2 picks for me: Stardew Valley, most boring shit ever, I don’t see the appeal, seriously how the hell did that thing sold 20 million copies?
And Witcher 3, I own that game since 2019 and I regret buying it, funny thing is that I’ve finished Dragon Age 1 and 2, which are kinda same genre but I actually enjoyed those games. I guess the old BioWare sauce carried those games unlike Witcher where there’s nothing to enjoy in its massive pointless world.
Doom, for multiple reasons.
Yeah same, the edge lord imagery plus brutality losses steam very fast.
Bloodborne. I just can’t click with the gameplay. I’ve tried and tried and tried. I’ve bounced off of it. Been filtered.
Not the game’s fault. It seems fantastic for what it’s going for, clearly very finely tuned. I just have never been good at doing these frame perfect 3rd person melee games. I just listen to loads of lore videos on it now.
It’s okay, that’s how I feel about the monster hunter games. Just couldn’t get into them. I also found the weird dimorphism that the monster hunter armor had off putting. I wanted my woman character to have real armor, not a bikini. I get some people like that, but it wasn’t for me.
The gameplay wasn’t as fun as I anticipated, and I can’t place my finger on why. It’s weird… I WANT to like those games but just don’t find them enjoyable.
Sometimes we just just don’t vibe with a game. It happens!
Any first person shooter. I’m just not into something that requires that kind of reflexes and precision, especially with a first person perspective where you can be killed instantly from behind.
I agree. On top of that, I get motion sick really easily, so I can play a lot of FPS games for about 15 minutes max.
First person shooters are just dumbed down point and click games.
It is like they just removed the entire puzzle element, so you can play brainless.
That’s not fair, mostly within the context of multiplayer. The puzzle is outsmarting other players.
For real. What a reductive analysis of a large and varied genre.
You can literally call any game a point and click game.
Sucks to suck?
If your need to feel better than other people is the only thing fun about a game, it isn’t a good game.
ROFL!
No, I play it for the same tickle I get from pressing myself to extreme in rhythm games. It’s just gotta suck to not be good because you won’t get that intensity. You’ll just feel clumsy and not get to spend much time alive.
So far as comparison goes, I can’t say I don’t enjoy that some. I’m the top ranked project muse player and definitely feel awesome about that.
Or if you develop wrist pain… most FPSs just go right out the window. Or you play on controller and get whomped by the mouse and keyboard players.
Controller is actually better in most modern FPS games due to over tuned aim assist. Gone are the days of mnk supremacy in fps games
I’ve just never gotten into Pokemon. The games just feel like 99% grinding. I’m sure that’s an incredibly unpopular opinion, but I still find them unspeakably dull.
They came from a different era. If you didn’t grow up taking long road trips with a Gameboy pocket/color for your only distraction then you probably don’t get the nostalgia rush that most pmon fans do.
Exactly right. We spent hours and hours in a Ford van playing Pokemon red/yellow/blue in the 90s 😂
I was born in 1977. I had a Gameboy. I just never cared for Pokemon.
I played Red/Blue as a kid. Enjoyed the crap out of them. And then never played any of the later games ever. I think if I tried now I’d feel the same as you.
A significant number of pokemon fans had to make do with emulating the original gameboy games on the family computer. I know I did
It’s weird, because Pokémon didn’t invent turn-based RPG’s, nor did they even invent the pocket monster genre because Dragon Warrior Monster arguably had a better game than Pokémon out around the same time - with more monsters, breeding, and a better storyline.
But Red/Blue and Gold/Silver were great games of their time. Very basic, but great, mostly because of the world built around them. If you didn’t appreciate Pokémon, it’s probably easy to see why you’d find it dull.
Worth mentioning, regarding Dragon Quest, the monster teaming up with the player was added in DQ5, back in 1992, something that was arguably first introduced in Megami Tensei 2 (1990). Dragon Quest Monster was released only in 1998, after the first pokemon games.
What set pokemon apart from them was the amount of pokemon you could get. That Game Freak managed to cram another 100 in Gold/Silver, a night/day cycle, berries, friendship, breeding and the entire original Kanto region in a gameboy color cart is a small miracle
I don’t even mind some turn-based RPGs. I mentioned Wasteland in another comment, which I loved. Wasteland was basically remade as Fallout 1. Fallout 1, 2 and the Wasteland games which now have their own sequels are all turn-based RPGs, but they give you so many more options than Pokemon and they are also about team building since you don’t play as a single character.
