By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Lifes too short to play bad games.

 

Is life too short to play bad games?

Yes 122 98.39%
 
Total:122

Only two things come to mind right now:

Dragon Age 2
Infinite Undiscovery

(I would also say Final Fantasy XIII and GTA IV, but I honestly don't think they are bad games, as much I hate them.)



 

Around the Network

AC: Brotherhood, Revelations, and 3......yet Black Flag is my favorite game of 2013.....go figure.
Daikatana
Quake 4
E.T.

Ryse Son of Rome

Shaq-Fu
Soldier of Fortune Payback
Every Call of Duty after 2
Castlevania Judgement, 64, and 2 Simon's Quest
Aliens: Colonial Marines
Total Recall
Superman 64
Battlefield 3 and 4...yet Bad Company 2 is my favorite game of the gen.
Ninja Gaiden 3
Tony Hawk HD remake
Resident Evil 6
Newest Twisted Metal
Beyond 2 Souls
NBA Live 14

and many many more I can't think of right this second.



Some people said

TLoU

LoZ NES

SMB2 NES

FFXIII

Oblvion and Skyrim

Those are all some of my favorite games of all time.

This thread is bad and should be renamed Life is too short to read bad threads. OUT!



FinalFantasyXIII said:

Some people said

TLoU

LoZ NES

SMB2 NES

FFXIII

Oblvion and Skyrim

Those are all some of my favorite games of all time.

This thread is bad and should be renamed Life is too short to read bad threads. OUT!

Everyone trys different games and not everyone enjoys every genre. Some might have heard that Killzone is a good game from their friend, but maybe it didn't suit them at all. Some might like Final fantasy then trys Zelda and doesn't like it. You get the idea...

The point is that everyone has a different opinion on what game is bad to them personally.



                                                                    Lyrics: He He He He Ha Ha Ha!                                                                  

  

Battlefield 3
call of duty black ops
wii sports
wii alice in wonderland(did not buy this!)
dead or alive (any)
resident evil 6



Around the Network
MDMAlliance said:
Daisuke72 said:
toot1231 said:

twas a joke my good sir.

I have played the game at a friends house. he really liked it but said it was way overhyped.

i tried it and knew right away that it was a generic third person shooter with a over dramatic story that belongs on lifetime movie channel.


How was it generic when most TPS doesn't even really on resource management at all, let alone the crafting, mixing of stealth and action scenarios. How the fuck is that generic? Show me one TPS game that plays like TLOU since it's generic. You're lieing, no way in hell you played TLOU cause it's far from a generic TPS.


I haven't played The Last of Us, but you can't be serious.  Resident Evil = TPS + resource management.  Many third person games (and I know there are TPS' too) that have stealth sections, not entirely sure what you mean by mixing stealth and action scenarios.  

While I wont be able to show you a TPS that plays like The Last of Us, your explanation for why it's unique sucks.

The resource management in RE is nothing like TLOU, nor is the atmosphere and sheer intensity of the game, including melee combat, nor stealth. You literally compared one game to it, and a ton of other unnamed which have elements that the TLOU has to prove your nonexistant point. Show me a single game that's very similair to TLOU, I mean if it's so fucking generic and all.



spemanig said:
toot1231 said:
MDMAlliance said:
Daisuke72 said:
toot1231 said:

twas a joke my good sir.

I have played the game at a friends house. he really liked it but said it was way overhyped.

i tried it and knew right away that it was a generic third person shooter with a over dramatic story that belongs on lifetime movie channel.


How was it generic when most TPS doesn't even really on resource management at all, let alone the crafting, mixing of stealth and action scenarios. How the fuck is that generic? Show me one TPS game that plays like TLOU since it's generic. You're lieing, no way in hell you played TLOU cause it's far from a generic TPS.


I haven't played The Last of Us, but you can't be serious.  Resident Evil = TPS + resource management.  Many third person games (and I know there are TPS' too) that have stealth sections, not entirely sure what you mean by mixing stealth and action scenarios.  

While I wont be able to show you a TPS that plays like The Last of Us, your explanation for why it's unique sucks.


i hate the game.

this is a thread about posting games you hate.

i dont feel like writing a whole novel on why I hate it.  just let me have an opinion and i hate it.

Well I definately do:

The Last of Us isn't a good game. It's a good cutscene littered with boring and repetitive gameplay. Only a few GAMEPLAY moments in the Last of Us shine. The beginning when you play as Joel's daugher. The boss fight when you play as Ellie. The part where you play as Joel after he get's impaled. The part when you're hunting as Ellie. The deer scene. If that's ALL the game was, then it would deserve all of the hype. But that's a mere 10% of the overall gameplay.

