|
Post by necromaniac on Jun 9, 2006 14:23:48 GMT -5
I can't get into most helicopter games, including shmups.
I don't bother with simulation games that require you to be a pro on the subject that's being simulated, the stearing is so realistic that stearing an actual plane/meech/car/whatever would be easier in real life, and when the game takes up more than half of my keyboard.
I get easily bored in free roaming rpg's that are so dull that they require you to make up your own quests, for the main quest is so boring and I'm so sick and tired of the same basic Tolkien inspired setting.
I hate skin deep MMORPG's that try to hide their lack of deapth with pointless item hunting and leveling up.
I try to avoid most sports games, not because they aren't well made or that I have personaly limited interests in sports, but because FIFA 97 is basicly the same as FIFA 2006.
I resent casino/card games for If I wanted to play black jack, solitare or monapoly, I'll do it off screen.
And last but not least: I loath the "to hip for school" wigger games that totally miss the point and are patched up in a hurry and targeted at the most idiotic audience since whatever the hell it was that spawned Vanilla Ice.
|
|
|
Post by shido on Jun 9, 2006 14:41:09 GMT -5
I get easily bored in free roaming rpg's that are so dull that they require you to make up your own quests, for the main quest is so boring and I'm so sick and tired of the same basic Tolkien inspired setting. I hate skin deep MMORPG's that try to hide their lack of deapth with pointless item hunting and leveling up. My thoughts exactly I also hate FPS games which are all Doom with different textures, and I hate simulations games like Sims or Animal Crossing which are more similar to some kind of toys than actually games.
|
|
|
Post by YourAverageJoe on Jun 9, 2006 15:25:55 GMT -5
I hate when some company *COUGHEACOUGH* tries to cover a sucky game with violence to hide its own incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jun 9, 2006 16:53:15 GMT -5
I'll toss another ring into the "sports" hat, although they're not ALL bad. I actually liked the sim mode in FIFA 06, which leads me to believe I'd like it in the Madden games. Don't care about the actual football playing though.
Most racing games that aren't Outrun or F-Zero or Burnout bore me. I know people point to Ridge Racer is being an "arcade-style" racer, but it still doesn't feel interesting enough, or control the way I want a fun game to control.
MMORPGs I loathe, for reasons already stated above.
I actually really like first person shooters, but it really depends on the game. Many of them take too many pages out of Halo's book, which is sometimes good (Republic Commando) and sometimes not so good (Goldeneye Rogue Agent). But there are some legimiately great ones out there.
|
|
|
Post by jameseightbitstar on Jun 9, 2006 17:25:08 GMT -5
I don't really hate any particular genre, and any game can entertain me. That being said though, I tend to get most bored of "story-heavy" RPGs where you spend more time watching cutscenes than playing the game (Xenogears is a slight exception to this rule--I can enjoy it for a few hours). I know you can say RPGs are about their story first (though I've debated that before) but seriously, if I wanted to watch a movie or read a book, I wouldn't be playing a video game.
And, while I don't "yawn" playing a Strategy-RPG, the genre tends to irritate me with its battle-town-battle setup. Sometimes I wish there was a way around battles or that they weren't as large-scale so they would pass quicker.
