extent would be the people that attack when you get spotted by the Boys of Silence in Bioshock Infinite. They were never explained in the game, it just seemed like Irrational wanted to make them a reference to the Splicers in Bioshock, but this time without almost any explanation as to why they became what they are. They apparently got brainwashed inside the Comstock House, but why?
I think the Mega Man games past 3 are great (even MM8). Also I loved X2-X6.
Fuck artstyles. Fuck tones. The developers should be able to do whatever works.
[QUOTE=The mouse;41674167] Criterion are dreadful developers. [/QUOTE] I thought they were ok when they were making Burnout.
I liked Fallout 3 better than New Vegas Somehow the landscape in NV was even more boring as you just walked across desert flats and kept getting killed by cazadors, atleast in FO3 you encountered interesting things somewhat often And all guns in NV felt really week and shitty, I never finished it though, it was way more fun in FO3 walking up to someone and blasting their skull to bits with a combat shotgun (even though FO3 had basicaly 5 different weapons actually worth using)
[QUOTE=Tobba;41679127]I liked Fallout 3 better than New Vegas Somehow the landscape in NV was even more boring as you just walked across desert flats and kept getting killed by cazadors, atleast in FO3 you encountered interesting things somewhat often And all guns in NV felt really week and shitty, I never finished it though, it was way more fun in FO3 walking up to someone and blasting their skull to bits with a combat shotgun (even though FO3 had basicaly 5 different weapons actually worth using)[/QUOTE] The only thing that 3 did better than New Vegas in my book was the environments. Also gunplay in New Vegas is a lot more based on statistics, you actually have to build your character for a specific type of weapon
[QUOTE=Lik;41660594] Black Ops 2 had extremely fun SP [/QUOTE] I really like how they actually embraced how silly call of duty is, unlike modern warfare where it tries to be serious.
I have no idea how anyone can think Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas. I actually like Skyrim MORE than Oblivion. Morrowind is still my favorite though. Valve really doesn't deserve the amount of praise it gets anymore. Bioshock 2 was a good game. I actually like Halo 4 more than Reach. Halo 3 was overall the best though. Metal Gear Solid wasn't the best Metal Gear game.
I do have to agree, from a gameplay mechanics standpoint, Bioshock 2 improved on the original in almost every way, the problem is Bioshock had a lot to do with the story and world, and Bioshock 2 kinda just trampled those underfoot.
[QUOTE=nerfer2;41680603]Valve really doesn't deserve the amount of praise it gets anymore.[/QUOTE] Valve never deserved the praise in the first place
I never cared about Halo. Never liked it, never hated it.
[QUOTE=Ermac20;41681572]Valve never deserved the praise in the first place[/QUOTE] They kinda set the standard for games with both Half Life 1 and Half Life 2.
[QUOTE=Ermac20;41681572]Valve never deserved the praise in the first place[/QUOTE] hey man, even if you don't like valve, half-life was some revolutionary shit. that game definitely deserves all the praise its gotten. and i do still have faith that valve will continue to make good games.
[QUOTE=Y'all.;41682968]hey man, even if you don't like valve, half-life was some revolutionary shit. that game definitely deserves all the praise its gotten. and i do still have faith that valve will continue to make good games.[/QUOTE] I just haven't really liked their recent games, so I don't see the point in holding hype just because the majority of the internet is. I mean like, think about Valve's other games Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 (which weren't even really valve's doing iirc, pretty sure turtle rock did the first one) were nice at first, but got hilariously boring despite being trumped as "oh you can play it an INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIMES." TF2 was great up until a few years ago when I got burnt out, which happens to any game you've been playing for more than half a decade, I guess. Now there's DOTA 2 and CS:GO. Dota 2 is nice, it's just not my kind of game and it has an awful community. CS:GO wasn't even made by Valve so that doesn't even really count either.
I actually don't mind zombies at all, it gives us a good excuse to go supergore and let you do the most horrible things ever without feeling bad, also a good excuse to push technology and put as many of them as possible on the screen The WiiU is a fucking joke and the games lineup is even worse I really enjoyed Hitman Absolution Back on the GTA 4 Niko talk, I hate him so much, he is just a dull boring man in a dull boring city, I have hundreds of hours in GTA 4 and I don't remember a goddamn thing Niko even said or did, he was just so grey and boring I forgot about him near instantly Haven't played nearly as much Gay Tony (Broke it in modding and never bothered to fix it) and I remember way more about the story and Luis
Too Human was a decent game if you could just adapt to that infernal melee control scheme.
Tibia was fun even if repetitive.
[QUOTE=nerfer2;41680603]I have no idea how anyone can think Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas. I actually like Skyrim MORE than Oblivion. Morrowind is still my favorite though. Valve really doesn't deserve the amount of praise it gets anymore. Bioshock 2 was a good game. I actually like Halo 4 more than Reach. Halo 3 was overall the best though. Metal Gear Solid wasn't the best Metal Gear game.[/QUOTE] I admit that the gameplay and everything for new vegas was technically better but I just felt like the whole thing was bland and I just didnt have the same awesome feeling as when I played fallout 3 I did literally everything you could do in fallout 3 but in new vegas I played one of the sides of the main quest once, did a couple of side missions and never played it again
I gotta disagree with all of you with New Vegas. I thought it was terrible by comparison to FO3. The game was so linear by comparison to FO3, atleast in FO3 you didn't even have to do the main quest, you could go anywhere and do anything you wanted whilst in NV you could only do certain things after you'd done something in the main quest. Also the game was stupidly difficult by comparion to FO3, the last mission for the City of NV where you storm the Dam took me several hours of grinding with saves and after all of that you have your ass-handed to you by a boss. NV has a fucking awful ending too with no satisfying or meaningful conclusion no matter what you do, worse than FO3 but only marginally so. Also different ammo types are pointless.
Huh? New Vegas was pretty easy throughout. If anything I thought it needed more challenge so I downloaded those mods that add more enemies and makes animals stronger. The Hoover Dam battle was incredibly easy if you just carried a sniper rifle or better yet an anti-materiel rifle. You could use your allies as bait most of the time anyway and the game pretty much plays itself if you have 2 companions. The end boss is literally the only difficult enemy in the game and you can just stack all the C4 you have and wait for him to run over it. You don't even have to fight him, you can talk your way into making him surrender with max speech.
[QUOTE=Xubs;41683642]fallout 3 railroaded you into being opposed to the enclave, new vegas did what any proper western RPG should and gave you some choice in the outcome of the main quest fallout new vegas felt like the proper RPG fallout 3 should've been, I felt a lot like a role who had some say into the goings on of the wasteland, not a pawn to commanded to do stuff heck, skyrim had more choice in the main quest than fallout 3 did, at least there you could choose a side, the only significant choices I remember in F3 was stuff related to tranquility lane and president eden's fate[/QUOTE] I never really play bethsedas games for the main quests, the quality of the main quest does nothing much for the opinion of the game
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.