I didn't realize that the legend of Zelda was supposed to be a realistic rock climbing simulator.

Also fuck the horses. Horse that act like real horses are not fun video game horses. Stamina goes away like that when you sprint so you really kind of need the horse to get around before you've got enough shrines done to teleport.

I beat 3/4 of BotW without using a horse. Running places is fine.

When I finally bothered with a horse(which is way faster most of the time Im dumb) I just didn't press on the stick unless I was turning. Zero problems.
 
I didn't realize that the legend of Zelda was supposed to be a realistic rock climbing simulator.

It's not intended to be realistic, but it is intended to be detailed. Hence the angle of the rock you're climbing having an effect on Link's stamina as well. This creates an incentive for players to be thoughtful about using what is otherwise an enormously powerful traversal system.

Breath of the Wild is a systems based game. A large part of what makes it compelling is how all the various different systems combine to create different play experiences. In this case, rain has an actual meaningful effect on how you interact with the environment, from how it assists stealth to how it makes rock slippery, as it does in reality.
 
Hmmm. I'm not entirely sure how controversial this is, but...

Left 4 Dead and L4D2 are probably two of the worst games in the whole co-op horde-fighting whatever-it's-called subgenre they popularized.
 
Hmmm. I'm not entirely sure how controversial this is, but...

Left 4 Dead and L4D2 are probably two of the worst games in the whole co-op horde-fighting whatever-it's-called subgenre they popularized.

What you don't like playing the same maps for nine years? :p
 
What you don't like playing the same maps for nine years? :p
Eh, I don't mind playing the same maps over and over for hours on end; I played Dota 2 for five straight years, and I couldn't even tell you how many times I've gone through Path of Exile's first three or four acts. I just need something special to draw me in for that long. The only thing L4D's got in that vein is Versus mode, and that only really works out if you've got seven friends who are down to clown for a night.
 
Skyrim is actually pretty terrible, and needs lots of mods to make it not suck. Bethesda isn't a good developer, and takes the lazy way out of letting its fans do all the work for it. Speaking of lazy, not only have they released Skyrim a grand total of 4 times (OG, SE, Switch, VR) but they haven't had the common decency to fix the numerous bugs the fans solved mere months after Skyrim was first released back in 2011.
 
Skyrim is actually pretty terrible, and needs lots of mods to make it not suck. Bethesda isn't a good developer, and takes the lazy way out of letting its fans do all the work for it. Speaking of lazy, not only have they released Skyrim a grand total of 4 times (OG, SE, Switch, VR) but they haven't had the common decency to fix the numerous bugs the fans solved mere months after Skyrim was first released back in 2011.

Honestly I'm not entirely sure that's controversial these days. I think it's rather telling that the best Bethesda title to come out in the last decade that follows their open world model technically wasn't even really made by them.

(All blessing be upon New Vegas)
 
Speaking of lazy, not only have they released Skyrim a grand total of 4 times (OG, SE, Switch, VR) but they haven't had the common decency to fix the numerous bugs the fans solved mere months after Skyrim was first released back in 2011.
Their stance on bugs is "if it's fun, it's not a bug". Weird, yes, but basically any bug that doesn't actually ruin the experience is fine by them.
 
Skyrim is actually pretty terrible, and needs lots of mods to make it not suck. Bethesda isn't a good developer, and takes the lazy way out of letting its fans do all the work for it. Speaking of lazy, not only have they released Skyrim a grand total of 4 times (OG, SE, Switch, VR) but they haven't had the common decency to fix the numerous bugs the fans solved mere months after Skyrim was first released back in 2011.
 
Their stance on bugs is "if it's fun, it's not a bug". Weird, yes, but basically any bug that doesn't actually ruin the experience is fine by them.
That's all fine and dandy, except there are a lot of game-breaking bugs still in Skyrim that the official updates haven't fixed. Things like being unable to get the Oblivion Walker trophy because the game glitched somewhere, quests just not starting, important NPCs nowhere to be found, unimportant NPCs that you might have liked dying because they wanted to fistfight a dragon, getting stuck in a crack and having to reload your save... the list goes on. Just look at all the bugfixes that the Unofficial Patch makes.
 
That's all fine and dandy, except there are a lot of game-breaking bugs still in Skyrim that the official updates haven't fixed. Things like being unable to get the Oblivion Walker trophy because the game glitched somewhere, quests just not starting, important NPCs nowhere to be found, unimportant NPCs that you might have liked dying because they wanted to fistfight a dragon, getting stuck in a crack and having to reload your save... the list goes on. Just look at all the bugfixes that the Unofficial Patch makes.