Lastly, MMORPGs, but not for the same reasons cited above. Rather, I feel they are so underutilized in their potential, and basically, they don't offer anything that you couldn't get in a single-player RPG, save for you can chat with other players. What I mean is, when I read a good fantasy novel, the best ones have these dynamic worlds--heroic underdogs being hunted down by shadowy overlords intent on capture and possibly execution of the heroes, governments that can fall out of one person's hands and into another, etc. Let's not forget Robert E. Howard's classic Conan stories (do forget the movies, but I digress), where a humble barbarian, starting out as a nobody, made a name for himself and eventually took over the kingdom of Aquilonia in the aftermath of a bloody battle. Yet in MMORPGs, the worlds are so stagnant. No player is ever going to be strong enough to challenge the government, conquer it, and make themselves king (and afterwards have to deal with the responsibilities of monarchy), and you're never going to have players creating their own evil empires which could be brought down by other players who happened to have come into possession of a magical ring. What I'm saying is, a good MMORPG should have a world that rises up thanks to the actions of the players, where things can rise and fall either at the drop of the hat or in a thousand-year gradual decline. Instead we have these heavilly-administrated make-believe scenarios where everyone is too much of a whiny little bitch to do anything that extreme because the idea that you could, gasp, actually DIE is too much for most people to handle, and everyone just wants a comfortable, stagnant world where all they do is level up their character, go on monster-slaying quests (and the monster is always a computer AI, never another player), and find godly new items. But I can do all this in a SINGLE-PLAYER RPG, so why in blazes would I want to play an MMORPG that doesn't offer me anything I can't get from a single-player experience?
Wow, and here I always thought I was a major RPG fan.
|
|
|
Post by YourAverageJoe on Jun 9, 2006 17:31:18 GMT -5
I take limited interest in First Person Shooters, my personal favourite being the ever-awesome Unreal Tournament 2004, anyone who plays it will LOVE it!! An additional plus is the fact that the graphics engine is extremely tunable and fast for the incredible output it gives.
A loading tip from Baldur's Gate 2 sums up my main grudge towards MMORPGs: "Caution: Although your characters don't have to eat, remember that YOU DO! We don't want to lose any dedicated players."
|
|
ma201
New Member
?What you like and what you intend no one ever really knows, I suppose.? -- Bryan Hitch, Ultimates
Posts: 48
|
Post by ma201 on Jun 9, 2006 18:40:43 GMT -5
Current sandbox games that have no real depth or many things to do. For instance, The Godfather had a "huge" recreated NYC, but after you take over all of the fronts and backs, what are you left with? Finding the rest of the scenes of the Godfather Movie. What about Gun? You can hunt animals... (cough cough)... and do "pony express missions"... and maybe one or two other things. But so far there hasn't been any real perfect Sandbox game. True Crime (both of them) had very little to do... And I even hear that GTA LCS has no real great depth to it...
Sandbox games have grown so much that, when people throw these games that are just-barely half-baked, you really never want to touch them. And most sandbox-style games would be better as level-based games, not free-roam. Sandbox games should have an almost never-ending-supply of things, and when you can just wander around doing nothing, that's what really makes me yawn.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jun 9, 2006 18:45:08 GMT -5
I would say that Oblivion is a damned fine sandbox game, because it actually feels like the world is worth exploring. And I'm usually not much for nonlinear RPGs either.
|
|
|
Post by Malroth on Jun 9, 2006 19:22:03 GMT -5
Add another one to sports. I have no friggin clue how to play football games, and I usually just Hail Mary with the Bears until I get bored.
|
|
|
Post by YourAverageJoe on Jun 9, 2006 20:21:29 GMT -5
Fun fact: I used to play FIFA '95 when I was young, played as the opposite team and made them commit suicide.
|
|
|
Post by megamoronx on Jun 9, 2006 21:23:14 GMT -5
I agree with James about the RPG thing.
There was a time when I could play any story heavy Square RPG. I worshipped Square's SNES games. I can't even begin to think of how many dozens of hours I dropped into Secret of Mana, I was absolutely engrossed in the game's style, gameplay and storyline.
Fast forward now, over 10 years later. I get the GC Fire Emblem game for Christmas. I'm excited because the last turn based strategy RPG I had owned was Shining Force II. I'm really pumped. I try to enjoy the game but there's just too much story. The dialogue is long and boring. I feel like I've heard the story and the themes a million times in other RPGs. I lost interest.
