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

Forums - Gaming - Did you play Undertale ?

vivster said:
I started with it and got bored and have not yet started it again. Probably gonna play some more this weekend. So far I can only imagine that the great ratings come from a massive twist at the end.


Not really. There are of course some twists, and they are definitely interesting, but that's not the main reason of why the game's so appealing.

 

And, I understand graphics can block some people, but, come on, graphics shouldn't be your first reason to play a video game.




Around the Network
Edwardooo said:

vivster said:
I started with it and got bored and have not yet started it again. Probably gonna play some more this weekend. So far I can only imagine that the great ratings come from a massive twist at the end.


Not really. There are of course some twists, and they are definitely interesting, but that's not the main reason of why the game's so appealing.

 

And, I understand graphics can block some people, but, come on, graphics shouldn't be your first reason to play a video game.


The problem aren't the graphics. They're pretty and actually retro and not just pixely. The music is nice too. The problem is player engagement. So far it's the equivalent of a text based adventure for me. That's not what I'm looking for in a game. The gameplay might have a few nice quirks but overall it's very rudimentary. Not enough to keep me interested.

I haven't played very far yet but it was extremely linear as well. If the gameplay doesn't evolve and the world is not opening up and there's not even giant twists I really don't see where the ratings are coming from.

Yes it's cleverly made with a love for detail but that's not the only thing a game should stand on. The Stanley Parable was also unique and cleverly made and toyed with the player's expectations but at least it was fun.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
Edwardooo said:


Not really. There are of course some twists, and they are definitely interesting, but that's not the main reason of why the game's so appealing.

 

And, I understand graphics can block some people, but, come on, graphics shouldn't be your first reason to play a video game.


The problem aren't the graphics. They're pretty and actually retro and not just pixely. The music is nice too. The problem is player engagement. So far it's the equivalent of a text based adventure for me. That's not what I'm looking for in a game. The gameplay might have a few nice quirks but overall it's very rudimentary. Not enough to keep me interested.

I haven't played very far yet but it was extremely linear as well. If the gameplay doesn't evolve and the world is not opening up and there's not even giant twists I really don't see where the ratings are coming from.

Yes it's cleverly made with a love for detail but that's not the only thing a game should stand on. The Stanley Parable was also unique and cleverly made and toyed with the player's expectations but at least it was fun.


Huh, how far have you played it ? Because non-player engagement and rudimentary are the last things I would say about the game. I mean, it's way more active than every classic RPG, with his shmup-like gameplay. And also for player engagement, you have more choice about how to finish a battle than in others RPG, 'cause you can choose to not kill the ennemy. These choices changes the story, the bosses, the characters, and so on.

The game is definitely linear, don't expect it to be any open, it's not the objective.



If it stays on PC I may never play it or get around to it in a few years.

If it comes to Vita or PS4 odds of me playing it would go up considerably.



Yes. Number 3 on my all time favourite games list.

Godlike soundtrack, and pretty much took over my life for 3 weeks thinking about it.

To anyone on the fence because of the graphics - play the demo. It's free and gives you a good idea of the game's style, although obviously the combat variety ramps up later on. Avoid spoilers, the story is perfection.



Around the Network
Edwardooo said:
vivster said:

The problem aren't the graphics. They're pretty and actually retro and not just pixely. The music is nice too. The problem is player engagement. So far it's the equivalent of a text based adventure for me. That's not what I'm looking for in a game. The gameplay might have a few nice quirks but overall it's very rudimentary. Not enough to keep me interested.

I haven't played very far yet but it was extremely linear as well. If the gameplay doesn't evolve and the world is not opening up and there's not even giant twists I really don't see where the ratings are coming from.

Yes it's cleverly made with a love for detail but that's not the only thing a game should stand on. The Stanley Parable was also unique and cleverly made and toyed with the player's expectations but at least it was fun.


Huh, how far have you played it ? Because non-player engagement and rudimentary are the last things I would say about the game. I mean, it's way more active than every classic RPG, with his shmup-like gameplay. And also for player engagement, you have more choice about how to finish a battle than in others RPG, 'cause you can choose to not kill the ennemy. These choices changes the story, the bosses, the characters, and so on.

The game is definitely linear, don't expect it to be any open, it's not the objective.

The shmup aspect doesn't make it more interactive than other RPGs. And the binary choice of killing or defeating without killing does not elevate it above any sufficiently advanced turn based RPG. It may be better than Final Fantasy 1 but if you compare it to other RPGs which have a deep and rich battle system, magic, skills, multiple characters, many item slots, crafting etc., yes it is very very rudimentary compared to other turn based RPGs. The combat system consists of 2 choices. Figuring out how to mercy an enemy is nice but you only have to do that once and then it becomes repetitive very very fast. So you have the awesome choices between clicking in 1 certain order or in another order. The shmup is if anything the last saving grace to make the combat not fall completely flat.

Add to that the linear nature of the game and you have a fairly unengaging game. And I say this as an absolute fan of any turn based RPG. At least a normal RPG has the kindness to make you just press x until the enemy is defeated. In Undertale you have to either do the QTE every time for a hit or slog through the same old mercy procedure every time. That makes regular combat feel like work. Another aspect why I'm looking very much forward to my genocide run.

I'm a real sucker for grinding, if an RPG manages to make me hate grinding it's doing something wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to hate on the game or spoil anyone's fun. So far it's just not that good of a game that I expected from all the people raving about it.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Ka-pi96 said:
Nope, never will either. Graphically it's quite possibly the worst game I've ever seen!

Yes pretty much this. I'm tired of developers getting away with quality because of the retro fad. 



It bored me after 30min



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m

 

A chaming little game that subverts the players expectations and takes advantage of the medium. No wonder it became a critical darling.



.- -... -.-. -..

Was thinking about making a thread like this but it seems that I was beaten to the punch.
It was an excellent little game and I had a lot of fun doing multiple playthroughs. Manages to keep the sprit of Earthbound while also being it's own original game with an engaging story, a unique battle system and it's own charm. Overall, I loved it.