Recent Posts

[03:15] <Snarboo> Honestly I'd like to see game where tips are spoken to you by an NPC
[03:15] <Snarboo> "Did you know you can jump by pressing the A button?"
[03:15] <Snarboo> Geth are poor spellers
[03:15] <turnip> ahhaha
[03:15] <turnip> thats in a game snarboo
[03:15] <Chucat> "Snake open the door using the action button."
[03:15] <@kitten> snarboo try playing mgs lol
[03:15] <turnip> its called
[03:16] <turnip> metal gear solid

I've played copious amounts of GTA3 with a friend, finished Vice City on my own, watched a friend play San Andreas for too long, played through GTA4, did the majority of what there was to do in Crackdown and beat Prototype (and also tried a pretty wide variety of demos). In addition to that, I didn't specifically criticize either of those games, I merely expressed my lack of interest with the genre. When I played Prototype, I did not make it an agenda to hate on it as often as possible like you have with Mass Effect 2, as I went in already fairly confident I was going to dislike it (and holy hell did I hate it).



But I have played through all of Zelda, Zelda II, Link's Awakening, A Link to the Past, bought Ocarina and tried to play it and got more than halfway through Twilight Princess and through a few dungeons in my copy of Phantom Hourglass. And that's just experience with the particular series, there are probably at least a dozen other games /like/ Zelda I've played.



There is an extremely keen difference between what we've been doing. You've been criticizing a genre you don't like that you've barely experienced. When I criticize genres or games, I try to make sure I know, from personal experience, what I'm talking about. It's why my criticisms can be so scathing. Despite my relatively equal disinterest in WRPGs, jRPGs and SRPGs, you'll see me criticize jRPGs most frequently and with the most depth because I have spent the most time learning about them. The key issue is not that I don't think you're devoid of a right to criticize, it's that I think your criticisms are ridiculous and very inappropriate given your minimal experience and admitted dislike of "realistic gunplay."You can find the game boring, dull, bland, mediocre or even awful, that's fine, but if you start getting in-depth with criticism like you have, please have some sort of reference.

It is weird how people immediately assume people being critical are trying to be objective, but people being positive are given the benefit of the doubt and considered subjective much more often. If I say that a game has excellent gameplay, I have a higher chance of someone assuming I'm being subjective. If I say a game has atrocious gameplay, I have a higher chance of someone assuming I'm attempting to be objective. I am being no more objective in here than I am in my recent list of my personal favorite games. More often than not, someone regarding something as "good" is considered the more reasonable person than someone who considers it "bad."

Anyway, criticism does not equal objectivity. Juxtaposing and debating tastes is an integral part of identity and culture, blah blah blah. I mostly use the forum as a platform for debate and gathering information.

Both Mass Effect games are primarily not cover shooters, their focus lies far more importantly on other elements. That makes zero games focused on cover shooting that you've beaten, and only one you own and probably got for free... And didn't even play on co-op (or any difficulty above the lowest), the way the game was intended to be played. You've probably spent a combined total of less than 5 hours on those demos, maybe exceeding that given how long you could have played the beta (of a game intended primarily for its campaign, not for its multiplayer, which plays very differently).

You've played enough to say the genre isn't your thing, I'm not contesting that, but your criticism reaches way beyond that. Things like calling it a "bargain bin" cover shooter when your experience with the genre is extremely narrow and limited is just ridiculous. You even admit to not liking realistic gunplay. At the end of the day, most of your complaints are just "this isn't my type of game," but you keep trying to take it further, as if you've got some sort of profound insight as to why it's bad that the rest of us (the overwhelming majority on the site) don't.

Dude, just because you like the Go and the 3DS isn't going to make us walk on eggshells for you lol

You've barely played Gears of War, though, making the only cover shooters you've completed games that are considerably supplemented by not shooter stuff. You also claim Mass Effect 2 is "bargain bin" cover shooter stuff when you're hardly experienced with or even interested in the genre.



I find almost no appeal in any sandbox game I play because there is zero direction and no level design (among a litany of other problems, most of them spawning from those two biggies). I get bored absurdly quickly and wonder why I'm not playing G-Mod if I just want to "fuck around."



Yeah, but it's some of the best work the Japanese has put into the genre (as mediocre as it is, that's really disappointing and damning to say). It's problem isn't with its style (I'm not docking it points for trying), it is, as you said, with the game's mechanics. Which are awful. Sliding around LOOKS cool, but it has to be limited, otherwise it's going to be all you're doing to avoid taking hits. It would require enemies to fire projectiles at speeds you can narrowly avoid while sliding to maintain any level of excitement, which would require a fundamental rehaul of the entire game. "Super fast movement" just doesn't work in a shooter, unless the attacks are slow projectiles or the combat is melee-based (in which case it's no longer even a shooter).

When projectiles move so quickly you can't avoid them or enemies use hitscan, you're fundamentally going to require cover to avoid their shots. That's just how it works. You have less of a problem with these games' execution and much more a problem with their premise, in general - Which is shooting people with things that resemble what a gun might actually do. Up the difficulty in any shooter with hitscan/fast projectiles and you're ultimately going to have to spend time at least staying behind walls and then popping out - ducking behind cover was a natural progression meant to make games more variable. If you've ever played Halo on legendary, solo, you'll know what I'm talking about.

