stroopwafel said:
Casual Shinji said:
Resident Evil 4
snip
RE4, you are the king!
snip
While retrospectively people who complained about it now praise it, I'd argue the escort missions with Ashley prevent
RE4 from being stupidly perfect. Part of the OP's definition of stupidly perfect means any flaws are so minor they serve to just highlight the good parts even more. Escorting in that game was too painful to be minor. And, the only reason people backtrack and say it's great now is because somehow despite getting more advanced video games the escort concept has somehow regressed. So, telling Ashley to hide in a trash bin or something like that just looks good by comparison; it still isn't good though. I'm sure there's a few more things that were wrong with that game, but I only say that because, as I said in my OP on this thread, my standards are higher than that of snobs and I might be more nitpicky than Yahtzee. So, it's more out of desperation to find something wrong with the game than actually having a gut feeling that there was more wrong than I can remember. Trust me when I say that's not something to brag about either; I wish I could enjoy games more easily.
kasperbbs said:
I'll be a copycat and say Portal 1/2, it's not my favorite game, but i can't think of anything being wrong with it, except that it has little replay value.
I don't know, little replay value is a big enough flaw to disqualify
Portal from being stupidly perfect if you ask me. Little replay value is not a minor flaw to me, which is part of the requirement to be stupidly perfect. Great games despite that though.
Silvanus said:
Arkham City may be the closest thing to a perfect game I've played. It's (almost) everything I could have wished for.
COMaestro said:
Closest thing that is occurring to me right now is Batman: Arkham Asylum. The game was just so beautifully put together with a fantastic combat mechanic, good use of gadgets, nice environments and a great story. While the ending boss fight was a little disappointing, everything before that overshadows any dissatisfaction that might be had.
The
Arkham series is 1 of my favorite franchises and while it certainly has given me a lot of what I asked for I just don't have the same opinion as you two. None of the
Arkham games are difficult enough to satisfy my need for challenge and I was always disappointed how the AI never adapts to you sufficiently.
Let's take
Origins for example. What if when you shot your remote claw there was a random chance the AI could stop it? They could be programmed to hear it coming and move out of the way or, if it manages to latch onto them anyway, they cut the cable with a knife or pull it off them with their bare hands (the games certainly make them look bulky enough to make me believe they could pull them off easily despite the strength I assume the claw has in its gripping potential). I single out the remote claw specifically because it was cheap and made stealthing too easy even though it was fun to use. By adding this element of chance, stealth encounters could be easy or hard and you wouldn't be sure going in which it would be. They'd certainly always be different in a good way, at the very least if not any harder. And, that's just the remote claw. Imagine if AI were sophisticated enough to react to every gadget you use and every attack you do in a similar manner? I see a lot more replay value in the series' future if that concept went into the game design. Then again,
Origins was a low effort, obligatory copy/paste of
Arkham City with a few interesting ideas that never fully get capitalized on. I always wished the scope of the countering counters system had been expanded and made more complex for example. So singling out 1 of its gadgets is probably doing the series a disservice and makes it not the best example to illustrate my point. It's the only example I could think of though, for some reason.
The point I'm trying to make is that the charm of the stealth and combat system wears off when you realize the AI is too stupid to react to you realistically and present any real challenge. Put that together with the derivativeness and exhaustion I got from doing the same thing over and over again (fighting a huge battle royale's worth of goons with a Titan or skilled goon to mix it up slightly or stealthing with too few new interesting things added, once you've progresses satisfactorily, to justify doing the same thing once again) and the lackluster boss fight and the games don't quite reach stupidly perfect for me. They're wonderful games, but missed a spot while polishing the car.
I know Batman has always been power fantasy, but even in
The Animated Series he had his money cut out for him when presented with average goons who decided to do the smart thing for once in their otherwise stupid lives or an average goon who was lucky that day. Batman is only human after all. If you've seen
The Animated Series that's why "Almost Got 'Im" and "The Man Who Killed Batman" are such great episodes. Batman is still portrayed as an amazing individual, but they still manage to show that he's fighting people who can be just as clever as him or get just as lucky as he gets. "The Man Who Killed Batman" is a particularly great example of somebody who just got lucky. Batman didn't die, but even Batman admitted that was a rare instance he was almost a goner by some ordinary goon. Best part was Batman didn't feel ashamed in admitting an average guy almost did him. Other super skilled, almost never lose, heroes would feel ashamed. Batman is a better person for being more humble about it. The games never convey this well enough for me though and I've always considered that a big flaw of the franchise among everything else I stated.