For me at least the worth of mobile gaming has nothing to do with the interfacing, it has to do with what's on offer: junk made to fuel addiction cycles, paywalls, timers... those aren't games.
High quality ports or true self contained experiences? those are games, regardless of device.
They could at least use the gyroscope! It's so cretinous I can play rdr2 on pc with the ps4 controller gyro aim but not on the actual ps4
And that the controller costs 50-80 for functions you cant even use
A vast majority of videogame "Top 10" lists on the internet need to be thrown out into the garbage bin. They are usually created by people who have never even beat the games they say are "Top 10"; whether its a list about the best SNES, PS2 or Best games of all time. If you actually go and play what people consider to be the "best" games and actually try to beat them you will realize a lot of them don't hold up or seriously fall off in the second half of the game. A lot of lists are just created with whats culturally acceptable in mind and whatever they saw had the highest journalist ratings when it came out.
There is some truth to this, as many of these lists are just clickbait copying each other. But nonetheless, there usually are several major notable games that make these lists and deserve to be on them. You gave no examples to support your argument and kept it as vague as possible, so I don't see how you have a fully legit point with this.
Yes, your world can be as complex and complete as Tolkien's Middle Earth but if your story and narration are bad that means nothing about that world.
I'd even argue that storytelling should focus on making a good one with a nicely done narration regardless of the depth of the lore since it's usually built after several entries.
I'm tired that many games are FromSoft wannabe with the whole "our game has a minimalistic story but deep lore to keep players engaged" that puts a stain on how world building is done. Not every game have to be cryptic in the story for the sake of appearing smarter.
And here comes my But ( with one t , of course ) .
A deep lore can still provide a great setting , if the setting-writing allows it and its based what the point of the quest or mission is .
We have always games that focuses and getting evolved for the story-writing without evolving the setting-writing into its own playground that can give players their own goals in this setting which isnt so limited in its linearity of the story overall . More for the open role-play and less a linear stage-play .
We never experimented in that kind of way except the typical Dark souls approach of setting-writing . Its a cool approach but its still telling and not showing or even interactive .
Dark Souls lore is more meandering than deep, if you ask me. The leitmotiffs aren't exactly unseen or groundbreakingly unique by themselves, but when combined with how it is told (and how it is not) it creates a sense of player investment that is uncommon.
Consider a lake: if the water is crystal clear and you can see the bottom, it is not as mysterious as if the water was dark, murky and nothing about said lake was certain.
Fallout has never had a consistent tone or sense of direction, and while I agree with the take that Bethesda's fallout games are pretty much completely bad, I don't think it's because they compromised on some sort of purity of vision that existed at Interplay. "Bethesda doesn't understand the tone of fallout" is a criticism that's thrown around a lot in New Vegas discussion circles, and I just don't think that really holds up under scrutiny. The series already begins bordering on self parody by the second entry, and if you dig into any of the van buren story threads you'll find they're completely and totally insane. Which is cool in it's own right, but still not really consistent with either game. They even had a goofy ass action movie in the works.
Dark Souls lore is more meandering than deep, if you ask me. The leitmotiffs aren't exactly unseen or groundbreakingly unique by themselves, but when combined with how it is told (and how it is not) it creates a sense of player investment that is uncommon.
Consider a lake: if the water is crystal clear and you can see the bottom, it is not as mysterious as if the water was dark, murky and nothing about said l
A vast majority of videogame "Top 10" lists on the internet need to be thrown out into the garbage bin. They are usually created by people who have never even beat the games they say are "Top 10"; whether its a list about the best SNES, PS2 or Best games of all time. If you actually go and play what people consider to be the "best" games and actually try to beat them you will realize a lot of them don't hold up or seriously fall off in the second half of the game. A lot of lists are just created with whats culturally acceptable in mind and whatever they saw had the highest journalist ratings when it came out.
I feel like top Ten lists of games are kinda boring because there's only so many games with mass popularity that even qualify to make it on them. Personal favorite lists are way more interesting because they include the weird games with some jank
I have a feeling you might have quoted my post above by mistake, @Swagmata. haha. Not that it is a problem, it was just kind of funny seeing it half cut up there. You have some great points!
And here comes my But (with one t of course ). A deep lore can still provide a great setting, if the setting-writing allows it and its based what the point of the quest or mission is.
I do agree that a great setting is good but if it makes the story boring or that the gameplay isn't that great I couldn't care less about the world it's set in.
We have always games that focuses and getting evolved for the story-writing without evolving the setting-writing into its own playground that can give players their own goals in this setting which isn't so limited in its linearity of the story overall . More for the open role-play and less a linear stage-play.
It also depends of the game and its genre. We don't really need a complex setting if it's action-focused or an arcade style game. I think lore should be naturally built with games after games instead of doing exposition dumping.
We never experimented in that kind of way except the typical Dark souls approach of setting-writing . Its a cool approach but its still telling and not showing or even interactive. But that's my theory .
Dark Souls is a good game because of the level design and the "show don't tell" approach but many AAAs took it wrong by thinking that "being cryptic = good lore and storytelling".
I also want good narration or just having a game with a simple story and world but has a good gameplay.
Dark Souls lore is more meandering than deep, if you ask me. The leitmotifs aren't exactly unseen or groundbreaking-ly unique by themselves, but when combined with how it is told (and how it is not) it creates a sense of player investment that is uncommon.
