Monkey_Driven wrote:Someone describe the combat in Witcher 3? What game(s) does it resemble?
I can't think of a game it really resembles. It's not difficult to master or complicated. You have heavy attack, fast attack, and magic as well as bombs to toss. Everything takes up stamina. You can parry as well as dodge and roll.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I was gonna try Witcher 3 until I found out it had weapon deterioration. Fuck that shit.
Sound reason for not trying it.
i have a very low tolerance for grindy/game-y/busy work bullshit like this in games. i know i will just be annoyed and wind up hating the game. that was a big reason why i hated fallout 3
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I was gonna try Witcher 3 until I found out it had weapon deterioration. Fuck that shit.
Sound reason for not trying it.
i have a very low tolerance for grindy/game-y/busy work bullshit like this in games. i know i will just be annoyed and wind up hating the game. that was a big reason why i hated fallout 3
Depends on how often it occurs but ultimately I agree with you.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I was gonna try Witcher 3 until I found out it had weapon deterioration. Fuck that shit.
Sound reason for not trying it.
i have a very low tolerance for grindy/game-y/busy work bullshit like this in games. i know i will just be annoyed and wind up hating the game. that was a big reason why i hated fallout 3
Depends on how often it occurs but ultimately I agree with you.
I agree. It can become well stupid but there are so many towns and enough items to keep your weapons good and ready that I haven't noticed it becoming an issue. Which is a relief because with a game of this size it could easily become a major problem.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I was gonna try Witcher 3 until I found out it had weapon deterioration. Fuck that shit.
Sound reason for not trying it.
i have a very low tolerance for grindy/game-y/busy work bullshit like this in games. i know i will just be annoyed and wind up hating the game. that was a big reason why i hated fallout 3
Depends on how often it occurs but ultimately I agree with you.
I agree. It can become well stupid but there are so many towns and enough items to keep your weapons good and ready that I haven't noticed it becoming an issue. Which is a relief because with a game of this size it could easily become a major problem.
I think the problem with it is that it's an irritating reminder that I am playing a video game. The best games, in my opinion, do everything they can to make you forget that. They are immersive experiences that allow you to become swept up in the emotion, the stakes, the excitement, the atmosphere, the narrative, the characters, the fun. But when I have to stop being swept up in that in order to tinker with menus and deal with leveling or my weapons not functioning, it takes me out of the experience. I lose sight of the game's experience and am made painfully aware of the game's superficial mechanics. I think in order for games to truly progress as an artform, developers need to stop clinging to those kinds of antiquated gameplay devices and start innovating and being more emotionally/psychologically intuitive.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I was gonna try Witcher 3 until I found out it had weapon deterioration. Fuck that shit.
Sound reason for not trying it.
i have a very low tolerance for grindy/game-y/busy work bullshit like this in games. i know i will just be annoyed and wind up hating the game. that was a big reason why i hated fallout 3
Depends on how often it occurs but ultimately I agree with you.
I agree. It can become well stupid but there are so many towns and enough items to keep your weapons good and ready that I haven't noticed it becoming an issue. Which is a relief because with a game of this size it could easily become a major problem.
I think the problem with it is that it's an irritating reminder that I am playing a video game. The best games, in my opinion, do everything they can to make you forget that. They are immersive experiences that allow you to become swept up in the emotion, the stakes, the excitement, the atmosphere, the narrative, the characters, the fun. But when I have to stop being swept up in that in order to tinker with menus and deal with leveling or my weapons not functioning, it takes me out of the experience. I lose sight of the game's experience and am made painfully aware of the game's superficial mechanics. I think in order for games to truly progress as an artform, developers need to stop clinging to those kinds of antiquated gameplay devices and start innovating and being more emotionally/psychologically intuitive.
Can't games do both? I mean it is a game. Board games don't get that criticism.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I was gonna try Witcher 3 until I found out it had weapon deterioration. Fuck that shit.
Sound reason for not trying it.
i have a very low tolerance for grindy/game-y/busy work bullshit like this in games. i know i will just be annoyed and wind up hating the game. that was a big reason why i hated fallout 3
Depends on how often it occurs but ultimately I agree with you.
I agree. It can become well stupid but there are so many towns and enough items to keep your weapons good and ready that I haven't noticed it becoming an issue. Which is a relief because with a game of this size it could easily become a major problem.
