Yeah I agree about not hating them. Though depending on how formulaic they are, I might not find anything interesting enough in them to want to spend money on it. But yeah, the genre itself, I'm fine with as a whole.
Games that are bad (or everyone else hates) that you like.
- Thread starter Dany_the_penguin
- Start date
Most assassin's creed, Unity too. I don't feel the need to always chase innovation as long as the setting and time spent in world is interesting enough. I'm also one of the sordid cretins who wants more sci-fi future alien nonsense involved please!
Rain World. Am certain now I'm the only person who's played it, or imagined it.
No?...Man's?...Sky? Not sure if that counts anymore now ppl seem to have chilled on it.
TLOU2? (Or so the internet would have me believe)
Ok ok, I think there's one more that kinda came out of the blue thanks to ps plus: Rocket Arena. It's 3D Smash Bros, where health is not health, but a bar measuring how far you knock the other asshole out the arena. Not only smooth, but contains a character design I instantly fell in love with.
Is this how they get you? With one character? Alright then, it might've worked. Not much else to the game though, considering its parenthood and stillbirth.
Rain World. Am certain now I'm the only person who's played it, or imagined it.
No?...Man's?...Sky? Not sure if that counts anymore now ppl seem to have chilled on it.
TLOU2? (Or so the internet would have me believe)
Ok ok, I think there's one more that kinda came out of the blue thanks to ps plus: Rocket Arena. It's 3D Smash Bros, where health is not health, but a bar measuring how far you knock the other asshole out the arena. Not only smooth, but contains a character design I instantly fell in love with.
Is this how they get you? With one character? Alright then, it might've worked. Not much else to the game though, considering its parenthood and stillbirth.
Last edited:
Here we go again:
it doesn't help that I find most other 3rd person shooters before the Gears of War era have better gameplay than a majority of them. I do not have a massive hate boner for most cover shooters, but I sure as hell didn't like a lot of them. They tend to get repetitive especially when there was just shooting and not much else. I also hated whenever a developer was copying gears or cod, and they did the whole realism excuse for not having a weapon wheel or a two weapon limit. That got old real fast.
Yeah that's kind of my thoughts, I don't have a problem with the mechanic itself, to me, it's like complaining in a side-scrolling platformer, that you have to press a button to jump up and down, and move from platform to platform. Well...yeah, that's the entire premise of the game. A lot of these mechanics are just now standard systems that have proven themselves, over years of gameplay, to be easily adapted for players, easy to learn, difficult to master, and allow for a reasonably fun game. So the "cover shooter" as a concept, I have zero issue with. To me it's like bitching that "ugh! Another game where the keyboard movement controls are WASD and I use Spacebar to jump!! Talk about derivative!!"
My issue is that most cover shooters, are fairly standard stories. Some modern warfare (not the franchise, just the concept) variant, where it's nothing but the shooting. And frankly that bores me very quickly. The mechanics I'm fine, just, I dunno, do something more creative with the framework than "brown colored shooter game" ? *shrugs*
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,122
- 3,982
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Theres nothing inherently bad about cover shooting. It ended up being overused for a few years combined with regenerating health that tended to show up in a lot of fps games around that time gave it a stigma so its forever tainted. Its the same kinda thing why everyone hates the cod series but it still sells a ton of copies each year, its just overly familiar.
Exactly. Most cover shooters from the seventh generation did not do much with the concept than other the basic thing that it's doing. It's why I love Vanquish so much. it's the cover shooter that's not really a cover shooter and punishes you for using too much cover or using it as a crutch. It's why I prefer the shooting in most over shoulder survival horror games over cover shooters. I would take Shadows of the Damned over nearly all the cover shooters from 7th generation. That game had some awesome shooting despite some of its budgetary flaws and unskippable cutscenes. Keep in mind, that game came out in 2011.
Eh, I never got to play a Gears of War game. They don't really look like my kind of thing, I have a heavy dislike of bullet sponge enemies.
My favorite third person shooters are all stealth games now that I think about it. Splinter Cell, MGSV, Ghost Recon before they were open world, that one weird Daniel Craig bond game that I find surprisingly satisfying to play. In other words, games where you can slip over and under cover while quickly and efficiently taking out your enemies one by one.
The video you linked its quite funny to me, because I've watched it before and it convinced me to get Vanquish on Steam. I got bored of it quite quickly. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,122
- 3,982
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Gears is one of those that is much more enjoyable then it should be. I tend to hate bullet sponge enemies also but somehow it works in that game series.
Neither am I. I played the first game and a little bit of the second, but that was about it.
There you go. they did something either unique or different enough to mix it up.
I do admit that you have to be in a certain mood to play that one. Last time I played Vanquish was back in February when it was released with Bayonetta. I already did my no death run on hard mode and got the trophy for it. I am not bothering with God Hard difficulty. Not worth the headache. What I like about Vanquish is all the versatility and flexible options you can do. You can slide in and out of cover, hop over it, rocket slide and bounce off the cover, or an enemy, and going to slow motion. Each weapon has a unique melee attack and and can be upgraded. Granted, the upgrade system is not the best and you can't even use it on the hardest difficulty. Collecting the same weapon at max ammo to upgrade it is stupid, but there is at least an exploit where you can reload a checkpoint and you'll still retain your weapon upgrade.
