If you liked Oblivion or Morrowind, or if you like a vast open worlds in general, you'll probably like 3. I did. But if you expect the same feeling you got from the first two, it's sort of a mixed bag. Like Grim said, it probably boils down to personal preference. I know people who love the first two and absolutely hate 3. And yet, I worship the first two as the crown achievement of modern gaming and I still liked 3.Originally Posted by knaveofspades
One can only hope that this is the direction the games will take in the future, that this shoot-from-the-hip approach to the games is a fad that will wear out. But what if it's not and this is just the beginning of a downwards spiral? I hope I'm wrong and babbling nonsense, but with the amount of dumb out there, you never know.My point, after all that, is now that we've suddenly gotten these new capabilities, old fashioned trends are old fashioned trends. Difficulty is moderated by choice of levels usually ranging from easy to OMG WHY DID I DO THIS, NOTHING I HAVE FACED UP UNTIL NOW CAN COMPARE!? This is the future, get to loving it. On the bright side, when the masses get sick of the new found flash we'll see a new flux of innovation as developers try to challenge our starved intellects.
Well, it happens. I mean, admittedly XIII is probably the FF game in which I died the most, but it mostly happened because: a) I forgot that if the leader falls, the battle is over, or b) I brought the wrong combination of paradigms to the fight (I usually had like three for most of the game :P). But once I got that under control, it was a breeze. Eidolons can be a pain in the ass until you realize what you need to do. I found that most responded better to like status effects and healing/buffin your own members than straightforward attacking, but it depends on the Eidolon.
I don't mind linearity of the story. I mind linearity of gameplay. In previous FF games, you had an option to explore if you wanted to, level up when you wanted, how you wanted, discover secrets. Like MetalDrago said, you had options. In XIII you were set on the tracks and had to play the game one way and one way only. Hell, there aren't even any secrets to be found. Most of the treasure is right on your path and there's really nothing to explore. Just continue with a story. As an interactive movie, XIII is awesome, but as an RPG... Not really.However, am I the only one that doesn't mind a linear single player mode? I enjoy progressing in the story and finding out what happens next. Just because I can't make choices about where the main characters go next doesn't mean it isn't challenging or rewarding, and I think it can make for a better experience in certain games.
Take Modern Warefare 2 for example. Yes it was ridiculously short and very linear, but it played like an action movie and coming from someone who likes action movies, I thought it was pretty sweet. FFX is still one of my favorite games of all time, and it was almost completely linear. Same for FEAR. There are still good games out there that aren't linear like Fallout 3 or the Elder Scrolls games (thanks Bethesda!). But I think the best way to tell a good story is for the game to be linear. No one complains about the linearity of movies or books (barring the choose-your-adventure-turn-to-page-83 kind). They just enjoy the ride.
So in conclusion... yes?... and no? I dunno... I honestly just rambled on here for like 20 mins. Here's a pretty funny IGN spoof on Borderlands vs. mainstream games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmUJrKGN3C0
Also, the video, fricking hilarious.
Yeah, you could fuck around with GT, I guess, but you can do that with just about any game. But if you wanted to actually achieve something in it, it was a very tough process. And its been thus in every installment so far. I'll try another example. Metal Gear Solid series. At its core, these games remained the same regardless of the console they were on (and they appeared on like three generations of consoles now, and on a PSP, not counting those ancient ones on like NES or something). Like GT, they are aimed at a specific type of gamers and usually you either love it or hate it. Splinter Cell used to be that kind of a game until Conviction, and that's my beef with it and any other game that gets messed up while being converted for the masses, losing its identity because of popular demand.
A bit of both, I guess. Some games are getting shorter, some are getting simpler and some are getting both. It's the general trend that I rather dislike, because it seems everything is going in that direction. You don't hear about games getting harder and longer, not often in any case. Even games with legendary difficulty such as Ninja Gaiden are getting easier (not by a whole lot though in the case of Ninja Gaiden, but still) in the sequels.I'm confused are you complaining about games being shorter now or simpler because that's two different arguments? With Modern Warfare 2 yes the campaign was short but it was by no means bad. It was still intense, and challenging, and while it may have had a few plot holes it was enjoyable. Like Sorhan said, it played out like a big budget action flick (it was also heavily advertised as the video game equivalent of a big budget action flick).
And as far as MW2 and the multiplayer goes, I understand that. And I never said that MW2 is necessarily a bad game, because it's not. What I'm saying is that if they put as much effort into the singleplayer as they did in multiplayer, I probably wouldn't have felt as shortchanged as I did when I finished it. There are still, contrary to popular belief, people who don't play senseless, endless online games. And up until MW2, I felt that the Call of Duty catered to those people as well. Personally, I found the campaign of the first MW game a much more challenging experience, and it was definitely a longer game than the sequel.
Hey, I never said it's a brilliant business proposition. But it would make people put more effort into their gaming, instead of just switching to easy-auto whenever shit hit the fan and breezing through the game. But I guess this really depends on the game. While Final Fantasy can make do without difficulty settings, I guess a shooter or an action game wouldn't fare very well, not in the gaming world of today anyways.Yes thats an amazing idea. Lets alinate several costumers, reduce the sales of our games and our profit margins by potentially huge amount just so a small group of people can feel smug about "making the cut". From a business standpoint there is absolutely nothing wrong with that idea.
See, you get me all wrong. I like Call of Duty games. I played every single one of them so far and I really enjoy them even if I never played it online. And up until MW2 I could enjoy it because it seemed that they put the same effort into both the offline and online content. But not anymore, with singleplayer being a mere prologue of the new CoD experience. So I could and probably should switch to another franchise, but isn't it a bit sad if that's the solution? I mean, it's clear from the previous installments that they know how to make a good singleplayer game. So why not try to cater to all their fans? Because the money is in the multiplayer? Probably. And I can't really blame them. I can complain, though. :PThis just reads as "boohoo I'm upset becomes some games don't cater to my personal tastes, somebody please care". How is some games becoming multiplayer focused affecting "your single player experience"? Modern Warefare 2, and Modern Warefare 1, and Call of Duty 2 & 3 we're all heavily focused on multiplayer (though not as much as the Modern Warefare ones) as has damn near every shooter since Golden Eye and especially since Halo. Hell with MW2 it everybody new it was multiplayer focused, every add, preview, interview with the creators, ect said there was a huge multiplayer component and that the one player mode was just there to make you feel like the star of your personal action flick. If you don't like it then play another game. There are plenty out there that cater to what you want, just because one doesn't does not mean its a shitty game.
What would be great for me is if they could separate the two versions. I mean, there are games that are able to stand perfectly well as just multiplayer shooters (like MAG on PS3, the legendary Counterstrike, Quake Wars, Team Fortress, America's Army...). And then you'd also have a separate single player CoD. Yeah, a pipe dream, I know, but man, I'd find that pretty awesome. Me and like probably three other people in the world not playing the CoD online.
Submit Thread for Judgment