Welcome to 2006, we're out of chairs but we have a little standing room still.
 
Too many tactical games use hit/miss as completely arbitrary difficulty that just pisses off the player. If my guy right in an aliens face in X-Com, his bullets shouldn't go flying off at angles out of his gun in order to miss him. Or my new favourite, if I have an enemy stunned in Battle Brothers, he should not be able to fucking dodge the next attack.

This is how you turn hard tactical games into bullshit tactical games. By leaving everything purely to the math even when you really fucking shouldn't.
Yeah, sometimes you get really good odds and miss in those kinds of games, there is no tactical game with RNG where someone doesn't have a story of RNG screwing them even when it shouldn't have, for both the player, and really, the enemy's side.

It's a good way to add some challenge and uncertainty for the players, as they have to account for possible misses at any action.

That being said, the alternative of getting rid of RNG is also awesome, look at Into The Breach, recently released, a purely turn-based strategy game with no RNG where every attack will hit in both the player's and enemy's side, and the game is still challenging to many players and it's awesome.

But many people still somewhat like the idea of RNG and planning for it, i can see people complaining if the RNG factor was removed in XCOM 3, i can already see some people complaining about it being "dumbed down for casuals" or some crap like that, it's a mechanic many people complain about, but one that has it's fans nonetheless.
 
Yeah, sometimes you get really good odds and miss in those kinds of games, there is no tactical game with RNG where someone doesn't have a story of RNG screwing them even when it shouldn't have, for both the player, and really, the enemy's side.

It's a good way to add some challenge and uncertainty for the players, as they have to account for possible misses at any action.

That being said, the alternative of getting rid of RNG is also awesome, look at Into The Breach, recently released, a purely turn-based strategy game with no RNG where every attack will hit in both the player's and enemy's side, and the game is still challenging to many players and it's awesome.

But many people still somewhat like the idea of RNG and planning for it, i can see people complaining if the RNG factor was removed in XCOM 3, i can already see some people complaining about it being "dumbed down for casuals" or some crap like that, it's a mechanic many people complain about, but one that has it's fans nonetheless.
Into The Breach, while great, definitely has some hefty RNG elements over the course of a game; there's Grid Defense, enemy movement, time pods, what missions are available, enemy spawns, so on and so forth. You can pretty much exactly plot out your turns (with the exception of Grid Defense) but there's still plenty of RNG.
 
I'm not really asking to abandon RNG entirely. I'm saying that letting it supersede common fucking sense is where I draw the line. Like, okay, characters in Shadowrun wildly whiffing a grenade throw. Cool. But the grenade exploding right in a characters face and missing them? Fuck off. Even when it's my guys benefiting from it it feels cheap.
 
Maybe the grenade was faulty, or very little shrapnel went in their direction. RNG is just a way to quantify weird shit, for me.
 
Binary Domain is fantastic and criminally underrated.

I know, but I wish that the team behind it put just a little more spark into things outside of the story. The story itself is phenomenal, but the shooting, while solid, could use just a dash more character. Just one tiny bit mind you.
 
I'm not really asking to abandon RNG entirely. I'm saying that letting it supersede common fucking sense is where I draw the line. Like, okay, characters in Shadowrun wildly whiffing a grenade throw. Cool. But the grenade exploding right in a characters face and missing them? Fuck off. Even when it's my guys benefiting from it it feels cheap.

Didn't weapon damage/handling in ME1 run off the RNG? As in, you could point your assault rifle right at a mook and unload into them, and whether or not your shots hit (let alone how much damage they did) was dice rolls on dice rolls.

Also, speaking of Mass Effect; I still think ME3 is a shallow, poorly directed step down from ME2 (apparently liking ME2 is in and of itself a controversial gaming opinion), but I'm not nearly as down on it as I used to be. Replaying the game (in the context of the rest of the trilogy) raises it from the B- I used to grade it as to a B/B+. That said, I get that they tried to bring back some of ME1's RPG elements in character building and design, but honestly like 80% of the information you're given is useless. Aside from telling how quickly a power regenerates, most of the information you're given ("Power force upgraded by 10 Newtons!" or "Increase Damage Percentage by 12%!") is completely meaningless and has almost no appreciable effect on gameplay.

