@breakneck@PsBoxSwitchOwner Thanks for your thoughts. It’s a tough balance to strike, for sure. And some games are able to make it work more seamlessly than others.
On one hand, players want an epic adventure with high amounts of drama and conflict to tap into the fantasy aspect of beating the odds, solving the mystery, and saving the day. But Gamers also want open environments with lots do to and areas to explore. And then thirdly, players usually hate missable side activities and being locked out of content if they choose to advance the story. It’s a pet peeve of mine when I inadvertently start a main quest (sometimes by simply walking into a room or area while exploring) and am not given the chance to leave that quest to finish off side activities, exploring for collectibles, or whatever else I was doing. Especially if triggering the main quest results in me permanently leaving the area of the map and never being able to return.
Older games were worse about this type of thing happening, especially with the final concluding quest and it was common to accidentally trigger the final run toward the game’s ending and then finish the game and not have the chance to mop up the unfinished side content. Most games nowadays are good to either give you a pop up warning - “Are you sure you want to do this? You are about to start the ending of the game and won’t be able to return!” 😂 Which that messaging can also be distracting from the immersion. Sometimes they have an NPC tell you that instead, which works better. But more often, at least in open world games, they allow you to return to the map after the story conclusion. The problem with that design philosophy is that it really limits your narrative options. (The ending of the story can’t kill off the main character, or destroy the world or parts of the world, lose any powers, etc, etc)
Anyway, sorry for the wandering thoughts… 😄
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
It's 2024, and games, especially on PC, are running super high frame rates and with much better graphics and animations. So I want a combat system where you have to actually avoid hits with more variation in available blocks, parries, dodges, jumps, ducks, rolls, timed side steps, and with your pacing and strafing etc. It would make defensive fighting styles a lot more involved and interesting. If we have the face buttons for general attack and defensive moves, the triggers could definitely add modifiers to each animation, with L1,R1 for quick directional side steps or directional parries etc.
Also i'd love to see more faints and modifiers on offense in games via trigger presses or directional changes mid swing.
I really enjoyed Elden Ring, but I remember at the time it just casually bugged me that the way to win was to dodge roll through attacks that would definitely impale you 😵😅
Something like GoT doesn't use Iframes (I don't think, though I very rarely roll) but I'd love them to add more faints in attacks, and maybe more nice fluid parry combos using momentum, as once you press an attack it locks you in to the one basic animation regardless of enemy position and your position.
And trophies. Which is probably even more controversial, but it just adds absolutely nothing to games for me, mostly because I don't want to have to read what I have to do before I've done it, I'd rather live in the moment and take whatever is thrown at me in stride within the confines of the game world, rather than what a developer thinks might be something worth trying for a challenge breaking any immersion they have created with the game
I must add, I don't want trophies gone, as I know a lot of people do like them. Just not for me. And I'm glad they introduced the trophy hidden element, as sometimes you'd accidentally see spoilers 🤦♂️
@Ravix I understand your logic about iframes, but I am not a fan of parrying in most games. The timing windows tend to be too difficult to master for me with the different enemy attack patterns. For some reason dodging with iframes is just more forgiving for the reaction-speed challenged among us.
As for trophies, I’ve gone back and forth on this. As a whole, I really enjoy the meta-game of trophy hunting and I’ll often go out of my way to do something unnecessary just so I can grab an associated trophy. And I will survey trophy lists and guides from time to time so I know what I’ll need to focus on what I need to do before I do it, as you mention.
However, over the last couple years I’m less engaged in the trophy hunt. I’m just playing games as they come and then worrying about trophies later. I haven’t earned a platinum in about 9 months.
It does depend on the game and the trophy list though. Some games just aren’t as fun to trophy hunt as others. Crafting a good trophy list is a talent in and of itself.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
@Th3solution if the combat was more catred to defensive fighting styles though, it could include many more options rather than just dodge roll or parry. I know there's a bunch of games based on attack patterns and learning, but some combat could be more fluid and random, a little slower, but way more complex to even up the reduced hardness from slower combat. I dunno lol
@Ravix Oh yeah, I hear you. It does seem like it could be an untapped gameplay mechanic. It’s got potential. I like the idea of momentum based changes in attacks and evasion. Some nuance to movement that allows for changing direction slightly once the animation has started. Like more realistic with actual physics.
Have you played Sifu? I have not, but I get the impression that some of what you describe is implemented there, with more complex defense movements. I don’t know though. I am curious to try it.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
However, over the last couple years I’m less engaged in the trophy hunt. I’m just playing games as they come and then worrying about trophies later. I haven’t earned a platinum in about 9 months.
Welcome to the club bro! 😆 I've been like that with trophies too over the last few years, and only going for the platinum if I feel its achievable when I'm near the end of the game. If it means something like replaying a game or too much of a grind, I'm tapping out! I think at one point I went well over a year without getting a platinum, and I wasn't even that bothered about it.
Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but it bears repeating —
Multiple editions or versions of the game in the storefront.
Ex. Premium Edition, Legendary Edition, Enhanced Edition, Deluxe Edition, Complete Edition, Collector’s Edition, Game of the Year Edition, Director’s Cut…, etc, etc.
