Casual Shinji said:
As of recently, Overwatch, I guess. When you take into account the crazy popularity it's enjoying compared to the complete apathy I have towards it. I don't hate it, it's just that it's a multiplayer-only shooter, which to me holds less value than an empty can of dogfood.
Also, Platinum games. Generally praised as the be-all and end-all of the action genre, but to me the weightless hack 'n slashing and empty, lifeless levels are always a thorn in my eye. I can understand that the combat is extremely fine tuned, and that people who have a boner for combos and cancels or whatever have a field day with it. But I'm the kind of guy who appreciates setting, characters, story, and atmosphere just as much if not more so than the intricacies of the gameplay mechanics. I played the Nier: Automata demo last week and yeah... I guess it plays very well, but beyond that the game feels bland and lacking any sort of punch or weight.
I'll agree to some extent, but games like Bayonetta, Mad World, and the Wonderful 101 has atmosphere, setting, characters, and story. Maybe it's down to your personal preference. That's fine and all. To me Platinum's game with the best story is Mad World due to how self-contained it is, and makes a good point. Bayonetta's story was fun, but haphazardly told, and you needed to read the journals lying around to get the full lore. Bayonetta 2 fixed most of it, because we already know who Bayonetta is and no amnesia sub-plots creeping up, so the story is a lot more direct and immediate.
While barren environments are recent problem in Platinum's current games, they had plenty variety in environments, details, and heavily encouraged exploration in many stages on the three games I just mentioned in the paragraph above. As far as Nier: Automata, you shouldn't judge the game so early, it's just a demo. There are more environments that include a desert, and abandoned city featuring wildlife full of green a la Last of Us. There is going to be quests and towns you can visit, so it won't just be the typical action game from Platinum. Nier is an Action/RPG you know, so detailed environments and exploration is definitely going to be a thing.
My list:
Uncharted - They're just TPSs with Indiana Jones flavor. I respect the series for what it did graphically and visually, but the gameplay has always been mostly the same with small changes here and there. And amazing as 4 looks, the game is a glorified fan fic with a Gary Stu/OC brother who was never mentioned at all nor hinted at in any of the previous games. Had Sam been an old colleague of Drake, I could accept that, but making him a long lost relative is 12-year old writing a script territory.
Gears of War - Same as above, but worse to look at.
COD/Battlefield/any clones of the genre - I don't do "realistic" FPSs. The realism is a fallacy, and almost all of the games have very little changes or don't go further with their ideas; there's no point in me playing them. I don't care for multiplayer either, so buying any of those games is a waste of
my time and money.
Tomb Raider - I got bored after the III game and never looked back. Most of the games aren't bad, but not my thing. I can't speak for the reboot series, but from what I heard Rise of the Tomb Raider was more or less the same as the 2013 reboot.
Elder Scrolls IV - I found the game too long and boring for my taste. That goes about the same for V and Fallout 3 or 4.
Assasin's Creed - Why do people even bother buying these anymore? Ubisoft doesn't know what they're doing with the plot since Brotherhood, they all play almost the same at this point, and fill the glut of lazy, open world collect-a-thons. Speaking of which...
Far Cry 4 and Primal - Lazy $60.00 mission pack sequels, that is all.
Metroidvania Castlevania games- I always preferred the linear stage based games. The fact Konami put out so many of these nearly every year before they became big assholes was not helping much.