JangoWuzHere's forum posts

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
#1 Edited by JangoWuzHere (19032 posts) -

1. Dark Souls

2. Dark Souls 2

3. Demon Souls

4. Don't care

5. Don't care

People complain about Call of Duty fatigue every year, but the souls games is the first game series that I have officially burnt out on. I think I'm halfway through Dark Souls 3 at this point, and I stopped playing about a couple weeks ago. It's fine for what it is, but I've seriously gotten my fill with that style of game.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
#2 Edited by JangoWuzHere (19032 posts) -

Metal Gear Solid 3

People look back fondly on that game with lots of reverence for its story and quirkiness. However, the actual game itself is just a fundamental failure when it comes to game design. The new survival mechanics don't increase tension or add a new interesting layer to the core gameplay. It's all just bullshit tedium that bogs down the experience. It forces the player out of the actually interesting tactical gameplay just so they can fiddle with bullshit menus. Not to mention, for a game that is trying to take Metal Gear and make it more grounded and realistic, the survival mechanics only make everything feel MORE gamey and fake. Also, the camera and controls are total horseshit, especially in the original 2004 release.

I'm saying all this, and it's still the best MGS game. It is a game that is saved solely by its presentation. Unfortunately, as an actual game, it is easily the worst in the series when it comes to simply playing it.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
#3 Posted by JangoWuzHere (19032 posts) -

@ConanTheStoner said:
@JangoWuzHere said:

Remember how awesome MGSV was? Well, don't even think for a second that Wildlands comes close to the level of quality of that games gameplay. Heck, Wildlands can't even get the basic feel of playing a third person shooter right in 2017. Seriously, what the hell Ubisoft.

Yeah, I was also hoping for something good, though I figured this would be the case all along. Kinda like MGSV with a better open world, but far inferior gameplay mechanics and level design.

And yeah, some of the writing is JRPG level lol.

I've shifted my focus to Sniper Elite 4 at this point. After playing Ground Zeroes back in 2014, I had a major itch for an open sandbox stealth game. Sniper Elite 3, while not an amazing game, it did well in giving me exactly what I wanted.

At least I know that SE4 will play well. The clunkiness for Wildlands just turns me off from ever picking it up ever.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
#4 Posted by JangoWuzHere (19032 posts) -

I was super excited for Ghost Recon Wildlands. Played that beta for the first 20 minutes and was a little worried about how clunky it all felt. After a few hours, I'm basically calling it trash tier. Ubi does it again with their shitty standard open world formula. This is basically another one of those, but this time without even the pleasure of the action being fun. Remember how awesome MGSV was? Well, don't even think for a second that Wildlands comes close to the level of quality of that games gameplay. Heck, Wildlands can't even get the basic feel of playing a third person shooter right in 2017. Seriously, what the hell Ubisoft.

Also, when you first open up the beta, you are forced to watch a developer talk about what the game is and that they worked on this for FOUR YEARS. I don't believe it. There is no way this game took four years to make, and this is the result. It feels like a rushed game that took less then half that time.

Also, the writing is some of the worst I've ever seen in a video game. It's that Ubisoft level of zaniness without any life or joy put into it.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
#5 Posted by JangoWuzHere (19032 posts) -

It's not even close really. Alien Isolation is just a weaksauce experience, and the fact that its a 20 hour slog doesn't help. Resident Evil 7, even with its flaws, actually has some legit pacing and actually manages to keep you interested all the way til the end.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
#6 Posted by JangoWuzHere (19032 posts) -

Drakengard 3 is the only game worth playing in that collection.

Also the only one worth remastering considering how much of a technical mess it was on PS3.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
#7 Edited by JangoWuzHere (19032 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:
@JangoWuzHere said:

"So what does the multiplatform offerings on the PS4 do to counteract the barren wasteland that was Sony's exclusive offerings for someone who would play the multiplats on say PC?"

Quite a lot actually, considering the fact that a lot of multiplatform PC games suffered from pretty atrocious ports over these past few years. See, this is why your 1:1 comparison just doesn't work. Just because a game is multiplatform, that doesn't mean its a guaranteed purchase for the PC. Speaking personally as mainly a PC gamer, I've bought a lot of multiplatform games on my PS4 to avoid headaches with bad PC ports. That is the nature of the PC platform, it is guaranteed to have some technical stinkers. Heck, even if a game wasn't a bad port, I may have bought it on the PS4 anyway. Multiplayer communities are much larger on consoles in comparison to PC for a lot of games. For example, If I ever buy a Call of Duty game, I will always avoid the PC version. A Call of Duty game is pretty much dead on release for PC these days, while the console player base usually can last for a few years.

I'm sure if you did the math, the Switch comes out on top when it comes to strictly exclusives. However, the entire situation is a lot more complicated then just a straight comparison like that.