The rest is a stupid arcade-like Gears of War rip off that tries to scare you by limiting your ammo, implementing kindergarten stealth, and offering only four enemy types the entire game over and over and over again until you've been completely desensitized from the "horrors" of both the infected and the humans. It stops being scary an hour in and even if the game isn't supposed to be scary, (I'm still convinced it's supposed to be an action adventure game... With zombies, because that's exactly how it plays) the gameplay juxtaposes so drastically with the overall tone of the story that it literally makes you want to get through the trudge through the boring gameplay just to get to the good cutscenes.

And yeah, the multiplayer is pretty good. Better in fact. Not the best out there, but definitely better than the actual single player game, in fact. Why? It's better at being a game. The multiplayer is good because, big shocker coming, cover shooting as a game mechanic works well when the goal is to have fun in a strategic arcade-like multiplayer environment. It doesn't work when you are trying to tell a scary survival horror story about the preciously fleeting moments between a man and the child he is so lovingly trying to protect. Or at least, it didn't work with The Last of Us.

If you want to be able to tell a good story through a video game, there has to be a merit to playing the game that watching a movie or reading a book couldn't give you. Games are interactive. That's their advantage. Games like The Walking Dead use choice and consequence effectively to tell a story that is gripping without litering the game with tedious and distracting gameplay that have nothing to do with the tone of the plot it's trying to uncover. Games like Resident Evil 4 use a clostrophobic camera, restrictive movement, strategic shot placement, and atmosphere to imerse the player in it's story. The fear that your main character feels is the fear that you feel. This is done through GAMEPLAY.

JRPG's like Xenoblade: Chronicles perposefully contrast the story told in it's cutscenes from the actions done in gameplay. It tells it's story by "filling in gaps." It rewards already rewarding gameplay with cutscenes that move the plot forward. The cutscenes fill in gaps of time between gameplay while the gameplay similarly fills in gaps of time between cutscenes. This works in JRPGs because the point of them is usually to explore. In Xenoblade, you're on an adventure to explore a vast world in order to accomplish your goal. This is very easy to make entertaining in a video game, but when exploring would get tedious, you're given a break instead with a cutscene. Games like Bioshock and Metroid Prime tell their story strictly through gameplay. They reward exploration with plot.

Every single one of those games are enjoyable without their cutscenes. Everyone of those games are still masterpeices without their cutscenes. They are all compelling because of their gameplay, NOT because of their cutscenes. The cutscenes are there to enhance the overall games.

The Last of Us does none of that. The gameplay is there for something to do between the cutscenes. It's a movie first and a video game second. It's padding. That would be fine if it did something else instead, and in a few rare and fleeting moments it does, but decides to use boring level design, limited and repetitive not at all scary enemies, insultingly trivial "not-puzzles," and average arcade cover shooting to tell a story about the relationship between a father trying to protect his daughter. That doesn't make sense when typed out and it doesn't work when being played.

"How was it generic when most TPS doesn't even really on resource management at all, let alone the crafting, mixing of stealth and action scenarios. How the fuck is that generic? Show me one TPS game that plays like TLOU since it's generic. You're lieing, no way in hell you played TLOU cause it's far from a generic TPS."

Deus Ex: Human Revolution. It has resorce management. It has weapon crafting. It has a mixture of stealth and action. It's a covershooter and in most situations, you'll be shooting in the third person. It has a great story. It has a great soundtrack. It's not scary. Also, it's actually a good game, but that's besides the point.

The Last of Us is a technical marvel. It's definitely beautiful. It has an amazing soundtrack. It has a fantastic script and convincingly talented voice actors. The motion capture was great and the characters were likable. What I described though is a fantastic CGI film. Problem is, The Last of Us doesn't even get to be a good film because it's too long and had to many interuptions. (What you and I would call "gameplay")

Having had to play it though, which is the point of a video game, I wish I just watched it on Youtube. At least there I could've skipped the gameplay.

It wouldn't be fair to call The Last of Us a bad game. There are lesser games that I'd consider average, but any game that make you not want play it doesn't deserve to be called a good game, because it's failed at what makes a game a game.

Hm. Actually, it would be fair to call The Last of Us a bad game. The Last of Us is a bad game with mediocre multiplayer. So Edgy.

Lol, it's funny the only argument TLOU haters use is, "it's a movie not a game', and you just so happen to be a Nintendo fan, like I said, you're so edgy.
Nice copy and paste post btw.