I think the problem with it is that it's an irritating reminder that I am playing a video game. The best games, in my opinion, do everything they can to make you forget that. They are immersive experiences that allow you to become swept up in the emotion, the stakes, the excitement, the atmosphere, the narrative, the characters, the fun. But when I have to stop being swept up in that in order to tinker with menus and deal with leveling or my weapons not functioning, it takes me out of the experience. I lose sight of the game's experience and am made painfully aware of the game's superficial mechanics. I think in order for games to truly progress as an artform, developers need to stop clinging to those kinds of antiquated gameplay devices and start innovating and being more emotionally/psychologically intuitive.
Can't games do both? I mean it is a game. Board games don't get that criticism.
Basically what I'm getting at is that when a gaming mechanic is employed well, you don't think about how well the mechanic is working. A good gaming mechanic shouldn't feel transparent and it shouldn't remove you from the emotional experience of the game; it should enhance it.
I've never been a fan of realism for the sake of realism in games. In some games it makes sense (eating in Minecraft) but in others it's just a needless chore (pretty much any game that makes you repair your weapons)
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I was gonna try Witcher 3 until I found out it had weapon deterioration. Fuck that shit.
Sound reason for not trying it.
i have a very low tolerance for grindy/game-y/busy work bullshit like this in games. i know i will just be annoyed and wind up hating the game. that was a big reason why i hated fallout 3
Depends on how often it occurs but ultimately I agree with you.
I agree. It can become well stupid but there are so many towns and enough items to keep your weapons good and ready that I haven't noticed it becoming an issue. Which is a relief because with a game of this size it could easily become a major problem.
I think the problem with it is that it's an irritating reminder that I am playing a video game. The best games, in my opinion, do everything they can to make you forget that. They are immersive experiences that allow you to become swept up in the emotion, the stakes, the excitement, the atmosphere, the narrative, the characters, the fun. But when I have to stop being swept up in that in order to tinker with menus and deal with leveling or my weapons not functioning, it takes me out of the experience. I lose sight of the game's experience and am made painfully aware of the game's superficial mechanics. I think in order for games to truly progress as an artform, developers need to stop clinging to those kinds of antiquated gameplay devices and start innovating and being more emotionally/psychologically intuitive.
Can't games do both? I mean it is a game. Board games don't get that criticism.
Basically what I'm getting at is that when a gaming mechanic is employed well, you don't think about how well the mechanic is working. A good gaming mechanic shouldn't feel transparent and it shouldn't remove you from the emotional experience of the game; it should enhance it.
gonna disagree with basically everything you said. To each his own.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I was gonna try Witcher 3 until I found out it had weapon deterioration. Fuck that shit.
Sound reason for not trying it.
i have a very low tolerance for grindy/game-y/busy work bullshit like this in games. i know i will just be annoyed and wind up hating the game. that was a big reason why i hated fallout 3
Depends on how often it occurs but ultimately I agree with you.
I agree. It can become well stupid but there are so many towns and enough items to keep your weapons good and ready that I haven't noticed it becoming an issue. Which is a relief because with a game of this size it could easily become a major problem.
I think the problem with it is that it's an irritating reminder that I am playing a video game. The best games, in my opinion, do everything they can to make you forget that. They are immersive experiences that allow you to become swept up in the emotion, the stakes, the excitement, the atmosphere, the narrative, the characters, the fun. But when I have to stop being swept up in that in order to tinker with menus and deal with leveling or my weapons not functioning, it takes me out of the experience. I lose sight of the game's experience and am made painfully aware of the game's superficial mechanics. I think in order for games to truly progress as an artform, developers need to stop clinging to those kinds of antiquated gameplay devices and start innovating and being more emotionally/psychologically intuitive.
Can't games do both? I mean it is a game. Board games don't get that criticism.
Basically what I'm getting at is that when a gaming mechanic is employed well, you don't think about how well the mechanic is working. A good gaming mechanic shouldn't feel transparent and it shouldn't remove you from the emotional experience of the game; it should enhance it.
gonna disagree with basically everything you said. To each his own.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I was gonna try Witcher 3 until I found out it had weapon deterioration. Fuck that shit.
Sound reason for not trying it.
i have a very low tolerance for grindy/game-y/busy work bullshit like this in games. i know i will just be annoyed and wind up hating the game. that was a big reason why i hated fallout 3
Depends on how often it occurs but ultimately I agree with you.
I agree. It can become well stupid but there are so many towns and enough items to keep your weapons good and ready that I haven't noticed it becoming an issue. Which is a relief because with a game of this size it could easily become a major problem.
