Just given up on... - The Bear and Badger

hylian_elf

Yes; I do love it. But it's quite far down my Mario list.

Blue Swirl

Agreed.

Brooks

krs wrote:

UnderTale - I liked it very much for the most part but, my goodness, that final Flowey bullet hell vagina boss is bloody awful. I wasn't even sure if I was supposed to be able to defeat it, wondering if the way the game

Spoiler:

deliberately crashes making restarts a nuisance, and being unable to go back to a previous save point to try a different approach
was simply my playthrough's rather nihilistic ending, but no. Shit it.

Got to the final, then just watched all the differences in Youtube. No loss.

The superbad ending really has no high opinion of RPG obsessives at all, to its credit.

bibidybobbidyboo

Blue Swirl wrote:

bibidybobbidyboo wrote:

Super Mario 3d world. Well, I'm at level 4-1 and I'm just not feeling it.

Keep going. Like all modern Mario's the main quest isn't particularly hard. Finding all the secrets and completing the bonus levels, now there's a real challenge. (E.g., I 100%-ed 3D Land, but not 3D World. The final level is brutal.)

bibidybobbidyboo wrote:

And, why is it called 3d world, anyway?

Because it's a sequel to 3D Land.

bibidybobbidyboo wrote:

I can see it makes sense with 3d land on the 3ds, but it's only 2.5d on Wii u.

They're both the same game play style. They're both 2.5D titles with linear paths, but with secrets to find for those that want to go off the beaten track. One just happens to take inspiration from Mario Land 3 and have stereoscopic visuals. The actual core game play of both is very similar. Hence, similar names in the Land/World vein, as they did with the NES/SNES titles.

bibidybobbidyboo wrote:

I really hope Nintendo make a game like super Mario Galaxy again, with proper explorable, non-linear levels, without time limits.

Problem is, the 3D titles like Galaxy take ages to make and sell roughly six copies, most of which were bought by us lot. The 2D titles like the New series sell a fuck-ton more. The 3D Land/World games are an attempt to get the people who only play the 2D games to venture at least a small way into the third dimension.

Yes, completely agree with what you are saying.

I guess I'm just holding out for a mario game that feels truly exciting and makes me feel like a kid again, just like Super Mario Sunshine did in 2002.

It's true that all mario games trump the vast majority of other platform games, but for me this is still not enough to hold my interest. I guess having played so many games since 1979-ish means I've become a bit jaded and hard to please...

Blue Swirl

bibidybobbidyboo wrote:

Yes, completely agree with what you are saying.

This is the internet, pretty sure that's not allowed.

retroking1981

Fingers crossed for a 3D style Mario on the release of NX.

The 2.5D ones are the weakest of the lot imo.

hylian_elf

Blue Swirl wrote:

bibidybobbidyboo wrote:

Yes, completely agree with what you are saying.

This is the internet, pretty sure that's not allowed.

I agree.

Blue Swirl

retroking1981 wrote:

The 2.5D ones are the weakest of the lot imo.

Lies, 3D Land is up there with {insert title of favourite Mario platformer here}.

Blue Swirl

hylian_elf wrote:

Blue Swirl wrote:

bibidybobbidyboo wrote:

Yes, completely agree with what you are saying.

This is the internet, pretty sure that's not allowed.

I agree.

Meta. My head asplode.

[Deleted User]

God of War Ascension:

It's solid, shiny, non-taxing hack and slash action - perfect for my man-flu state - but the Cuntstation 3 has just hard frozen in exactly the same place again (about 50 mins in) wiping my save file in the process and I can't be arsed playing through the 'Grrrr we're going big not home' opening a fourth (including the demo a few years back) time. It'll probably melt the bloody machine next time anyway.

If there's another GOW I'd really like some camera control (even a static 1st person to look around in) and (connected) for the love of god DO NOT MAP FUCKING DODGE TO A STICK it's AWKWARD and FULL of WRONG and I HATES it.

ShabbyMcCrabby

I do think it's a shame recent Mario games have stepped away from the world exploring aspect of the first 3d ones. It's neat to have that condensed design genius that Nintendo are so good at but the little snippet levels feel like a missed opportunity sometimes

XIII

Batman Arkham Knight. I just can't get into it. I loved AA but wasn't too keen on AC.

This just seems like more of the same. The batmobile is tedious. Just can't be arsed to go back right now (I've played about 3-4 hours.)

AJ

Dark Souls

Fuck this game. The graphics might be lovely and the combat system might be deep brilliance, but just throwing you straight into it without a proper learning curve is pathetically lazy, shoddy design, if you ask me.

I don't have time to spend learning how to play something that takes ages to learn and isn't enjoyable while you're doing it.

Tempy

It definitely has a learning curve, though it might incline a bit quicker than some would like.