I guess Pokemon was just not the game for me. 🤷♂️
If you look at the first game from a historic perspective
The first game basically was an open world RPG with 151 unique characters with each their strengths and weaknesses, and their own attacks, and all could be customised. Running on a handheld that previously could only play Tetris.
It was a freaking coding masterpiece.
But I agree the gameplay loop hasn’t upgraded the way it should. It didn’t evolve with the medium and stuck too much to its roots.
Although the grinding in the newer games has been minimised. You can play through the games without grinding once.
I admit I haven’t played a recent Pokemon game because of my previous experiences, but I’m open to checking a new one out at some point if the grinding has been reduced. Thanks.
The Fallout series. The worldbuilding is so sloppy and lazy that it grates pretty much from the get-go… and that’s without even mentioning the white supremacist subtext it’s all drenched in.
Fallout’s worldbuilding is fundamentally based on the 1980s game Wasteland, which had some of the best worldbuilding of its era, right up there with Ultima. Fallout 1 was essentially a remake of Wasteland. And they’ve only added to the worldbuilding since.
I’m much more a fan of team-building turn-based strategy games like Fallout 1 and 2, but I can’t claim that the worldbuilding is sloppy with the later sequels because the world was already well-built and they’re just adding details at this point.
Just the fact that the worldbuilding of the game was able to sustain a really good TV series season without the series adding much to the lore is pretty damn amazing.
…that’s without even mentioning the white supremacist subtext it’s all drenched in.
What?
Oh look… a liberal that refuses to see white supremacism when it’s literally on a screen a few inches from their face.
Yawn.
Wo did you think the (so-called) “ghouls” really are a stand-in for? Who did you think the (so-called) “tribals” are a stand-in for?
Man… you went so far out of left field to reach that conclusion that you’ve landed in touchdown territory!
What?
If you browse their profile, they’re just a reaction troll. Block, move on.
Go ahead, liberal… block me.
That won’t change the fact that the liberal fairy tales you’ve been feeding yourself is coming apart at the seams.
Fuckin whatever dingaling.
I think, if you’re serious, you may wish to consider challenging what you believe in. You won’t get a rise out of me, so don’t bother. I just wish to push you to try.
Cheers, friend. Hope you do. :)
you may wish to consider challenging what you believe in.
Then offer me something - show me how your ideology actually explain anything.
That is - if you can?
Even if you’re right, you don’t need to be such a smug prick about it. They’re literally just asking a question.
I’ll try and keep that in mind.
But I am dealing with liberal here, you know.
Dude if you care at all about expanding your ideology beyond yourself, it behooves you to not be an insufferable jerk to literally everyone you talk to. Your demeanor completely undermines any effort you might make here to (perhaps even rightly) challenge the societal norms you deem inadequate, unjust, or otherwise bad. People will just assume you sit in a continuous state of masturbatory rage and dismiss anything you might have (even potentially of substance) to offer to the conversation. Frankly I’m not sure I’ve ever read anything in print which so clearly expressed an air of self-righteous smugness, save for perhaps something by Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins.
Figure out how and when ad hominem is appropriate. Learn how to disagree tactfully. Try to exercise some empathy, at least to the point of being able to connect with folks long enough to rattle off whatever rhetoric you have in the ol’ back pocket.
Dude if you care at all about expanding your ideology beyond yourself,
You are assuming I’m here to “expand” an ideology - that’s a bad assumption, and you should feel bad about that.
you sit in a continuous state of masturbatory rage
I wish - that sounds lie a lot more fun than whatever this is.
self-righteous smugness, save for perhaps something by Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins.
Okay, I have to admit - that kind of stings.
Learn how to disagree tactfully.
I’m afraid that I don’t have the energy to waste on respectability politics - I don’t have a thousand years to wait until liberals (magically) become “ready” to hear how the liberal consensus has screwed them (and the rest of us) over. It’s going to have to happen in a more abrupt fashion - but I can assure you… they will come out the other side without a scratch on them.
whatever rhetoric you have in the ol’ back pocket.
I’m not here to recruit people for some “ism.” I’m here to throw a wrench into the machinery of recruitment itself. Nobody here will hear the rhetoric I “have in the ol’ back pocket” no matter how loudly I shout it - but they will sure hear the rhetoric they use to defend this ideology, and it will probably be the first time they hear themselves thinking it out loud, too. Let’s face it - liberals do not have a lot of practice thinking about liberalism at all. All I’m doing is giving them the opportunity to do so - they sure won’t be getting that from the media and political establishment racketeers gaslighting them into not thinking about it.