It's been that way with most of the RPGs I've played since Grandia II. It's just the SAME OLD SHIT but just much more drawn out and I hate it. Is it because I've outgrown RPGs? Or is it because they're worse? I played the death out of FFIV Advance last winter, but that could be a nostalgia thing. I only got about halfway through FFX before losing interest. I stopped playing FF IX at the final dungeon just because I didn't give a shit anymore.
I used to love jRPGs. What happened?
|
|
|
Post by Neo Rasa on Jun 9, 2006 21:33:57 GMT -5
I tend to hate third person adventure games as well as first person shooters. Many of my favorite games EVER are first person, but I think "FPS" is the dumbest "genre" that's ever existed.
Japanese RPGs really turned me off for a while too until Atlus became an unstoppable awesome game localization juggernaut a couple of years ago.
|
|
|
Post by jameseightbitstar on Jun 9, 2006 23:07:36 GMT -5
Is it because I've outgrown RPGs? Or is it because they're worse? I played the death out of FFIV Advance last winter, but that could be a nostalgia thing. On that note, I honestly don't believe that nostalgia can exist for video games. For cartoons and other mediums not requiring active participation maybe, but as I once said [referring to Super Mario Bros]: "I can't stop to draw tears longing for my childhood when I'm busy trying to avoid the jumping fish of doom!" Perhaps the problem you have with RPGs is the same as what I have. You can read my story here. In my mind, there is clearly an issue of today's RPGs being inferior. If you look at RPGs over the decades, you'll notice there's been a gradual trend towards removing freedom and turning them basically into interactive books. Even the grand-daddy of RPGs, Dungeons & Dragons, has been afflicted by this (as the people at this forum can tell you). Look at Dragon Warrior, for example... the quest isn't handed to you nor is your hand held, so it feels more like you're on an epic quest, making your own decisions. Of course, today's gamers are pussies, so they complain that "you can't beat it without a walkthru" (even though that's exactly what I did) and that it "takes too long to level up" (obviously these guys are trying to pound away all the enemies and forgetting about their magic spells--Sleep and Stopspell do a damn good job of evening the odds, whereas in most of today's games those spells are useless). Man, I wonder how these people would handle something like Daggerfall...
|
|
|
Post by Malroth on Jun 10, 2006 0:25:05 GMT -5
I think the main problem with RPGs is that, like Mega said, its the same thing over and over again. Save the princess, world, or whatever the hell else is in danger for the 60th time.
That's why I liked Megaten Nocturne so much. Save the world? Too late, its already been destroyed. It gave you the option to be the villian, or choose a different path that may seem good to you, but evil to others. Either that, or you could go the stereotypical hero route and restore the old world.
What worries me is that its only a matter of time before games like Megaten become as commonplace as the "save the world" model. I think what it really burns down to these days is how WELL the story is told, rather than how unique the premise is.
|
|
|
Post by jameseightbitstar on Jun 10, 2006 1:29:24 GMT -5
What worries me is that its only a matter of time before games like Megaten become as commonplace as the "save the world" model. I think what it really burns down to these days is how WELL the story is told, rather than how unique the premise is. That too, but what we really need is a return to the more open-ended styles of RPGs seen in the NES and early PC days, where the player has to make his own decisions about what to do and where to go instead of always having his hand held. Take Ultima V. It's got a run-of-the-mill plot--Lord British has disappeared, a new tyrant has taken his place, and the Avatar has to set things right (though this being Ultima, it's a little more complicated and there's actually some shades of grey), and of course there's a resistance movement... but what makes it fun is that it's totally up to the player as to how best go about solving the game. Of course there are some things you absolutely NEED to do before doing other things, but a lot of it is pretty much up to the player to decide, or even discover. Case in point: There's millions of things that'll point out how to get into the resistance, you're not just automatically put in it like in FF6. In fact, I didn't even know where to start looking until I, entirely on a whim, decided to ask a tavernkeeper about it. And of course, you find various rumors and leads you can follow up on that may or may not ultimately help your quest. This is not only what we need, this is also role-playing by definition.
|
|