Over the last 3-4 years, there has been less than 10 high profile PC ports that I can think of that have been poor upon release... and pretty much all of them have been fixed since release.

I as a PC gamer wait until 1-2 years after these games to release not only to get them cheaper, but to avoid early adoption problems (which plenty of console versions suffer from as well). Plus you end up getting all the DLC for one low price.

But just keep avoiding the different standards argument. That's fine.

I don't really understand what you're even arguing about at this point. I've already listed why I don't find the Switch enticing. I want more exclusives for that platform before I lay down $300. You try to apply that argument to the PS4, but that obviously doesn't work for me. Maybe it does for you, considering you wait two years before even buying these games, but that definitely doesn't apply to a lot of people.

I also don't really get the sour hostility in your posts. It's not like I'm calling the Switch worthless. I've just decided to wait a bit before I buy it. A lot of people feel the same as me. The Switch has a lot of potential, but I don't see the appeal at the moment. I felt the same about the Wii U, waited a few years before picking one up.

And you are seriously low balling the amount of bad PC ports released over the past few years. 10? Probably more like triple or quadruple that amount.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
#8 Edited by JangoWuzHere (19032 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:
@JangoWuzHere said:

I don't see an reason to get a Switch for Zelda when I can play it on my Wii U. I'm personally interested in the new Mario and Splatoon this year, everything else is simply wait and see. That's definitely not enough for me to rush out and spend $300 on a new console. Considering the output of games that Nintendo is usually good at, the dripfeed line up announced this year is pretty disappointing. With the Switch being a hybrid console, I expected to see almost double the amount of software announced this year, not just a Wii U esque year.

I don't think the Sony comparison fits at all. The amount of console exclusives and multiplatform games made that system far more enticing. It didn't need strictly exclusive games, because it had more to offer than just that.

"Nope, I just want the system for the exclusives".

So what does the multiplatform offerings on the PS4 do to counteract the barren wasteland that was Sony's exclusive offerings for someone who would play the multiplats on say PC?

You are moving the goal posts here. They are releasing two huge first party exclusives games within the first year, and a handful of redone Wii U games... which is significantly more than either Sony or MS offered in the first year of their new platforms.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Nintendo is held to a different standard by "fans" and can never fully satisfy some people despite them doing MORE than the other manufacturers.

"So what does the multiplatform offerings on the PS4 do to counteract the barren wasteland that was Sony's exclusive offerings for someone who would play the multiplats on say PC?"

Quite a lot actually, considering the fact that a lot of multiplatform PC games suffered from pretty atrocious ports over these past few years. See, this is why your 1:1 comparison just doesn't work. Just because a game is multiplatform, that doesn't mean its a guaranteed purchase for the PC. Speaking personally as mainly a PC gamer, I've bought a lot of multiplatform games on my PS4 to avoid headaches with bad PC ports. That is the nature of the PC platform, it is guaranteed to have some technical stinkers. Heck, even if a game wasn't a bad port, I may have bought it on the PS4 anyway. Multiplayer communities are much larger on consoles in comparison to PC for a lot of games. For example, If I ever buy a Call of Duty game, I will always avoid the PC version. A Call of Duty game is pretty much dead on release for PC these days, while the console player base usually can last for a few years.

I'm sure if you did the math, the Switch comes out on top when it comes to strictly exclusives. However, the entire situation is a lot more complicated then just a straight comparison like that.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
#9 Posted by JangoWuzHere (19032 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:
@JangoWuzHere said:

Nope, I just want the system for the exclusives.

Which is disappointing, because there really aren't that many exclusives at all for it in the first year. I probably don't see myself buying a Switch until at least a couple years pass.

And this is why so-called "fans" will never be pleased by a Nintendo product.

A brand new Zelda and a brand new Mario platformer in the first year and this isn't "enough" when Sony took over three years to release anything of note beyond Bloodborne.

I don't see an reason to get a Switch for Zelda when I can play it on my Wii U. I'm personally interested in the new Mario and Splatoon this year, everything else is simply wait and see. That's definitely not enough for me to rush out and spend $300 on a new console. Considering the output of games that Nintendo is usually good at, the dripfeed line up announced this year is pretty disappointing. With the Switch being a hybrid console, I expected to see almost double the amount of software announced this year, not just a Wii U esque year.

I don't think the Sony comparison fits at all. The amount of console exclusives and multiplatform games made that system far more enticing. It didn't need strictly exclusive games, because it had more to offer than just that.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
#10 Edited by JangoWuzHere (19032 posts) -

Nope, I just want the system for the exclusives.

Which is disappointing, because there really aren't that many exclusives at all for it in the first year. I probably don't see myself buying a Switch until at least a couple years pass.