You’re trying to dismantle the echo chamber by amplifying voices inside to the point that they think what they’re saying no longer or has never made sense, and by extension alienate folks outside looking in.
It sounds like an interesting strategy, and might be fun if that’s what your about, but I doubt it’s very effective. I think the risk of it backfiring is probably too high to see a very good return on your effort, especially without any way to verify positive outcomes. Maybe you’re different, but I could also see the toxicity of the cynicism required to maintain the strategy decompartmentalizing and seeping into other parts of my life, potentially causing me to alienate my friends and family as well as affecting my mental health.
I any case, I got respect for anyone willing to stick to their guns for what they think is right, especially if it’s for positive social change. I just hope you’ve weighed the consequences of your method.
Oh look… a conservative that refuses to see white supremacy when it’s literally on a screen a few inches from their face.
FTFY. Yawn.
“Conservatives” are liberals, Clyde - they’re simply liberals that are further along the “lib-to-fash-pipeline” than you are.
So no… you didn’t fix squat.
Nah, race isn’t implied in any of that. Ghouls were originally portrayed sympathetically, for the most part, at least until they turned zombie-like. Do you think zombies imply racism?
As for tribals; surprise! Humans arrange ourselves into small groups, often referred to as tribes, no matter what our shade of skin, nation or origin, or even our level of technology.
Do you think zombies imply racism?
Lol! I guess you haven’t realized why the majority of protagonists in the “zombie apocalypse” genre are always paragons of middle-class WASP-ness?
As for tribals; surprise!
Sure, Clyde… I guess the reservations exist purely because their inhabitants like the view, correct?
Sorry buddy, these are not the stereotypes you think they are.
Lots of different movies feature lots of white people. Zombie movies often feature minorities. Frankly, zombie movies have much more to say about modern life than other genres. If they focus on white people more, it’s typically to point out how we’re pretty fucked up right now without the zombies. It’s not racist to comment on race. But you have by no means established that Fallout made ghouls as racist stereotypes.
Tribes have always existed, in every people group. We have them now, everywhere. We grow up in them. We build them on our own. Only loners live outside them, and they aren’t healthy. Just because diverse people revert to older tech after an apocalypse and get referred to as “tribals” does not make it racist. Even if it was, it’s the fuckin apocalypse! I’m woke as fuck, but some people might possibly become a little shittier at the end of the world. They could be calling each other much worse things. Regardless, you have not established any connection to America’s reservations whatsoever. Nor frankly, have you demonstrated that you speak for Native Americans.
Frankly, zombie movies have much more to say about modern life than other genres.
Only if you see the world through the same white supremacist lens that is so prevalent in (so-called) “prepper” communities.
If they focus on white people more, it’s typically
You mean it has nothing to do with the (supposed) “threat” posed to white middle-class Americans by all these “othered” peoples? I wonder what would happen if we were to replace the word “immigrant” with the word “zombie” in US main-stream media - would it make it any different or would the propaganda work pretty much the same? You need me to remind you how US authorities treat marginalized people during natural disasters?
But you have by no means established that Fallout made ghouls as racist stereotypes.
I don’t have to… the games pretty much does that all by itself. The relationship between humans and these “ghouls” in the games is a perfect representation of the “race relations” lens through which white liberals view the subject of white supremacism - which is, not concidentally, the furthest liberalism will allow discourse on white supremacism to go.
We have them now, everywhere.
Lol! So what’s the name of yours, then? Where’s your “tribe,” Clyde?
You were aware that it’s literally peak white supremacism to simply assume that everybody living in un-colonized spaces exist in (so-called) “tribes,” right?
Nor frankly, have you demonstrated that you speak for Native Americans.
No go, Clyde - you don’t get to deflect from white supremacism by using Native American folk as camouflage.
Wow. Just think. You typed all that for nothing. What a waste of your time.
The protagonist of Fallout 2 is literally a tribal that goes to save his tribe and in the end kills the president of USA.
The narrative structuring around ghouls generally paints them as being unjustly denigrated, so even if they are race stand-ins it wouldn’t be for the purpose of promoting white supremacism.
The narrative structuring around ghouls generally paints them as being unjustly denigrated… but still an undeniable “other” that diverges from the “norm” (ie, whiteness) - exactly the way liberal ideology has always excused white supremacism.
FTFY.
By that logic any depiction of any form of supremacy, or otherism as a concept, regardless of intent, is detrimental. So, homogeneity only? Commentary is an excuse? Critiquing about the problem is as bad as endorsing it?
