I'm gonna try Breath of the Wild again. I dunno why it bothers me so much that I couldn't get into that game. *shrugs*
What are you currently playing?
- Thread starter Nick Calandra
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If that doesn't work, there is always Age of Calamity.
I did no death run of Devil's Dare on Classic Mode with Axel. Final score is $17, 773. Not bad for a second playthrough!
Gotta say, with a name like Heavenly Bodies I'm a little disappointed it's not a dating simulator with planet themed waifus. Or maybe drop the waifu, and just get it on with sexy planets. Venus is so goddamn hot.
I got Tempest 4000 for my birthday and playing this revamp of an arcade classic!
Got my wrist brace off, albeit cautiously, so I have a backlog on my PS5 to work on. When I feel the motivation to game rather than just mindlessly watch some background noise while surfing on Discord convos, I'll probably give Robocop: Rogue City a try first.
Oh, and when this kind of idea isn't scripted in a new game, it's told to the player with tutorial or in the fucking loading screen. No respect anymore.
"All new games are terrible", says man who plays one new game a year. Film at 11.
To quote a character from Dragon Age II, the problem isn't that you don't like something new. The problem is that you won't shut up about it. I mean, I had no stake in the argument for RE4 Remake, never played it, but even I was left wondering why you were playing a game you seemed to hate so much.
Your name calling game needs work if that's the best you can do, Zeke.
Here's the thing. I don't know a damn thing about Tomb Raider 2 based on what you've said in your posts about it, except that there are flares and spike pits. All you talk about is other games that aren't it, and while "it's better than most games these days" may be an endorsement, there are a lot of games that statement applies to, and I don't have unlimited time to play them all. So I want to know what makes Tomb Raider 2 specifically worth playing, and so far, you haven't really managed to get that across.
If you could regularly post substantively about the games you like, I wouldn't bother to call you out like this even if there were the same number of rants. And the fact that you're apparently not capable of doing that is honestly kind of sad.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 16,495
- 5,094
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Got annoyed at Phoenix Point. I feel like I've fallen behind in it, doesn't help that I forgot certain tech and how to expose the travel points for a bit too long. Also a lot of the tech I need is behind captures which at this point is rather hard. I think I could recover... but it would be annoying. Also the Festering Skies dlc is pointless and annoying.
Anyway, I was still in the mood for strategy games and I only played a bit of 40K Mechanicus so I installed that. Feels much harder then it initially did, like the enemies are dangerous now instead of me just getting bored by them like at launch. I'm not sure how long that will last since Tech Priests tend to get really powerful faster then you think, but for now I'm enjoying it, even if its not quite scratching the itch like Phoenix Point was. Well, if it doesn't quite get it, then I can just play through Xcom Chimera Squad again... or try and make it work in Phoenix Point... or load an earlier save or just start over, maybe start over since I started in Asia again.
Anyway, I was still in the mood for strategy games and I only played a bit of 40K Mechanicus so I installed that. Feels much harder then it initially did, like the enemies are dangerous now instead of me just getting bored by them like at launch. I'm not sure how long that will last since Tech Priests tend to get really powerful faster then you think, but for now I'm enjoying it, even if its not quite scratching the itch like Phoenix Point was. Well, if it doesn't quite get it, then I can just play through Xcom Chimera Squad again... or try and make it work in Phoenix Point... or load an earlier save or just start over, maybe start over since I started in Asia again.
Yeah, a 12 year old could have done a better insult than whatever lazy shit that is.
I can give you a more nuanced view: TB II is a much better game than the first one, but it still has its own problems and issues. The pacing is slow to start, and it drags because there is so much more combat. Though for a frame of reference, II is a broken base between fans. You either love that the game has less exploration or puzzles or hate it, because there's too much combat. I never cared much for Lara Croft or the classic series that much. The same applies to the reboot continuity too. Even back in the day there were games I found better than the Tomb Raider games, games I found more enjoyable, and lead female characters I found better written than Lara. I give credit where credit is due, but there are plenty of games in the action and (realistic) 3D platform genre that had surpassed the franchise a long time ago.
Source from the broken base bit.
Tomb Raider II - TV Tropes
Awesome Music: The theme for the Venice level in TR II, which sounds like it was composed in the 18th century by some powered-wigged, high-heels-wearing Italian. Don't forget the soothing Main Menu music. The techno heavy song that plays when …
tvtropes.org
Last edited:
One reason is the precision and real platforming of classic Tomb Raider, which I indirectly talked about by pointing out the automation and lack of precision in modern games in post 14,099* (where I mentioned the generation of consoles), and another is the respect for the player, contrasted with the lack of respect in modern games highlighted in post 14,129 ("hints" on loading screens being extremely common).
But I don't actually feel like giving you more positive takes, like telling you why Tomb Raider is special. I don't expect to get much out of it. On the other forum, I might at least get a response when I talk about my progress. As I told Drathnoxis on the last page, these few Tomb Raider posts are a portion of what I've said about the games recently. Your constant complaining about my complaining also drives me to feed you only my "negativity." I stop in a discussion and say to myself, "NerfedFalcon will like this part."