I think the problem with it is that it's an irritating reminder that I am playing a video game. The best games, in my opinion, do everything they can to make you forget that. They are immersive experiences that allow you to become swept up in the emotion, the stakes, the excitement, the atmosphere, the narrative, the characters, the fun. But when I have to stop being swept up in that in order to tinker with menus and deal with leveling or my weapons not functioning, it takes me out of the experience. I lose sight of the game's experience and am made painfully aware of the game's superficial mechanics. I think in order for games to truly progress as an artform, developers need to stop clinging to those kinds of antiquated gameplay devices and start innovating and being more emotionally/psychologically intuitive.
Can't games do both? I mean it is a game. Board games don't get that criticism.
Basically what I'm getting at is that when a gaming mechanic is employed well, you don't think about how well the mechanic is working. A good gaming mechanic shouldn't feel transparent and it shouldn't remove you from the emotional experience of the game; it should enhance it.
I understand what you're saying but it depends on the game. Bloodborne has very "gamey" mechanics and it is one of the best gaming experiences I've had in the past two or three years. The mechanics are what makes it so much fun to play.
Last edited by Monkey_Driven on Tue May 26, 2015 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Monkey_Driven wrote:I understand what you're saying but it depends on the game. Bloodborne has very "gamey" mechanics and it is one of the best gaming experiences I've had in the past two or three years. The mechanics are what makes it so much fun to play.
Yeah, I think we just have different taste. From what I've heard about Bloodborne, I can pretty reasonably predict that I would hate it. I don't want to feel frustrated by a game. I'm not interested in being "challenged" by a game on a gameplay level.
Monkey_Driven wrote:I understand what you're saying but it depends on the game. Bloodborne has very "gamey" mechanics and it is one of the best gaming experiences I've had in the past two or three years. The mechanics are what makes it so much fun to play.
Yeah, I think we just have different taste. From what I've heard about Bloodborne, I can pretty reasonably predict that I would hate it. I don't want to feel frustrated by a game. I'm not interested in being "challenged" by a game on a gameplay level.
I would argue that a "good" gameplay mechanic is one that fits the game. For example, Telltale games would not be nearly as successful if failure was an option. Other games use repeated failure and frustration as a teaching mechanic and it suits the game quite well. I love that games have such variety. That is why they are my favorite entertainment medium.
I look for a challenging, long game first of all. An Expansive world is really important as well and is also part of it being a long game. Loot and character development is key. All of this combines to make an interesting, well developed world in which your character operates in. Multi-player is an awesome plus but not necessary.
So basically Dark Souls which I consider the best game from the previous generation of consoles.
jwfocker wrote:I look for a challenging, long game first of all. An Expansive world is really important as well and is also part of it being a long game. Loot and character development is key. All of this combines to make an interesting, well developed world in which your character operates in. Multi-player is an awesome plus but not necessary.
So basically Dark Souls which I consider the best game from the previous generation of consoles.
Haha, well I think this explains why we disagree. "Challenging, long, loot, multi-player" - pretty much describes exactly what I DON'T want in a game.
jwfocker wrote:I look for a challenging, long game first of all. An Expansive world is really important as well and is also part of it being a long game. Loot and character development is key. All of this combines to make an interesting, well developed world in which your character operates in. Multi-player is an awesome plus but not necessary.
So basically Dark Souls which I consider the best game from the previous generation of consoles.
Haha, well I think this explains why we disagree. "Challenging, long, loot, multi-player" - pretty much describes exactly what I DON'T want in a game.
Yep. Not multi-player heavy though. Just light like the way the Souls game do multi-player which I think is perfect.
jwfocker wrote:I look for a challenging, long game first of all. An Expansive world is really important as well and is also part of it being a long game. Loot and character development is key. All of this combines to make an interesting, well developed world in which your character operates in. Multi-player is an awesome plus but not necessary.
So basically Dark Souls which I consider the best game from the previous generation of consoles.
Haha, well I think this explains why we disagree. "Challenging, long, loot, multi-player" - pretty much describes exactly what I DON'T want in a game.
jwfocker wrote:I look for a challenging, long game first of all. An Expansive world is really important as well and is also part of it being a long game. Loot and character development is key. All of this combines to make an interesting, well developed world in which your character operates in. Multi-player is an awesome plus but not necessary.
So basically Dark Souls which I consider the best game from the previous generation of consoles.
Haha, well I think this explains why we disagree. "Challenging, long, loot, multi-player" - pretty much describes exactly what I DON'T want in a game.
Did you ever play Journey?
I did not, but I heard good things and it seems intriguing. Should I check it out?