Daisuke72 said:
MDMAlliance said:

I haven't played The Last of Us, but you can't be serious.  Resident Evil = TPS + resource management.  Many third person games (and I know there are TPS' too) that have stealth sections, not entirely sure what you mean by mixing stealth and action scenarios.  

While I wont be able to show you a TPS that plays like The Last of Us, your explanation for why it's unique sucks.

The resource management in RE is nothing like TLOU, nor is the atmosphere and sheer intensity of the game, including melee combat, nor stealth. You literally compared one game to it, and a ton of other unnamed which have elements that the TLOU has to prove your nonexistant point. Show me a single game that's very similair to TLOU, I mean if it's so fucking generic and all.

Clam yo tits man.  I wasn't trying to say The Last of Us is generic.  I was just saying that your explanation for why it is sucks.  You still haven't done it as you are using some rather abstract words to explain it.



Daisuke72 said:
spemanig said:
toot1231 said:
MDMAlliance said:
Daisuke72 said:
toot1231 said:

twas a joke my good sir.

I have played the game at a friends house. he really liked it but said it was way overhyped.

i tried it and knew right away that it was a generic third person shooter with a over dramatic story that belongs on lifetime movie channel.


How was it generic when most TPS doesn't even really on resource management at all, let alone the crafting, mixing of stealth and action scenarios. How the fuck is that generic? Show me one TPS game that plays like TLOU since it's generic. You're lieing, no way in hell you played TLOU cause it's far from a generic TPS.


I haven't played The Last of Us, but you can't be serious.  Resident Evil = TPS + resource management.  Many third person games (and I know there are TPS' too) that have stealth sections, not entirely sure what you mean by mixing stealth and action scenarios.  

While I wont be able to show you a TPS that plays like The Last of Us, your explanation for why it's unique sucks.


i hate the game.

this is a thread about posting games you hate.

i dont feel like writing a whole novel on why I hate it.  just let me have an opinion and i hate it.

Well I definately do:

The Last of Us isn't a good game. It's a good cutscene littered with boring and repetitive gameplay. Only a few GAMEPLAY moments in the Last of Us shine. The beginning when you play as Joel's daugher. The boss fight when you play as Ellie. The part where you play as Joel after he get's impaled. The part when you're hunting as Ellie. The deer scene. If that's ALL the game was, then it would deserve all of the hype. But that's a mere 10% of the overall gameplay.

The rest is a stupid arcade-like Gears of War rip off that tries to scare you by limiting your ammo, implementing kindergarten stealth, and offering only four enemy types the entire game over and over and over again until you've been completely desensitized from the "horrors" of both the infected and the humans. It stops being scary an hour in and even if the game isn't supposed to be scary, (I'm still convinced it's supposed to be an action adventure game... With zombies, because that's exactly how it plays) the gameplay juxtaposes so drastically with the overall tone of the story that it literally makes you want to get through the trudge through the boring gameplay just to get to the good cutscenes.

And yeah, the multiplayer is pretty good. Better in fact. Not the best out there, but definitely better than the actual single player game, in fact. Why? It's better at being a game. The multiplayer is good because, big shocker coming, cover shooting as a game mechanic works well when the goal is to have fun in a strategic arcade-like multiplayer environment. It doesn't work when you are trying to tell a scary survival horror story about the preciously fleeting moments between a man and the child he is so lovingly trying to protect. Or at least, it didn't work with The Last of Us.

If you want to be able to tell a good story through a video game, there has to be a merit to playing the game that watching a movie or reading a book couldn't give you. Games are interactive. That's their advantage. Games like The Walking Dead use choice and consequence effectively to tell a story that is gripping without litering the game with tedious and distracting gameplay that have nothing to do with the tone of the plot it's trying to uncover. Games like Resident Evil 4 use a clostrophobic camera, restrictive movement, strategic shot placement, and atmosphere to imerse the player in it's story. The fear that your main character feels is the fear that you feel. This is done through GAMEPLAY.

JRPG's like Xenoblade: Chronicles perposefully contrast the story told in it's cutscenes from the actions done in gameplay. It tells it's story by "filling in gaps." It rewards already rewarding gameplay with cutscenes that move the plot forward. The cutscenes fill in gaps of time between gameplay while the gameplay similarly fills in gaps of time between cutscenes. This works in JRPGs because the point of them is usually to explore. In Xenoblade, you're on an adventure to explore a vast world in order to accomplish your goal. This is very easy to make entertaining in a video game, but when exploring would get tedious, you're given a break instead with a cutscene. Games like Bioshock and Metroid Prime tell their story strictly through gameplay. They reward exploration with plot.