*Another response to what I wrote in 14,099, whose overall point I can't disagree with:
"Late 2000s? Worst era of gaming of all time as we have established, but the [bad word] internet at large denies. However platforming was already getting severely gutted in the early 2000s. It used to be standard for the vast majority of games to have rather hybridized design in the late 90s, platforming was very common in games like hack n slash, FPS, TPS, action-adventure but it just started to become less and less seen. In FPS it disappeared basically overnight in the early 2000s. Such decline. Still, overall there was still a lot of platforming presence in the early 2000s, but a trend was noticable."
"one new game a year"
Before Soulstice and the more depressing version of RE4 and after Psychonauts 2, the newest game I beat this year was probably Hi-Fi Rush. I wrote a review.
Hi-Fi Rush is every other modern combat system. For so many years, developers have believed that the only way to defend should be to time an action, whether dodge or parry, both the same thing, in essence. Hard automatic turning of the character towards enemies is built in because their position doesn't really matter when the attack has to be dodged or parried anyway, in turn making the developers feel free to make enemies more numerous and wilder in terms of where they move in the arena (with the cameras, the stick that you have to leave the action buttons for, often inadequate), and to compensate for these hyperactive, abundant enemies, hooking towards them (Nero in Devil May Cry 4, Hi-Fi Rush and many, many others) becomes ever more common. I don't wanna look in five directions anymore. Let me mostly deal with one or two (maybe three) who move around the space more realistically, with the option to get away from or keep others from joining in. Environments are not even being utilized. Action games in particular let you interact with almost nothing. Designers only care about the boring combos. What makes it lamer is that, in order to achieve this, other enemies have to stand around more, waiting their turns. I like to go back to Streets of Rage 2 as I complain about these systems because of how much it achieved without a dodge button and with only a special attack that made you invulnerable while sacrificing some health. These newer games aren't about foot movement and finding good positions in the way the old were, even though fighting in real life and in the movies they try to emulate is so much about foot movement and positions. It's often simpler for the player to stand still and wait for the counters.
"Hi-Fi Rush also has the Devil May Cry 4 problem, where switching weapons (characters who appear to deliver special attacks, with a cool-down) with L2 is no longer a toggle after a certain point, but a cycle, requiring more mental energy and attention paid to the HUD.
"The environmental traversal of Hi-Fi Rush is so automated and simplistic that there is only the monotonous fighting to feel engaged in, and it's only mediocre. I could pull a better fighting system out of my butt.
"The bosses are full of checkpoints that, upon death, revive you with full health that you did not enter the checkpoint with, because the developers KNEW the scenarios were too weird and would set players up for failure. 'This will be cool. It'll be cinematic and cool. They'll like that!' Lives or tickets had to be removed from games because of how long they became, but it has made developers lazy. They no longer look at battles as progressive challenges and balance their games that way. With the checkpoints, each little part of the fight or the level as a whole becomes a separate thing, a new challenge. There's no continuity.
"I sighed and kind of thew my hands when I got to the upgrade screen. These games are all the same, always the same. I did not purchase any attacks because I couldn't be bothered to read explanations of unlocks yet again. I'd say that health upgrades should just be in the world, but I wouldn't upgrade the player's health at all if I made a game. I'd give them all abilities from the start, or I'd only give abilities through story progression, not currency and tedious screens.
"The story is stupid anime BS with lame characters and a lame voice for the pathetic, bumbling protagonist. The two women on your team are dressed too similarly.
"For a game about music, the music was bland, with a curious lack of songs. The final two levels did have songs, and they sucked and didn't fit the action. No one would snap their finger and walk in such a swagger to these lame beats."
Before Soulstice and the more depressing version of RE4 and after Psychonauts 2, the newest game I beat this year was probably Hi-Fi Rush. I wrote a review.
Hi-Fi Rush is every other modern combat system. For so many years, developers have believed that the only way to defend should be to time an action, whether dodge or parry, both the same thing, in essence. Hard automatic turning of the character towards enemies is built in because their position doesn't really matter when the attack has to be dodged or parried anyway, in turn making the developers feel free to make enemies more numerous and wilder in terms of where they move in the arena (with the cameras, the stick that you have to leave the action buttons for, often inadequate), and to compensate for these hyperactive, abundant enemies, hooking towards them (Nero in Devil May Cry 4, Hi-Fi Rush and many, many others) becomes ever more common. I don't wanna look in five directions anymore. Let me mostly deal with one or two (maybe three) who move around the space more realistically, with the option to get away from or keep others from joining in. Environments are not even being utilized. Action games in particular let you interact with almost nothing. Designers only care about the boring combos. What makes it lamer is that, in order to achieve this, other enemies have to stand around more, waiting their turns. I like to go back to Streets of Rage 2 as I complain about these systems because of how much it achieved without a dodge button and with only a special attack that made you invulnerable while sacrificing some health. These newer games aren't about foot movement and finding good positions in the way the old were, even though fighting in real life and in the movies they try to emulate is so much about foot movement and positions. It's often simpler for the player to stand still and wait for the counters.