It sounds like you’re not mad at Fallout specifically, but one of the core tropes of literature as a genre, and basically the entire concept of social satire.
Fallout New Vegas has IMO very good world building. Can’t say anything about the other parts.
JFC that witcher opinion is so wrong
Nah, yours is.
no such thing as a wrong opinion.
It’s not like I totally didn’t enjoy it, but Red Dead Redemption 2. The game was good in many ways, and I totally get why it’s so we’ll loved, but I just have nothing with the setting. I don’t like cowboys, I don’t like playing as an asshole who makes bad decision after bad decision, and I also don’t like a setting where women are basically property. Just not really my vibe. I just came from Cyberpunk 2077 and the contrast was quite big, even though Cyberpunk is supposed to be more dystopian
Zelda: Ocarina of Time – I didn’t play it until more than a decade after it came out and had zero nostalgia for it. The camera and controls were super clunky and I just couldn’t enjoy it. That’s actually true of a lot of N64 stuff for me.
It wasn’t that great even when it was released.
ye idk about this take mate
Nostalgia is a helluva drug for that one. Shit was unreal when it came out
deleted by creator
BioShock Infinite. The gunplay is very basic and it’s world doesn’t make sense.
Like:
- How can Elizabeth be a up beat Disney princess like character? If she lived in her tower and being experimented on for all her life.
- Why Columbia need slaves. When it haves robots and have control of quantum mechanics?
spoiler
Killing Booker will stop Comstock being made. Because an Booker who didn’t go though with the river baptism still can become Comstock. You need to kill one of Lutece twin’s parents. So they never be born. Due to them helping Comstock make Columbia in the first place.
I really liked the visuals, especially at the start, and there’s some really nice beats, but the story fall completely apart as soon as the tears to alternate realities are introduced and given that the story ends up completely relying on that… yeah. I agree 100%.
I just can’t enjoy Skyrim, always found it so boring
Me too, until I found a random thing on the way, when a bandit attacked me only to give me a better sword then I was watching fish in a river spotting a weird shadow realising it wad a flying dragon which I managed to kill somehow near a town. Beaten up went up to the tavern where they told me about weird things happening in the castle nearby so I went to see WhatsUp and they were crying on about a weird claw part of my main quest, I was about to quit tired from all that when my character took it out and completed the quest as soon as it began.
Then I stole everything in the castle and couldn’t run back to the store fast enough aaaaand… It was 500+ hours already
I played one Resident Evil game for 5 minutes, and gave up because of the fucking stupid controls.
Outside of that, probably Halo. I’ve tried several of them because I loved first-person shooters, but they just felt a little soulless to me, and unbelievably slow compared to the likes of Unreal Tournament, Quake, and Doom.
Resident evil is my favourite franchise so I can’t agree. The og controls are there due technical limitations but work well and are much more responsive than other survival horror games of the era
I thought the controls also helped with the horror factor. Unable to move completely freely and stuck in a mansion with fixed camera angles. But I also see why some would be put off by it.
Final Fantasy. Haven’t played any of them, and I’m not interested in playing them at all.
I just do not like Fallout 3 and 4. I played the hell out of 1 and 2 back in the day, and Bethesda really changed things up. The writing in particular suffered.
Right there with ya. Oh, I tried so hard. Walking and junk collection simulators in a depressing, ugly setting. The humorous bits are way too infrequent to make up for the litany of misery.
Try New Vegas baby
Wasteland 2 and 3 will activate the same brain ridges as the original Fallouts. I actually would recommend starting with 3 if you don’t think you can commit to playing both games, as it has the most polished presentation, and you get all the relevant backstory quickly enough not to need to play the other games. WL3’s structure is all about supporting different, mutually incompatible factions, which can feel like Fallout New Vegas.
I’m currently playing Colony Ship, which is an independent game that makes no secret of being inspired by Fallout. It is very mechanically dense. Clearly it is intended to be played by a variety of character builds. I haven’t finished it, but it seems promising so far.
Underrail is another game that takes a lot of inspiration from the old Fallout titles, with a lot of social stratification and mystery about the world in the game and mechanically a lot of different build types.
Warframe. Shooty and jumpy. OK. No strategy. Just shooty big guns. Boring. Compare to helldivers 2. No jumpy allllllll strategy. This or that syrategem? Throw or hide? Which objective first?
I get it, I played Warframe a fair bit and the beginning is pretty one note. The game really opens up at some point but it’s very far from the beginning. Not very friendly to newbs and it is a very very grindy game.