Every single one of those games are enjoyable without their cutscenes. Everyone of those games are still masterpeices without their cutscenes. They are all compelling because of their gameplay, NOT because of their cutscenes. The cutscenes are there to enhance the overall games.

The Last of Us does none of that. The gameplay is there for something to do between the cutscenes. It's a movie first and a video game second. It's padding. That would be fine if it did something else instead, and in a few rare and fleeting moments it does, but decides to use boring level design, limited and repetitive not at all scary enemies, insultingly trivial "not-puzzles," and average arcade cover shooting to tell a story about the relationship between a father trying to protect his daughter. That doesn't make sense when typed out and it doesn't work when being played.

"How was it generic when most TPS doesn't even really on resource management at all, let alone the crafting, mixing of stealth and action scenarios. How the fuck is that generic? Show me one TPS game that plays like TLOU since it's generic. You're lieing, no way in hell you played TLOU cause it's far from a generic TPS."

Deus Ex: Human Revolution. It has resorce management. It has weapon crafting. It has a mixture of stealth and action. It's a covershooter and in most situations, you'll be shooting in the third person. It has a great story. It has a great soundtrack. It's not scary. Also, it's actually a good game, but that's besides the point.

The Last of Us is a technical marvel. It's definitely beautiful. It has an amazing soundtrack. It has a fantastic script and convincingly talented voice actors. The motion capture was great and the characters were likable. What I described though is a fantastic CGI film. Problem is, The Last of Us doesn't even get to be a good film because it's too long and had to many interuptions. (What you and I would call "gameplay")

Having had to play it though, which is the point of a video game, I wish I just watched it on Youtube. At least there I could've skipped the gameplay.

It wouldn't be fair to call The Last of Us a bad game. There are lesser games that I'd consider average, but any game that make you not want play it doesn't deserve to be called a good game, because it's failed at what makes a game a game.

Hm. Actually, it would be fair to call The Last of Us a bad game. The Last of Us is a bad game with mediocre multiplayer. So Edgy.

Lol, it's funny the only argument TLOU haters use is, "it's a movie not a game', and you just so happen to be a Nintendo fan, like I said, you're so edgy.
Nice copy and paste post btw.

I just called Journey a better game. A Sony exclusive. This has nothing to do with your juvenile allegience to corperations. The Last of Us is very much a game. I never called it otherwise. In fact, I very deliberately said that it wouldn't make a good film either and detailed why.

I presented plenty of arguements, none of which ever insinuated that the game was a movie and therefore not a game, for why The Last of Us is a bad game in great length. Allow me to highlight my main critiques though, since you very clearly couldn't understand them before:

- Gameplay is repetitive and superficial. Numerous encounters with the same 3 enemy types, varied slightly by 2 occasions extras.

- Grade school "stealth" and arcade cover shooting juxtapose the story and tone the game is trying to tell and set.

- Limited enemy types and repetitive gameplay quickly becomes routine and tedious, rather than scary, destroying the game's attempt at survival horror.

- Very poor and obvious level design.

- Few gameplay moments like the beginning when you play as Joel's daugher, the boss fight when you play as Ellie, the part where you play as Joel after he get's impaled, the part when you're hunting as Ellie, and the deer scene actually make sence within the confines of the game.

-These glimses of coherent gameplay to story game design are completely squashed by the vastly more prevelent and completely nonsensical "beat the level by beating the enemies" 

- Cutscenes take priority over the gameplay, rather than being an organic integration presented to enhance the gameplay.

- Poor "puzzle" padding

- Multiplayer gameplay outshines the single player gameplay in a primerily single player game.

I'd like to add something though.

- Terrible AI and unbelievable companion mechanic.

I also drew comparisons to other games that try to do the same thing The Last of Us tries to do, but does them correctly or better because their focus was on creating an excelent game instead of an exellent cinematic experience with a game sloppily tacked on after words.

My largest problem with the game was the pervasive ammounts of zombies ("infected") and rival humans you had to slaughter to progress through the game. The story isn't about slaughtering people and zombies, it's about protecting and progressing the relationship between Joel and Ellie through the interactions between themselves and others. When The Last of Us does that, it shows ambition of being as great of a game as it so desperately is trying to be. Then it has you throw a glass bottle 70 times because that is a realistically "stealthy" way to avoid danger.

