- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,162
- 130
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
Are most mainstream games not very good? or we are all hipsters?
- Thread starter B-cell
- Start date
Ah the new-age interpretive dance! Alright, i just recorded the best mime-rebuttal ever to grace the world, just a slight problem being it was audio only and all there's left is the meowing sound of an unfed and greatly confused cat. Back to the miming board it is then!
Having replayed GTA5 once again i couldnot beat it. its boring, missions consist of point A to point B, its so easy and casual take cover and shoot.
the prologue involving heist was so hand-holding i feel like it play itself.
RDR2 feel a well made game, amazing graphics but gameplay once again boring. rockstar open world formula get outdated. thier games are only open when you are not on mission, once you are on mission, you are forced to follow linear path.
I dont think you understand what the word "mission" means. You mean the games are open until you accept a thing in which the game wants you to accomplish a task? *gasp* the horror!
They way they handle missions in those games is the most logical and reasonable possible way they could lay out story based missions. There needs to be some sort of rules both to challenge the player as well as make sure the story is conveyed in a way that they want it to be told. It's called "good game design".
Just watch this.
this is not good design, this is lazy design because if you go out of mission it say mission failed.
this is only open world when you are just doing free roam. compare it to something masterpiece like STALKER that offer tons and tons of freedom.
Rockstar are overrated. thier best game is linear game ie Max payne 3.
This, gaming these days is so robustly designed that it requires non gameplay related problems to even suck.
I'd agree that the missions clash with the free-roam stuff to a degree, I disagree with the video he linked and the claim that it's bad game design. You are just given too much of a false sense of freedom in the open world that you do not have in the missions.
But to be honest, there isn't a lot of freedom in how you complete missions in most games. Usually you can sneak or guns blasting and that's it. Otherwise the missions are almost always tightly designed objectives.
Even if you look at something like BotW, you can get things done in a lot of ways, but the core goal is strictly a limiting thing. You HAVE to kill the boss, how you kill him is sort of up to you, but the goal is the same. Go anywhere doesn't always mean freedom, because while you can go anywhere in Zelda you cannot do anything you want. The korak seeds require specific things to achieve, the enemies can only be beaten through combat of some sort, etc etc.
So everything has a limiting factor. And usually when there are even just two or three options with how to tackle a given task in a game, things start to get messy. The AI bugs, the mission itself bugs, things don't always go according to the game's script and when that happens shit breaks. So Rockstar trying to keep the actual game part of their games tight and working properly is not outdated, or bad. It's done to preserve the quality of what's on offer.
You see when you are committing chaos in the over-world, blowing shit up, getting 5-star wanted levels, the mayhem is all well and good. And during these situations when the AI breaks, the player usually finds it hilarious. However if the AI breaks during a critical mission the player is focused on completing, they tend to be far less forgiving. This is why Rockstar does things they way they do. And considering GTA V has made more money than any other movie, video game, TV show, in history.....I think it works out just fine.
Sassy Creed is basically Historical GTA and it does that reasonably well. Like Far Cry, it suffers from FAR TOO MANY releases on a nearly annual cycle(they've been trying to space them out lately but so far it's unclear if it's helping). As a result quality tends to be all over the place and the overarching story started out pretty good before just kind of becoming an excuse to keep doing these every year because $$$$$$$$$.
Not to mention the issue with how much they ended up creating THE UBISOFT GAME, Along with Far Cry. Everyone knows what THE UBISOFT GAME is at this point.
Pandemic outdid Rockstar 2 generations ago with open world mission design with Mercenaries and Rockstar hasn't even come close to out-doing a PS2 game yet. Not to mention, Rockstar also fired a dev for trying to fix their horrid combat system.
Play Mercenaries, the game is almost a puzzle game in the aspect of how open the mission design is. And yes, most devs suck at designing missions in most open world games because very few devs actually understand how to make a well-designed open world game. Sturgeon's Law and all. Just because all these other devs aren't good at something doesn't mean that Rockstar is good at it. Rockstar doesn't allow you to FLANK enemies in some missions, it's ridiculous.
It would also help to not start almost every mission by having to meet a friendly NPC and THEN ride to the mission zone together. It only doubles the amount of horseback riding, which is already egregious. This was driving me batty in RDR2. Just hit me up at the mission zone with the plot-related NPC already there, stop padding the game with even more horseback riding.
Thus why I said MOST games.
And Rockstar IS good at it. Because it's successful. That's the proof right there. You might not like how they do things, but what they do works for people. End of story.
I don't like GTA, I hated RDR2, so I'm not coming from a place of fanboyism. I just understand success and what it looks like. People do not tolerate bad games, and the topic of this thread is calling them bad games. Which is not true.
If everyone sucks at something, and you are the least bad at something, that automatically makes you good at it by comparison.
Ah, so instead of creating an individual topic about games he doesn't like and wants us to agree with him, he decided to streamline the process and just bundle them all together.
You're wrong B-Cell. Most of the games on your list are way better than the games of yore that you love so much. Especially the ones featuring female protagonists and a third person view.
You're wrong B-Cell. Most of the games on your list are way better than the games of yore that you love so much. Especially the ones featuring female protagonists and a third person view.
Jim Sterling had made a great video about this. He used an example of the jar of pasta sauce, which is bland but inoffensive enough so that it will be ok for everyone but nobody's favorite sauce ever.
Most mainstream games have too much money on the line to risk being someone's favorite game ever, they just aim for being ok enough that everyone can have an averaglely-decent time playing them.
The few which askew this approach, games like Sekiro or Persona 5, become legends or fail horribly.
Most mainstream games have too much money on the line to risk being someone's favorite game ever, they just aim for being ok enough that everyone can have an averaglely-decent time playing them.
The few which askew this approach, games like Sekiro or Persona 5, become legends or fail horribly.
Popularity =/= good
Candy Crush has made more money than every single iteration of Zelda combined so I guess King is a far far more successful developer than Nintendo. End of story.
Actually popularity does equal good. People tend to like things because they are enjoyable and good. With a few exceptions like smoking, but that is because of a societal shift than anything else.
Just because it isn't to your personal tastes doesn't make it bad. And you would be hard pressed to name me one objectively bad piece of entertainment that is popular.
You have to separate personal tastes when discussing something like this, which is something that B-Cell cannot do and that's why his threads are usually nonsense.
Nothing on his list is a bad game. Not one. Yet because he doesn't like them, they automatically get flagged as bad games. I think most of us on here can agree that simply isn't true.
GTA isn't bad
Last of Us isn't bad
Tomb Raider isn't bad.
etc etc.
Things are popular because they are good, because they resonate with people in a pleasing way. Candy Crush was good during it's time. It's a pretty good, challenging match-3 game. It's business model might be scummy, but the game itself isn't bad. But it's hey-day is gone and so King is not a more successful developer than Nintendo, but if they can pump out success after success for the next 15-20 years. Then it'd be a hard argument to make don't you think?
B-Cell, just fucking stop! You've been doing the same shit for over a decade. No ones gives a shit about your tastes. We don't give a shit. I don't give a shit. Everyone else on the Easy Allies forum does not give a 1000 shits. A majority of the fucking world does not fucking care. They and we got a million better things to worry and worth crying about. So do us and yourself a favor, either talk about something useful or just stop talking and play your FPS/TPS.
You can't say anything is objectively bad or good. You really can't separate personal tastes from critiquing media unless you just wanna talk about technical merits.
Actually Candy Crush makes more now than it ever has.
When has the most popular movie ever won Best Picture?
Who actually thinks the Top 40 is the best music?