Last edited:
I think that's one reason that so many people speak positively about Titanfall 2, aside from the really fun robot sidekick that you have, who you develop a huge connection with. Seriously that robot's personality made that game so much fun to play through, despite it being a fairly standard covershooter. But they also provided some lateral thinking, allowing you verticality in the gameplay, and the novelty of the mech combat. It made things a lot more dynamic and interesting, when you can hop out of your mech, and he still keeps fighting, and you go parkouring off walls with a JETPACK, and proceed to kick butt in a very fast paced fight. Really the "cover" part was almost fully removed thinking back. I usually only relied on cover when in the mech, and even that was rare. It was mostly mobility, and abilities that would negate damage.
Yep. On a harder difficulties though, you will be relying on cover a lot more often; especially in an early areas when don't have all the upgrades yet.
Bulletstorm is another good example. There's not a lot of verticality, but I like the fact that you get a Vanquish/FEAR style slide kick, along with the mighty boot. To knock around enemies for stylish kills. The full clip edition of this game is even better, because when you unlock new game plus, they get rid of the three weapon limit and you can actually use a weapon wheel. The game is way more fun with the weapon wheel than without it makes it hard to go back to the vanilla version of the game. The game also has a great co-op multiplayer too and people still play it. I remember back when the game first came out, they were people mainly professional critics, harping on the game because it didn't have a death match style multiplayer. when is developers outright said they didn't want to focus on that and do something different. Not just be another deathmatch multiplayer that copies cod, Gears, or Halo. The only thing I didn't like about Bulletstorm, was that it did the regenerating health like nearly every other shooter at the time . It came off as hypocritical, cuz they were making fun of cod and other shooters were doing it. If they ever decide to do a sequel, I just hope they bring in standard health packs and armor.
Ghost Recon Future Soldier has hands down the best cover system ever, the cover system not only is defensive but it's also you're most potent offensive weapon in the game if you master it.
---
The thing with most cover systems is that they mainly only work against AI. Play any cover shooter online and you're gonna get curb-stomped if you use the cover system much. It has some minor uses, but for the most part, you're only slower to react and move when stuck to cover vs if you just stay behind cover organically. The cover systems with contextual/auto cover (when you get close to the wall, the game puts you into cover) can all be dragged out into the street and shot to death, there's no excuse for those systems as they only get you killed.
I always just cycle between blades and ax exhausting my runics, and occasionally softening up fools with fists in between. Atreus is great for distractions and crowd control. Murder of Crows is terrific.
Yeah rune cycling is deadly as hell, I just didn't enjoy doing it much. It felt more visceral and satisfying to charge in with Kratos' bare fists, and just punch dudes until they are punch drunk, and then rip them to pieces. It felt more...Kratos-y to me.
That too.
Atreus is a straight up game breaker when you max out his attacks, stats, and equip him the best and final outfit.
That, and the one which summons a stampede of boars. Those are my two favorites and I almost never use the others after experimenting with the meta.
Last edited:
Man the final sequence, when Kratos and Atreus are both going Full God Mode on Baldur, and they are just doing ridiculous epic tier stuff without any hesitation, that's one of my favorite moments in gaming personally. It just felt so satisfying to watch him grow into his power, and he's still a kid. I'm REALLY hoping to play as him in the next game after they kill Kratos
If it does happen it won’t be until near the end. Gonna call it where there will be a transfer of power of sorts, where you be controlling Kratos as he dies. Maybe your final command will be for Atreus to perform a mercy kill, and at that moment controls segue over fully to him.
Considering Kratos went to hell about 4 times (The Greek Underworld) in the series and once of his free will in Helhiem, I highly doubt they will axe him off permanently. Not to mention he has fought destiny before. If they do kill him off; consider me shocked. I do look forward to Atreus playing a more active role, gameplay wise. I know he'll be fully controllable in Ragnarok. They will probably age him up to a teenager.
I felt Connor was nicely developed and yeah, he was broody, he was a Native America in an era where Natives were repeatedly being screwed over by the colonists for their lands(something that never really ended) and even had his village burned in-game by them at one point. A lot of his other interactions I saw as culture shock, having lived in his tribe/village for his entire life until he went to go live on the manor and then go visit an actual colonial city. There's one point where he is visibility irritated by one of characters(Sam Adams, I think) wanting to touch him, implying he's very much not used to such, especially from someone he's only just met. He notably opens up a bit in the Homestead missions where he gathers people around him to form a new community near the manor. In the end, he found out his tribe had been evicted regardless and went west, so he basically failed despite all his efforts.
Totally agree on the historical shoehorning though. Most of the time it came across as really fucking contrived. Connor at the signing of the Declaration of Independence was a bit much. Paul Reveres ride came across as Paul Revere being the world's most annoying GPS on a horse and the Battle of Concord had that bizarre bit where the Officer in charge tells Connor to take command of the front line force holding the bridge because....he just showed up? Like, Connor isn't even your fucking army and somehow he's the guy at the top of your list to leave in charge of this battle? Do you really not have ANYONE ELSE WHO CAN DO THIS?
I'm not saying Connor didn't have reasons for being a broody, moody, emo teen stereotype, I'm saying that he was not fun to play as. I didn't get the vibe from him of "last of his tribe, scarred by his past and trying to find a future for himself and his people", I got "pssh, I'm too cool for this stuff. GAAAH! I have to wait here and lean against the wall, bored while they draft that stupid declaration of independence thing? UGH! *sulk*" kind of vibe from him. He was just unnecessarily moody and abrasive, even when people were being very nice to him. It was worse when they were whites, which again, makes some sense, but when I'm PLAYING him, I just feel like he's being a racist and hating on people who had nothing to do with the actions that killed his family. He just wasn't a good character that I enjoyed playing as. There is a reason he only got 1 game, and Ezio, the incredibly charming, charismatic, lively, entertaining character got like 8 titles.