You demand of these games something the genre cannot do without becoming a different genre entirely or thematically changing the game. Bullets move too quickly to step out of the way of. There are a lot of enemies. You're going to have to have something obstructing the bullets to survive, or the game is going to have to be a different game (slow/removing projectiles fundamentally changes everything about how it is played). I'll definitely agree Mass Effect 2 could have had a few bigger enemies with slow projectiles that you're meant to fight out in the open, but from what I gather, you wouldn't be satisfied unless the entire game were like that.



The challenge is more or less supposed to be integral to the "fun" part. Knowing when to charge out of cover and blow someone's head apart, having the skill to be able to pull it, etc. That's when the game becomes satisfying!



Class balance was really unfair on the Vanguard, they just get torn apart on higher difficulties. Going through Insanity with a Vanguard and witnessing how absurdly poor the balancing was for the class was a massive disappointment. I'm playing through Hardcore with a soldier, right now, and only die when I do something stupid - it's much more fair, and I'm having way more fun.

I'll concede Mass Effect 2 sticks me to cover more than I like in a shooter, but even on this high difficulty I am very frequently running out of cover, whipping into slow-mo and then lighting a few heads up. I often run up to enemies to melee them and finish them off. I also run out of cover and across the screen to another piece far away, on the way blasting like 3 guys in the head with rounds that will stun them and maybe having a teammate finish them off with an ability like concussive shot or incinerate.

Playing like a turtle isn't only not fun to do, it's not what the game wants you to do. Pausing behind cover is more for catching your breath. Rather than strafing to dodge projectiles like in ye olde day day, things have changed so that you're now timing when to come in and out, occasionally pausing just to grasp the situation.



MGS is DEFINITELY much, much more sluggish. I don't know when the last time you played it was, but MGS is an infinitely more sluggish and mechanical game.



I played and initially hated the demo for Uncharted, using similar logic to defame the series. A friend gave me his old copy for free months later, and I was completely enamoured with the game after a couple hours with it. I know it's a huge leap of faith to take to buy the game without any insurance it will be something you'd enjoy, but as a big fan of the genre I can confidently say it has the best cover shooting out of any game out there.

But, you outright say you hate aiming (putting a cursor on a head), so maybe you just don't like guns. If that's the case, why do you even care about these games enough to criticize them? I mean, I could dumb down sword-fighting in games to "get next to the enemy and then press the trigger," something even more rudimentary sounding that placing the cursor over their head, but that wouldn't validate my criticism were I to say that Demon's Souls is mediocre (which, for the record, I wouldn't).



I agree this is a significant flaw with the game, but with the right teammates and playing as a soldier, there's still a lot of exercise room for skill. It's a shame that things like singularity, pull and throw all become useless, though, and I definitely fault the game for that, too.



If you're not a fan of the basic draw, why criticize it without really even getting to know it?

Your argument isn't that Mass Effect is a bad shooter. It isn't even an argument. It's more like you're just personally complaining it's not a different type of game. You're upset all the elements of the story you like are attached to a cover shooter rather than something else. If you don't like it, that's fine, you just don't need to maintain this hate campaign against it for that.

4-6 are actually much more forgiving than 1-3, by a long shot (especially 5 and 6). 9 was supposed to be meant to be more like 2, but all the death traps definitely stop it from really resembling the game very well (I think they forgot how to make classic Mega Man over the years). 9 is good fun, but it's an overall disappointment. Definitely don't get 10, it's horrible.

I really wouldn't call Fable a WRPG, it's much, much more like a typical adventure game with Sims elements implemented all over (which explains its popularity with more casual female gamers, as we all know The Sims is a huge hit with them).



I've given a shot to quite a few older arcade games and played the 2600 at a few friends places several times, but there's just never been any spark of interest. All of the games seem extraordinarily rudimentary, and I've never been a big fan of games that don't end where you just rack score up. It could have to do with never being exposed to it as a child, but, for the most part, my interest in most of those older games is a novelty.



Never played Kenseiden, but it looks a lot like Ninja Spirit, which is a favorite of mine - that said, I doubt I would like it more than Ninja Spirit, which didn't make it on this list. I've also given the Wonder Boy series a shot on the Genesis and wasn't very impressed. The SMS games I've played are admittedly extremely limited - Fantasy Zone, R-Type and Golden Axe Warrior - and the only I've invested any significant time in was R-Type (finished it on one credit, great port).



Like with pre-NES games, it's a combination of finding them weaker and a bit of a lack of exposure to them during earlier years. I played computer games on floppy with my father when I was younger, but I just never had a very big interest in them. I don't like old computer adventure games because they're insanely frustrating in how trial and error they are, I don't like old WRPGs because they feel absurdly archaic (except Fallout 1/2, which I did enjoy, but didn't make it on the list) and I don't usually care for RTS's or strategy games, which end up being too little substance and too much micromanagement for me (there was a phase where I was big into Red Alert II and C&C: Tiberium Sun, though).