The level where you control Ellie as you sneak inside the cannibals' layer works because there is plot driving meaning for that to be happening, and the gameplay reflects that. The level where Joel is hoisted upside down and has to fend off the infected while restricted makes sence because there is plot context to it.

If the entire game was JUST gameplay like this where every second of gameplay is made to drive the plot and set the tone, than it would be a fantastic game, but it isn't because it doesn't do this. Instead, 90% of the game is combat fluff made just because that's "what you do" in a shooter. You shooter. Only The Last of Us isn't trying to be a 3rd person shooter. It's trying to be a cinematic platformer with cover shooter elements, which is a perfectly fine goal to strive for if you actually attempt to strive for it, but instead it betrays it's by instead being a third person shooter action adventure platforming game with a cinematic platformer plot.

Now the action overshadows the platformer. Now the primary gameplay focus is defeating the same two infected types or the same one human type, and with no story or gameplay context to deferentiate each encounter, which a game that focuses on story so much should be doing, every encounter eventually becomes routine and systematic. It becomes a chore. You start to recognise AI patterns with rules and predictablility instead of thinking of enemies as human beings or infected.

The reason why the level where Joel implaled works so well is because the gameplay and the plot is in perfect synch with one another. Joel is slower, and more diffult to aim with because he is mortally wounded. He is falling all over himself, thus making it difficult to progress and sloppy to take cover. This drastically changes how you interact with the infected and the environment. This particular fight sequence can absolutely never feel routine because it completely changes the rules in fighting the infected. Because this happens only once in this way, it will be fresh each time you play and the lack in enemy variety is offset by the abundance of gameplay variety. The infected is always scary at this part because no matter how good you've become at killing or avoiding the infected, the game forces a handicap and further limits your options for handling the situation. This doesn't bother the player because it makes sense within the confines of the plot. The game plays like this because the story plays out the same way.

The begining when you play as Joel's daughter works because the player can establish a connection with her before she shortly passes. That's why it make sence to carry her, now as Joel, through a horde of zombies, while being protected by someone else. Now you've established a connection with Joel's daughter, just as Joel has, and you've protected her from harm, just as Joel has. That is why the cutscene where she is murdered is so effective. Now you care for Joel's daughter, tried to protect Joel's daughter, failed to protect Joel's daughter, and not feel a loss for Joels daughter, in parellel with Joel himself. This is all done through GAMEPLAY and at the end is ENHANCED by the cutscene. This scene is so effective because it's not a scene at all. It's an experienced the same loss that Joel did. That could only be accomplished that effectively through gameplay but is used solely and effectively to push the plot, not to be level 1.

The boss fight against the cannibal works so well because his character was set up so well through gameplay. At first, Ellie and the player is forced to place trust in him by working together to fight off a horde of infected. He is made out to be likable because the attempts to reason with Ellie while his ally is more cold. Even if Ellie doesn't seem to outwardly like him, the player knows that inwardly, she is more open to trust him, because the player has already been forced to through. This makes her imprisonment feel betraying because he betrayed the trust the two seemed to have had built. Finally, the revelation that he may in fact be a cannibal and worse, the implications that he may have intentions of rape, very effectively forces the player to feel the same panic and fear the Ellie must. It is almost offensive to call this a boss fight because no one played this part thinking "this is a boss fight." They played it thinking panic and fear. And disturbia. You didn't fear her dying as much as her being assaulted sexually, and I'm sure quite a few people where thinking "Joels almost here. Please come in time and save me" just like Ellie might be. This works because the gameplay with Joel has already put it your head that he is coming. The cutscene where Ellie slaughters the cannibal is the last true connection that you make with Ellie at that part and it's infinitely satisfying. You see Ellie do to him what you probably wanted to, and then you see Joel comfort Ellie the way you probably wanted to. This is all effective because you didn't watch these things happen. You experienced the.

Why then are you killing zombies and murdering people all the time? Most of this is pushing any plot at all. It is just padding between plot points. It's just something "video game-y" to do because the designers don't trust the player enough or their level design enough to allow the player to do nothing while exploring. It's just moving from level 1 to level 2. It's insulting to the ambition of the narrative and the fleeting success of the Last of Us' possitive moments. It causes a rift between the gameplay and the cutscenes because they now become so starkly contrast to one another. If The Last of Us WERE a movie, the first things you're see cut would be almost all of the zombies and humans. There are enough parts featuring both in integeral plot sections would be anything else would be regarded as detremental to the over all plot of the movie. This is a drama, not an action flick.

The Last of Us feels like an action block buster trying desparately to be a drama.