I’m fine with a game having one extended edition, and maybe two, tops. But when a game has multiple different versions I feel like it’s just overkill.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
@Th3solution I totally agree with this. Kind of piggybacking here but I also find it bothersome when only the deluxe/complete/enhanced… edition of a game goes on sale, leaving the standard edition still cheaper at full price than the sale version. Like, that’s not a sale in my book 😂
“Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.” C.S. Lewis
@Jimmer-jammer Yeah, my comment was prompted by Marvel’s Midnight Suns as I was going into the store to claim the game as it’s now included on PS+ Extra, and I noticed that it was simultaneously on sale for steep discount to purchase outright (for like $17) and I thought for a second about whether that might be a worthwhile investment if it was some kind of special edition, so I started looking at what version was what and I met with like 8 different packaged versions of the game and yeah, only one or two of them was on sale and it was all very confusing. There’s a Standard Edition, a Digital+ edition, a Legendary Edition, and an Enhanced Edition. And not only that, but there’s a separate PS4 version and a PS5 version of each of those editions, all with separate SKUs. I couldn’t make heads or tails of which version was what and if the sale price was worth it all since some versions were on sale and some were not.
Of course this is all brought about by the fact there’s several DLC packs, presumably additional story content and also DLC characters, and of course the requisite Season Pass, all adding to the confusion of how some versions of the game have varying degrees of content bundled in. As someone who’s not played the game, it’s hard to know which version is the best deal. And who at this point is coming in and ready to drop $99.99 on the Legendary Edition (which for that price is hopefully the version that has everything), especially when you can buy the base game at a steep discount and then get the $50 season pass later if you end up loving the game and want all the other stuff. 😅
I mean, for me it wasn’t ever really a question because I’m going to go for the “free” PS+ Extra offering (which appears to be the Enhanced version, whatever that is) but I would definitely say that the sheer volume of microtransaction riddled mess which results in all these SKUs is a big turn-off. And don’t even get me started on the “Eclipse Credits” which you can apparently buy.
I was excited to play this game, on the back of my enjoying Inscryption, but man, I’m not so sure I want to wade through a quagmire of MTX. I don’t remember reading much about the game being predatory, so hopefully it much ado about nothing.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
@Th3solution Yeah, it’s enough to make one’s eyes glaze over and just move on to the next thing - and that’s coming from us folks already acquainted with the ins and outs of the current buying landscape. It makes me yearn for the days of cartridges. How any company thinks that this is a welcoming way to grow the market is beyond me.
“Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.” C.S. Lewis
A few years back I realised I'd never watched a film over ninety minutes that couldn't have been better if trimmed down to 90 minutes. I am sorta at that point with single player games now too, where I feel like we are getting more and more single player games aiming for like the 40 hour mark, when really less than half of that is genuinely meaningful content and the rest is padding and filler.
A recent example was Banishers, which if you read my review in the other thread, you can really feel the pit of despair I was in by the end of that slog of a game but it is happening to me right now with Dragons Dogma 2, which is what prompted me to write this. I am almost at hour 30, and for at least the last 10 hours, I am so utterly bored by its complete lack of world design, its complete lack of enemy variety and would absolutely be pivoting to golden path this at this point if I could figure out how to do so.
I get it probably won't happen because of how expensive games are these days. But remember those narrative driven first person shooters which were usually like 12 hours long, sent you through curated levels where each one would have like one or two set pieces, it told its story and then got you out of there?
@Pizzamorg Never seen "The Godfather Part 2" then? 😉. I completely agree with you - far too many games (particularly Sony exclusives for some reason) just start draining my will to live after a certain point. Condensed, focused experiences like "Sifu" and "Hi-Fi Rush" and "Rollerdrome" seem to be much more my jam these days.
I am not typically a fan of story based games that rank your performance. At least where the rankings are framed as a key part of the experience and intrusive. I’ll usually ignore the persuasion to S-rank playthroughs, encounters, or missions in games that entice you to do that, and if the game design is good enough then ignoring those rankings won’t detract from the experience. So for example I can stomach it in the Resident Evil games, MGS games, and some driving game modes or sports games where the experience of playing the game is either satisfying in its own right, or the push to accomplish a ranking is the actual centerpiece of the gameplay.
So for example, at the end of a RE playthrough you find out you got a B rank and it might be bothersome for a moment but the playthrough was still enjoyable so I can live with that. Or if I’m playing SSX then of course I know the whole point of each run is to get a good score or rank, so that’s what you’re focused on. But when I’m playing a game and at the end of a chapter I get a grade it just detracts. So for example games like DMC or Metal Gear Rising the rankings have always been a turn-off for me because the over emphasis on S-ranking everything seems to get in the way of experiencing the base game and its story.
Even games that reward each combat encounter with differing XP based on your performance annoys me. It’s a more subtle way to rank you and although it’s better than seeing a letter grade pop up afterward, I’d rather it just be a ‘pass/fail’ scenario for a narrative adventure.
As an addendum, I don’t also don’t like combat based sub-objectives during an encounter or mission. Playing Spider-Man 2 now and when I am engaging in stopping a crime encounter I hate that I am encouraged to look over at an arbitrary side note that tells me an optional objective to do during the fight like “perform 3 perfect dodges” or whatever.
@Th3solution not sure if you’ve seen my recent post in the PS3 thread… or that this is just an uncanny coincidence but I’m actually playing one atm 😅. Asura’s Wrath - I’ve quite enjoyed the s rank chase though tbh (on normal difficulty) but…
I do find multiple playthrough quite annoying. I have my fourth (and hardest playthrough) on this coming up (Mortal) and then another s rank playthrough but this time on hard.
Forums
Topic: Gaming's pet peeves
Posts 501 to 516 of 516
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic