Yes, yes!! I couldnt play RDR 2 because those part killed my fun, they serve no purpose...
Along this line, if I need to do the same RPG tech/skill tree for multiple characters, or again in new game+, don't hide the upgrade dependencies. I don't enjoy grinding at the best of times, let alone just to find I still can't learn some skill I need for my build because I didn't learn three disparate and obscure skills hours ago.
The point of the unlockables in those roguelikes is to give you a goal to work toward while you're learning the game. Your first runs in these games are going to end pretty fast because you don't know what you're doing so not having everything unlocked reduces the complexity of the initial floundering attempts.
I dont mind unlock that give say a different weapon or such, but if it just about "grinding" and doesnt have any other goal than just time invested, it is not a "fun" way to unlock to me
But imagine if you had a weapon that increased your weapon damage by 11%! You'd be killing monsters in 9 hits instead of 10 and the gameplay would be turned on its head!
Obviously the purpose is to test your ability to take notes. The game developers are trying to help you build skills that have real world application. Its like an ARG where if you get better at the game, you get better in real life!
Ubisoft needs to go and die in general.
The last great game they ever made was Rayman Legends back in 2013. They have nothing left other than For Honor. I have no interest in that game though.
It’s also sad to see open world Ubisoft gameplay elements fester into other games.
Wolfestein:Young Blood and Halo Infinite? I'll give credit for Infinite at least looking more fun than 4 or 5. I don't have XB1 or SX, but my big bro does. If he's happy about it, than I am happy for him. Young Blood on the other hand copies Ubisoft and Wolfenstein (2009) in the worst possible manner. A reminded to those that have forgotten, but Wolfestein (09) is an open world game.
The last time I enjoyed Ubisoft towers was in Horizion Zero Dawn which is not even a Ubisoft game and eiter on purpose or by accident solved the Ubisoft Open world problem by cutting the bloat and making things interesting.
God I loved Legends it was my answer to Mario since I did not have a Nintendo console and overall was just a fun good time. I only give Origins the edge cause the controls were to me slightly tighter and those nymphs had no business being that thick. Some in the Ubisoft art department had a agenda and I approve.
I hate it when games' higher difficulty settings just equate to bigger bad guy numbers and smaller good guy numbers. Or worse, when difficulty settings just weight RNG against the player, or give AI advantages unavailable to players without resorting to cheat codes. That noise can just fuck all the way off. They're not making harder games, they're just making more tedious games that prioritize player statistic optimization, as opposed to novel or unorthodox strategies that promote and reward ingenuity and quick thinking.
It's saying something when F.E.A.R, an fps from 2005, puts a majority of shooters from 7th, 8th, and 9th generation all to shame. A.I especially.
The irony of this being, the DMC series is one of the few I'd actually qualify as actually having appreciably harder difficulty levels because SoS and DMD actually do affect enemy behavior trees...even though they also do that "buff monster health and damage, nerf player health and damage" bullshit.
DMC1 and ironically, DmC, did Dante Must Die Mode the best. In the first game, most lesser demons have less than 90% health. As long as you don't let them DT, they could die pretty quickly. Even more so if you can one shot them with a critical hit. In DmC, if you hit enemies hard enough or parried their attacks, you could temporarly knock them out of Devil Trigger for a good 10-20 seconds. DMC3 did it the worst, because demons became damage sponges and they would DT automatically after killing three or more enemies per spawn. DMC4's worked similar to DMC1's, except lesser demons don't have less than 90% health. DMC5 is a close second for having similar issues and almost being exactly like 3.
I think there's something to be said about how a well designed game can feel very fair when it increases the difficulty through an increase in numbers though. In NEO: The World Ends With You, increasing the difficulty of fights is an actual in game mechanic for acquiring pins and while harder difficulties do just increase the numbers, a number increase makes it so you have to engage with the unique mechanics of the enemies properly and exploit their weaknesses if you want to be able to survive and get the rarer pins.
And an old game I'm still impressed with even after all these years is Jet Force Gemini's drone enemies. Given the time the game was made and the hardware it was on, I'm still very impressed with the enemy AI and how it will use cover to hide from you and will scamper all over the place looking for new hiding spots.
I'd argue games with default difficulty settings that don't require a player engage with the game's core mechanics, and thereby simply brute force challenges, are exemplary of poor design by way of undertuned challenges. Default difficulty settings should at least require the player to develop fluency with core mechanics and navigate challenges in accordance to them. Higher difficulties are where games should be forcing players to expand their repertoire and pushing their boundaries, having learned core mechanics and how to properly navigate its challenges.
Difficulty is designed to work on a curve, where earlier enemies are easier to fight against than later ones, that's why it can be completely good and correct design to have enemies that don't require the player to have fully mastered the mechanics yet. Increased difficulty is meant to ramp up that curve even with earlier encounters.