AJ

Yeah, it goes from "okay, this might be a bit tricky, but you'll be okay" straight to "fuck you if you haven't mastered most the game already" in about two scenes. That is a shit curve.

fullspectrum

http://media.giphy.com/media/QB78LMb32YqoE/giphy.gif

Tempy

I don't really know where you've given up, but I think the up until the boss in Anor Londo, Dark Souls might be one of the most impeccably designed games out there. It all starts to fall apart after that for me but, Capra Demon aside, the challenge is steep due to its difference from most other games out there, but consistent. Capra sticks out because it's all about constructing shock and awe via brute force rather than invention (adding mobs is never the smart way to make an encounter tough) but other than that it seems pretty finely tuned to me. Hardly going to be that for everyone I guess, but I never felt like I was thrown straight into it. Encounters are discrete and reliant on compartmentalising and iterating ideas over and over.

b0r1s

I think I gave up on Capra, not sure if I'll go back to the start, but I think overall it's the best of Demon's, this and Bloodbourne. Haven't played DSII so can't comment on that.

AJ

I'm in the undead burg, as I have been for most of the times I've played it. Each time I die, I get a little further, but each time I start playing I have to do the same getting a little further with each death again.

To be fair, I'm raging at it more than it deserves because it's not designed at all for the amount of time I'm willing/able to dedicate to it and it pisses me off that something so well crafted is actively preventing me from getting into it because I have other things to do as well. Would it have been so difficult to add a forgiving difficulty for people like me? It's not like I'm adverse to learning it, I just get bored having to do the same shit over and over in order to do so. Hell, I'd even be willing to be locked out of achievements and wear a bunny suit or something to do so.

Tempy

That's part of it though, there's no difficulty levels. Everyone plays on even footing, the end of the game is perfectly accessible to everyone. Sorcery and Pyromancy provide a path of least resistance for a lot of the game, but the whole game is built on the fundamental belief that the challenge is the reason you're playing it. To take that away with an easier mode for players is something I've argued for in the past (well, specifically a mode that removes a lot of the number crunching and menu obfuscation rather than the outright challenge) but it does basically run counter to the entire design philosophy, and to include it would be a poor statement of intent.

If you've not got the time, then you haven't got the time. It's much better to play it in decent sittings. I originally played it for about 80 hours at launch and got stuck so hard I abandoned it for about a year, and came back and finished the entire game in abut 40 hours. It's not for everyone at all, and I detest the idea that it is for everyone - and honestly find the insinuation it is quite distasteful and elitist - but I also believe it was designed with a core philosophy in mind, and it deviates from it so rarely, and is so consistently authored that it's a real achievement. If it cowed to those less dedicated, it wouldn't have been the game that garnered such praise.

Crusader Kings 2 is the kind of game I wish I had the time for, but like DS, I know that making it simpler or more forgiving would essentially be undermining the point. Like giving Space Chem players solutions after they get stuck on a level for a set amount of time or something.

Edit: heck, I was barely good enough to beat Bloodborne, but like Dark Souls it lets you summon people into your world to get through any bit you're stuck at. I know someone who goes through every Souls game the same way: summons as soon as he steps foot in a new area. He likes it that way, that's about as close as From have to an 'easy' mode.

AJ

Fair point, but that gets into a wider discussion I can't be arsed with right now. It just irks me that it's something I know I would enjoy (and did, briefly) if I didn't have to keep repeating the same shit over and over.

Tempy

FWIW I am totally on board with you giving up, and agree that sometimes it'd be nicer if games were a little better at accommodating the time poor. But like you say, it's a much wider discussion to get into.

regmcfly

I've tried several times to get into Dark Souls and there's some sort of ossified blockage in my head that stops me from doing it, let alone doing it well. I've tried every Souls game and Bloodborne and I know There's something there. I just can't access it.

AJ

Tempy wrote:

FWIW I am totally on board with you giving up

That's the worst thing. I know it's the only sensible thing to do, but don't want it to be. By the time I've got enough time to play it, I won't have the reflexes any more. I could spend a week of holiday time playing it, but would have to be stoned not to decide I'd go and do over of the many things I could that are more rewarding for the time put in and wouldn't be able to handle the complexity if I was. Sigh, guess I goes on the pile of things I'm just to old for now, along with parting all night and eating McDonald's.

JonB

Tempy wrote:

Edit: heck, I was barely good enough to beat Bloodborne, but like Dark Souls it lets you summon people into your world to get through any bit you're stuck at. I know someone who goes through every Souls game the same way: summons as soon as he steps foot in a new area. He likes it that way, that's about as close as From have to an 'easy' mode.

This is the thing, I think. It's a game made for a community as much as anything and encourages you to share information and get help. I find it rewarding to do these games alone to begin with as much as possible, but I get stuck at times. Playing Dark Souls offline meant using the forum for advice now and again, and I wouldn't have got through it otherwise.

I do think the start of Dark Souls for the uninitiated went too far in terms of being impenetrable though. Some info on equip load, shield use and stamina, the meaning of stats etc. would have been useful, and arguably the distance between bonfire and first proper boss is poorly thought out.

In the end, these games are not for everyone, but I'd always advice seeking help before giving up - it's an intrinsic part of the game design.

Rev

Bloodborne

Just no.

Facewon

Sad face.

I absolutely understand quitting on these games. DS came for me at a good time, re amount of time I had. I wonder how I'd go with Bloodbourne these days.

But still, Sad Face. DS is G.O.A.T.

TheDJR

revelthedog wrote:

Bloodborne

Just no.

?

Dark Soldier

Facewon wrote:

DS is G.O.A.T.

This guy

hylian_elf

But Dark Souls 2 is amazing, amirite?!

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories