Gaming Confessions & Blasphemy

The Uncharted games are boring. Dull gameplay. B-movie writing.

Dark Souls is the best game of the millennium.

Bastion is just okay.

Hard, punishing games "respect my time" more than hand-holding games I can complete in five hours while drunk and texting my friends.

Redwing: FF Tactics does not, in fact, take place in the same world as FFTA2. Mystery solved!

And FFTA1 is my favorite thus far. Only one I've finished, to be fair.

ccesarano wrote:
IHateDRM wrote:

Yasumi matsuno is a better writer then George R. R. Martin could ever hope to be.
Matsuno tells the exact type of story in Final Fantasy Tactics that Martin has been trying to tell in his song of ice and fire series in a game that would take you half of the time to play that it took me to get trough the first four books of a song ice and fire, And he did it without chopping heads of every five minutes and raping or threatening to rape half the female cast in an attempt to demonstrate how terrible life was for people of that era, when really George R. R. Martin just couldn't be bothered to come up with better character motivation. And on the rare occasion that Matsuno does use those tropes it and the characters reactions to it feels justified instead of cheap and unearned.

Oddly enough, I often try to refer to Final Fantasy Tactics as the Game of Thrones of video games as the best comparison I can make. The fact is the only real similarities are the politics and various characters. But I agree, Final Fantasy Tactics could possibly be my favorite story made in a video game because it has multiple themes and just feels like it is actually mature. Not pretending to be mature, but full blown "this is a story for grown ups about grown up things happening". Death carries meaning, the characters are given real motivation, and there's just so much going on.

The only real weakness is that a lot of this can easily be lost without looking over all the background info text.

In terms of books, though, I typically compare Martin more to Tad Williams. After all, Martin was inspired to write "adult fantasy" after reading Williams' Memory, Sorrow and Thorn series, the book series that showed him fantasy could be more than the adolescent chasing after Tolkien.

While I like A Song of Ice and Fire, I do prefer Memory, Sorrow and Thorn and Final Fantasy Tactics in terms of the story told. That said, we're still comparing it to an incomplete work.

Actually my biggest problem with a song of ice and fire is the fact that it isn't complete, its been sixteen years since he started that series and he still hasn't finished it, whereas Matsuno has finished writing four games, two of which are arguably the best in terms of narrative in the medium (Final Fantasy Tactics and Vagrant story though I've never manged to finish the latter I'm sad to say), one of them had the potential to have the same kind of impact Bioshock had in terms of quality narrative in gaming had he not been removed from the project, for reasons that if true are perfectly valid (Final Fantasy XII), and mad world which I hear is OK. However I should also say that Final Fantasy Tactics had the same role in my life that Final fantasy IV had in yours so take my opinions on the matter with a grain of salt.
2
And to you're point Redwing FFT is both of those things to some degree and its also something of a slow burn so don't feel bad for not enjoying it, and the DS game is a lot of fun even the plot and charicters are stupid to the point of almost being insulting. Oh and if you ever compare FFT to FFVII again I'm afraid I'll be forced to beat some sense into you, but on the plus side if we rent the boxing arena after KingGorilla's epic cage fight with all of south Korea we might be able to get a discount.;)

EDIT: Fedaykin98 Technically I hear its supposed to but the amount of retconning that squreEnix would have to do is so absurd that they may as well not. Also I know a lot of people hate FFTA1 but I still have fond memories of it, I will never go back to it because of the law system but still its good for what it was at the time.

I've never owned a Nintendo anything and I don't want to.
Never played a Zelda, or a Mario, and I have no idea what an Ocarina is. I'm interested in all sorts of games across different genres, on console and PC, but for some reason when I hear about an interesting game, then find out it's for a Nintendo system I just put it out of mind. It's not a fanboy thing, but maybe some sort of mental block.

IHateDRM wrote:

I think people are to hard on writing in video games.

Your typo made me read this as

I think people are [meant] to hard-on writing in video games.

Like hard-on is a verb. I don't know why.

Chairman_Mao wrote:
IHateDRM wrote:

I think people are to hard on writing in video games.

Your typo made me read this as

I think people are [meant] to hard-on writing in video games.

Like hard-on is a verb. I don't know why.

I always forget that to and too are different words, one of those weird grammar hangups I've never been able to get rid of.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

Redwing: FF Tactics does not, in fact, take place in the same world as FFTA2. Mystery solved!

