This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I miss the days when we got insane value with pretty much every game we bought

#21noimnoturdaddy(Topic Creator)Posted 5/24/2014 11:22:34 PM
jedinat posted...
I think random battles are a complete waste of time, personally.

I've never understood this. Whether it's random encounters or on-screen, you're having to make the choice of engaging or running away. I think the "random encounter to battle scenario" system allows for much more depth than what a lot of real-time combat games provide, but that isn't to say that action-driven games can't be challenging on their own (due to rewarding good reflexes instead of deep thought).

What you're getting into there is preference, which has nothing to do with the core concept you "don't care" about.
---
"Are you Ron Swanson?" - CatToy to me, upon realizing what a manly man I am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBVDKCAbawA
#22noimnoturdaddy(Topic Creator)Posted 5/24/2014 11:24:47 PM
jedinat posted...
...and I just read you think the combat in FFX is better than Dark Souls Wow.

Yes, because I think Dark Souls still has a lot of room to improve with how it controls for the game it's trying to be. This might come across as comparing oranges to apples, but FFX executes its mechanics better than the "Souls" games do. "Souls" is trying something much more different, but still not executing as well as it could, which is why, as I said, FFX wins there as well.
---
"Are you Ron Swanson?" - CatToy to me, upon realizing what a manly man I am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBVDKCAbawA
#23seasloth21Posted 5/25/2014 12:28:23 AM
I can't believe what I'm reading here. Better combat in ffx? You realize the souls series is renowned for having one of the best combat systems EVER? Who on earth talks about ffx like that? Then you said it was a low quality game, which is beyond absurd. Even if you don't like the game, you would be a fool not to at least appreciate the engrossing game world and intricate combat system.
#24DisastersaurusPosted 5/25/2014 12:43:30 AM
Eh? This seems skewed, TC. You use FFX as an example, but it's an unusually long game, even for its time. There's plenty of games now that offer similar value and length even if you're trying to be overly specific and rule out stuff like Dark Souls.

Skyrim's an obvious one, though I'm not a huge fan of the game myself; it still provides a massive experience. Fallout 3/New Vegas as well. The Witcher games clock in at 30-50 hours apiece (and I've put 110 into Witcher 2, always finding new things with each playthrough), the new Deus Ex is a solid 30 hours, The Mass Effect games are all 20-30 hours each without even touching on DLC.

I've also put 30-50 hours in each Assassin's Creed game.

Just off the top of my head, that's some stuff that shows not all modern games are 'greedy'; plus, you seem to have an unfairly narrow view of replay value, since you rule out both difficulty and multiplayer.

I've put 130 hours into XCOM: Enemy Unknown because it's so fun to do Ironman runs. I've also put 100+ hours into Rust and Chivalry.

Long story short, I think gaming is getting better and better.
---
video games are for children
#25DisastersaurusPosted 5/25/2014 12:46:09 AM(edited)
seasloth21 posted...
I can't believe what I'm reading here. Better combat in ffx? You realize the souls series is renowned for having one of the best combat systems EVER? Who on earth talks about ffx like that? Then you said it was a low quality game, which is beyond absurd. Even if you don't like the game, you would be a fool not to at least appreciate the engrossing game world and intricate combat system.


Eh. I think you're getting a bit fanboyish. Dark Souls is okay, but the combat system is anything but intricate. It's well-made and nicely polished, but it's EXTREMELY simple. No real class skills, special attacks, or tactical options beyond roll, block, a few weapon strikes, and a handful of special weapon abilities like the shockwaves.

I'm not saying the combat is dumb or anything, but 'intricate' implies there's a lot of depth, which there isn't. The game's difficulty comes from lack of health regen, hard-hitting enemies, and endurance gauntlets between bonfires. PvE comes down to, in both games, roll, strike, roll, strike, block, and PvP is poorly balanced and implemented, with horrid latency issues and an over-reliance on a few gimmicky builds with the occasional outlier.

Reminds me of Diablo 2's PvP, which was similarly weak and overhyped.
---
video games are for children
#26LvthnPosted 5/25/2014 12:45:58 AM
I disagree, quite a bit actually.

When I look at some games that have come out in the last five years that people regularly report hundreds of hours sunk into, and you can often pick those games up for $10-$20, maybe less, it's obvious that value has only gotten better if you know where to look.

If you want to talk about quality, then pick a category, and there's a game that has gone far above and beyond to absolutely exemplify that trait.

Ironically, I consider FFX to be an example of games dropping in quality and morphing into CGI cash grabs. X-2 is actually a better game in terms of gameplay but most people don't really care for...well, everything else about it.

Let's not even mention that it's an unfair comparison to cherry pick your favorite games of the past and then compare that all-star team to whatever got released in the last couple years that comes to mind. You can do that with anything from movies to baseball and paint a nonsensically rose-tinted image of the past.

I'm not gonna lie, if I'd had a game like Skyrim when I was 12 I'd have never wanted to leave home again. I can gripe about it now cause I'm jaded, but back then I probably could have spent a couple years playing it, considering I did spend months playing far smaller, simpler games.
#27BendoHendoPosted 5/25/2014 12:51:48 AM
Don't act as if Final Fantasy X was the last game to deliver 100 hours of gameplay. Even within the FF series, I put in 120 hours in FFXII and only finished 80% of the game, it was massive.

And even games that have come out this year are long. They aren't by AAA studios, but they are out there.

Lords of Xulima takes the developers 50 hours to complete USING sped up combat, fast movement speed modification, among other ways to whiz through the game.

Based on how long it took me to complete the first 25% of Divinity: Original Sin, it will easily take me 50-75 hours to beat.

Wasteland 2 appears to be very long from what I've read of the Beta.

--
#28Love_Me_SexyPosted 5/25/2014 1:24:27 AM
Earthbound for SNES. If games still came like that and were that much fun, the industry would be in a WAY better place with its customers.
---
4930k || X79 Deluxe || MSI 760 4GB || 16GB RAM || 240GB SSD || 2x180GB SSD (RAID0) || 4TB SSHD || 1200w PSU
#29Broccoli92Posted 5/25/2014 1:32:33 AM
Xenoblade is pretty long, i already spent 90 hours yet haven't finished the game. Most of the sidequests are taking my time.
---
Intel i5 3470 3.20GHz | Sapphire HD 7850 2GB | 8GB RAM | Asrock Z77 PRO3 |WD 1TB| PSU 650w Enermax
#30phy2jshPosted 5/25/2014 1:35:10 AM
I miss the days when we got insane value with pretty much every game we bought


*Proceeds to talk about a single game as justification for the above statement*

Those days never existed. There have always been good games and bad games. Take off the rose-tinted specs and stop cherry picking.