"Hi-Fi Rush also has the Devil May Cry 4 problem, where switching weapons (characters who appear to deliver special attacks, with a cool-down) with L2 is no longer a toggle after a certain point, but a cycle, requiring more mental energy and attention paid to the HUD.
"The environmental traversal of Hi-Fi Rush is so automated and simplistic that there is only the monotonous fighting to feel engaged in, and it's only mediocre. I could pull a better fighting system out of my butt.
"The bosses are full of checkpoints that, upon death, revive you with full health that you did not enter the checkpoint with, because the developers KNEW the scenarios were too weird and would set players up for failure. 'This will be cool. It'll be cinematic and cool. They'll like that!' Lives or tickets had to be removed from games because of how long they became, but it has made developers lazy. They no longer look at battles as progressive challenges and balance their games that way. With the checkpoints, each little part of the fight or the level as a whole becomes a separate thing, a new challenge. There's no continuity.
"I sighed and kind of thew my hands when I got to the upgrade screen. These games are all the same, always the same. I did not purchase any attacks because I couldn't be bothered to read explanations of unlocks yet again. I'd say that health upgrades should just be in the world, but I wouldn't upgrade the player's health at all if I made a game. I'd give them all abilities from the start, or I'd only give abilities through story progression, not currency and tedious screens.
"The story is stupid anime BS with lame characters and a lame voice for the pathetic, bumbling protagonist. The two women on your team are dressed too similarly.
"For a game about music, the music was bland, with a curious lack of songs. The final two levels did have songs, and they sucked and didn't fit the action. No one would snap their finger and walk in such a swagger to these lame beats."
Last edited:
Him:
"'I sighed and kind of thew my hands when I got to the upgrade screen. These games are all the same, always the same. I did not purchase any attacks because I couldn't be bothered to read explanations of unlocks yet again.'
"If all of these games are the same, you didn't need to read the move descriptions and should have been able to intuit their uses."
Me:
"You know what I also hate about every single modern game having upgrade menus? That I have to figure out how each of them are arranged, how they work, what the different currencies/points are and what things mean. The carrot on a stick is so played out. Just make a fun game with fun scenarios, you cowardly copycat assholes."
Him:
"Is that difficult? What's the worst example?"
Me:
"All of them. There can't be a worst example because they work TOGETHER to annoy me. There is no escape in modern studio games and even a huge portion of the indie space. If the classics did not exist, they would look at ideas like the Sonic trilogy, Streets of Rage, Resident Evil and Spyro and think they need to interrupt the nice flow of play to make the player decipher menus and consider stats, complicating and degrading the structured action. Upgrades have value, but I would never add them to my game. As I said about the dumb weapon upgrades in modern Tomb Raider, it's easy enough to create 'a good progressive challenge when you merely play around with the scenarios and mix and mash enemies.' If you think it will get old without upgrades, come up with more enemies that provide new challenges. Place them in more (mechanically) interesting scenes."
"'I sighed and kind of thew my hands when I got to the upgrade screen. These games are all the same, always the same. I did not purchase any attacks because I couldn't be bothered to read explanations of unlocks yet again.'
"If all of these games are the same, you didn't need to read the move descriptions and should have been able to intuit their uses."
Me:
"You know what I also hate about every single modern game having upgrade menus? That I have to figure out how each of them are arranged, how they work, what the different currencies/points are and what things mean. The carrot on a stick is so played out. Just make a fun game with fun scenarios, you cowardly copycat assholes."
Him:
"Is that difficult? What's the worst example?"
Me:
"All of them. There can't be a worst example because they work TOGETHER to annoy me. There is no escape in modern studio games and even a huge portion of the indie space. If the classics did not exist, they would look at ideas like the Sonic trilogy, Streets of Rage, Resident Evil and Spyro and think they need to interrupt the nice flow of play to make the player decipher menus and consider stats, complicating and degrading the structured action. Upgrades have value, but I would never add them to my game. As I said about the dumb weapon upgrades in modern Tomb Raider, it's easy enough to create 'a good progressive challenge when you merely play around with the scenarios and mix and mash enemies.' If you think it will get old without upgrades, come up with more enemies that provide new challenges. Place them in more (mechanically) interesting scenes."
Last edited:
That's what I mean. You never talk about a game you like directly, only "indirectly" by your own admission.
Sounds like a you problem to me. Especially since you aren't telling me which part you think I'd like while saying you are doing that. Admittedly this could be a typo.
And now you are saying "whose overall point I can't disagree with" about your own post, which is... I don't have words for whatever that is. And then you made two other posts immediately afterwards just reposting your old posts directly without any new analysis or thoughts, just more of literally the exact same.
I expect you to take this as sarcastic, but I promise you I'm being completely serious here:
Are you okay, man? 'Cause you kinda don't sound okay to me.
He's never okay. Zekey-Boy is doing those multipose long rants again, isn't he?