Consider a lake: if the water is crystal clear and you can see the bottom, it is not as mysterious as if the water was dark, murky and nothing about said lake was certain.
I also think that we should stop to always assume that Dark Souls is the de facto best way to build a world/tell a story when there were games before that managed to do it as good.
This is basically a 3D Metroidvania done right but fundamentally it's King's Field but as a third person Action RPG.
A vast majority of videogame "Top 10" lists on the internet need to be thrown out into the garbage bin. They are usually created by people who have never even beat the games they say are "Top 10"; whether its a list about the best SNES, PS2 or Best games of all time. If you actually go and play what people consider to be the "best" games and actually try to beat them you will realize a lot of them don't hold up or seriously fall off in the second half of the game. A lot of lists are just created with whats culturally acceptable in mind and whatever they saw had the highest journalist ratings when it came out.
The issue isn't that they don't want change it's just that gimmicky stuff like Nintendo's wii U pad were just badly used or having forced control scheme that devs have to comply.
Most end life DS games barely used the touch control screen and it was a glorified status screen.
I have a feeling you might have quoted my post above by mistake, @Swagmata. haha. Not that it is a problem, it was just kind of funny seeing it half cut up there. You have some great points!
Fallout has never had a consistent tone or sense of direction, and while I agree with the take that Bethesda's fallout games are pretty much completely bad, I don't think it's because they compromised on some sort of purity of vision that existed at Interplay. "Bethesda doesn't understand the tone of fallout" is a criticism that's thrown around a lot in New Vegas discussion circles, and I just don't think that really holds up under scrutiny. The series already begins bordering on self parody by the second entry, and if you dig into any of the van buren story threads you'll find they're completely and totally insane. Which is cool in it's own right, but still not really consistent with either game. They even had a goofy ass action movie in the works.
They had a very clear direction for the series exploring the further advancement of the post-apocalyptic society with Van Buren, even going as far as writing the fallout bible for the sake of having better consistency and whatnot. Even if 2 departs from 1 because of its large amount of comedy, its nothing compared to the sort of generic military stuff 3 did.
I wish Bethesda would notice that Fallout isn't a post apocalyptic story set when the bombs dropped in the 50's - 60's and didn't culturally evolve but is in fact a futuristic society from the 50's pov.
Space Channel 5 is a perfect example of an advanced society with a 60's aesthetic while still being set in the future with technological advancements, not being stuck in the 60's culturally.
Neil Druckmann is a genius and I would love to see more games by him. *raises flame shield* personally I am glad he seems to be done with Last of Us and is moving on to his next ideas.
David Jaffe is an amazing and underrated game director.
God of War and Twisted Metal were made under his tenure. Sure neither one of them are masterpiece games but they are fun. The ps2 God of Wars are much funner than the PS4 one (yes the same director that made 2 made the ps4 one but God of War 2 is a continuation of Jaffe's idea and while better gameplay wise lacked the creative umph that the original had).
Super Mario 64 isn't the best 3D platformer on N64. Bomberman 64, Banjo Kazooie, and Conker's Bad Fur Day outclass it and no it isn't the first 3D platformer either as it was predated by alpha waves and Jumpin Flash!
Was Super Mario 64 an amazing game that was very influential yes. But people act like it created the 3D platformer.
Digimon World for the playstation is better than any Pokemon game.
Super Mario 64 isn't the best 3D platformer on N64. Bomberman 64, Banjo Kazooie, and Conker's Bad Fur Day outclass it and no it isn't the first 3D platformer either as it was predated by alpha waves and Jumpin Flash!
Was Super Mario 64 an amazing game that was very influential yes. But people act like it created the 3D platformer.
Digimon World for the playstation is better than any Pokemon game.
It's perfectly fine to let go of a series of games or whatever if you feel disappointed or don't feel like giving it any more chances. There's no reason to stick around to a series that keeps making mistakes in hopes of someday expecting it to get better or whatever.
It's perfectly fine to let go of a series of games or whatever if you feel disappointed or don't feel like giving it any more chances. There's no reason to stick around to a series that keeps making mistakes in hopes of someday expecting it to get better or whatever.
It's perfectly fine to let go of a series of games or whatever if you feel disappointed or don't feel like giving it any more chances. There's no reason to stick around to a series that keeps making mistakes in hopes of someday expecting it to get better or whatever.
Absolutly true .
No game-series can hold on for what they are and what kind of quality they brought to the table forever.
The best games / movies / comics / etc. have an end .
Absolutly true .
No game-series can hold on for what they are and what kind of quality they brought to the table forever.
The best games / movies / comics / etc. have an end .
True and i agree . But what happens when the peaks and valleys getting flatter and flatter ?
Those game-series becoming mediocre experiences . And this happens to many game-series lately and even back then .
At the end our subjectivity is the main-point what we prefer from those games and what are our highs and lows in the series determined for what we stand as fans of the franchise .
True and i agree . But what happens when the peaks and valleys getting flatter and flatter ?
Those game-series becoming mediocre experiences . And this happens to many game-series lately and even back then .
At the end our subjectivity is the main-point what we prefer from those games and what are our highs and lows in the series determined for what we stand as fans of the franchise .
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