Unless you go full, turn based RPG where I can see that my attack X did Y damage on a mooks HP bar and reduced it by Z amount, that kind of stuff is pointless and IMO is just thrown in to give a veneer of RPG crunchiness to an otherwise meat-and-potatoes third person shooter.
 
Didn't weapon damage/handling in ME1 run off the RNG? As in, you could point your assault rifle right at a mook and unload into them, and whether or not your shots hit (let alone how much damage they did) was dice rolls on dice rolls.

ME1 had an aiming "circle." All bullets are somewhere in the circle, but the circle can get wide as shit real fast with things like the AR.

It's why Sniper with pistol was the highest DPS spec: Snipers an on-use ability that made the aiming reticle not expand and it gave them machine gun fire rates with pistols.
 
Didn't weapon damage/handling in ME1 run off the RNG? As in, you could point your assault rifle right at a mook and unload into them, and whether or not your shots hit (let alone how much damage they did) was dice rolls on dice rolls.
Nnnoooo, it just had an accuracy rating depending on various factors like your weapon handling skill level and the accuracy of the individual weapon. Your bullet go basically where you pointed it and hit the enemy depending on whether it physically hit the enemy or not, no different than a 'real' shooter having crosshairs that dynamically grow and shrink.
ME1 had an aiming "circle." All bullets are somewhere in the circle, but the circle can get wide as shit real fast with things like the AR.

It's why Sniper with pistol was the highest DPS spec: Snipers an on-use ability that made the aiming reticle not expand and it gave them machine gun fire rates with pistols.
Sniper nothing. Marksman, the active ability that massively boosts your accuracy and amps your fire rate, is available to anybody with access to the Pistol Training skill. Which is, y'know, every class (bar Sentinel* because Sentinel was worthless garbage in 1).

Actually the fun part is that the Assault Rifle has Overkill which is basically the same thing... except with only 40% accuracy gain compared to the pistol's 60% (or recoil dampening, basically the same thing once you're blasting away), no actual ROF increase and only 10% higher heat buildup reduction. Soldiers were the only class allowed to use Assault Rifles without NG+ training yet four other classes could out-shoot them with sidearms, it was hilarious.

And then once you get to a high enough level shit like Frictionless Materials start dropping at which point you can either hit a heat deficit or otherwise so little buildup that you can have the trigger held down the entire time in a fight with no consequences, even continuing to fire after getting hit by a Sabotage (which in ME1 only dealt like 90% heat buildup to the target rather than automatically locking their weapon iirc). Of course said levelled loot also caused problems where certain ammo types just stopped dropping because they didn't go high enough in the loot tables so lol better hold on to those Tungsten Rounds VII fuckboy.

*Oh hey turns out of Shepard maxes the Sentinel talent he gets access to the first tier of Marksman technically but lol too little too late praise the lord they got Tech Armour eventually
 
I beat 3/4 of BotW without using a horse. Running places is fine.

When I finally bothered with a horse(which is way faster most of the time Im dumb) I just didn't press on the stick unless I was turning. Zero problems.
I used a horse like...once. Running around and clambering overs mountains was more interesting and rewarding.
 
I used a horse like...once. Running around and clambering overs mountains was more interesting and rewarding.

Yeah, I farted around with a horse at the very, very start but I'd jump off and climb around. Everytime I'd end up out of whistle range so I just stopped using the horse because I wanted to move on instead of run back.
 
Any stats which don't result in real playstyle changes are stupid. I love the hell out of monster hunter, but all the attack up and crit eye and crit boost should go away. They don't really add anything; I should put at least Attack + 4 on every set because it's +4% DPS but that doesn't actually change anything mechanically! It's just a limiter on the actually interesting and cool skills that do change how the game is played.

Same with most leveling systems; I'm playing Vermintide 2 right now and most of the skill upgrades and bits on gear are utterly pointless. Someone will figure out the best combo and there will be no real choice because it's not like there's any real taste or flavor to them.
 
Speaking of multiplayer systems, the Diablo-Skinner Box loot style systems are bad. It shouldn't be in MMOs and it certainly shouldn't be in singleplayer games. Give me the Bethsda take everything from corpse system any day of the week.*

"But Brave Sir Kitteh, it's so people play MMOs longer by grinding mobs and doing superhard dungeons to get that chance of that sweet phat loot!"

Yeah, and that's a big ass problem isn't it? The fact that MMOs apply this so as to squeeze every single dime out of you is partly the reason why I don't play MMOs.

*And yes the legendary system in FO4 is shit too bring back FO3/NV unique weapons plz
 
Back
Top