And FFTA1 is my favorite thus far. Only one I've finished, to be fair.

They're both Ivalice right? But one of them is a fake Ivalice that only exists inside a book or something? That does explain the tonal difference I suppose. I guess I like storybook Ivalice better.

I must say though, Ivalice is easily one of the best world names about. I-VA-LICE. Ivalice! It rolls off the tongue, I can see why they set so many games there.

I buy games spontaneously because I think I will like them based on community reaction, but I do not stop to think about if I will truly LIKE the game at all.

My steam library is littered with games that I have never even installed or installed, played for an hour,and quit playing.

ianunderhill wrote:
ibdoomed wrote:

I hate achievements. I'm not so desperate for attention that I need to be congratulated for pressing start.

I hate achievements that are as pointless as you describe. I can see value in actual specific challenge-based achievements - do thing X Y times in Z minutes and so on. Simple completion checkpoints and the like, though, are worthless.

I can't remember the game, but I have a very specific memory of getting an achievement, essentially for turning the game on.

Kane & Lynch 2 is a great game.

It merges story, presentation and gameplay perfectly. The glitchy youtube aesthetic, industrial noise, and sloppy gunplay is a match perfect for its story of two aging psychopaths careening from bad decision to worse decision, spinning completely out of control. It's damn close to being a masterpiece.

There are no scary video games (except for SimAnt, and for the self-existential crises eventually inspired by marathon sessions of The Sims).

Blizzard was never the gaming-messiah-with-the-interests-of-the-players-at-its-heart that everyone seems to think it was.

FIFA hasn't looked like proper soccer for a very long time.

Your insistence that all the choices you make throughout the game be represented at the end of a long, complex fantasy series will only result in narratives that are a.) incoherent b.) overly simplistic or c.) all of the above.*

Tower defense games are as exciting, engaging and stimulating as long conversations with your crazy uncle about comprehensive tax reform.

Orcs Must Die is not a tower defense game.

Your quirky, dark indy platformer whose protagonist is a lost child has BEEN f*ckING DONE ALREADY!!! In fact, we are all full up on quirky, dark indy platformers. We know you're not making them because of "artistic sensibilities" We know they're easy to make and that you have questionable coding skills. You're not fooling anyone. Certainly not anyone who can write any kind of AI subroutines.

Bioshock Infinite? Psssh. Wake me up when we're talking about Freedom Force Infinite.

If you watch more than five minutes of a Let's Play video, Youtube should notify your boss about your Internet use at work.

I can't see anything redeeming in the slightest about professional gaming.

If I had wanted to play a multi-player game, I would have bought one. You, game developer, are forced to deal with video game people all the damn time. You know what they're like. I don't understand why you want me to deal with them too. Is it revenge? Some kind of attempt to turn the eye of the world inward? I have a multi-player game I play with my friends--it's called drinking beer and talking. I have a multi-player game I play with my girlfriend--it's called loud, passionate f*cking until the neighbors bang on the walls. I have a multi-player game I play with my grandparents--it's called my grandparents are dead you bastards. DEEEEAAAAAD!!!

*Yeah, that game isn't as good as you think it is. The only reason you really like that game was because Sarah had just left, and your career had dead-ended and you were beginning to realize that you had drifted away from a lot of your old friends and found yourself alone in a strange city. You filled that void with video games, that game in particular. It was an escape, an escape that you justifiably needed at the time. An escape that was completely justifiable. But it was an escape. And when you play that game today, all those plot holes, all that terrible dialogue, all that bad characterization, it's all still covered up by a sense of refuge. A sense that here you are safe, here you are in control of your destiny. Whenever you defend that game on online forums, you're not really fighting for the author's subtle use of thematic components, or subversion of cultural norms or whatever other dreck you picked up from your friend the English major. No, you were fighting against the slow creep of the outside world, a world that wasn't cold, or cruel or hostile, just indifferent.

Splinter Cell is a better stealth franchise than Metal Gear Solid.

Zack and Wiki is still the best Wii game.

kazooka wrote:

Your insistence that all the choices you make throughout the game be represented at the end of a long, complex fantasy series will only result in narratives that are a.) incoherent b.) overly simplistic or c.) all of the above.*

I can agree with this. Not everything is significant. If I have 4 rather than 3 coffees today it probably won't affect diddly-squat, however with games there is a belief that if something is coded in, it's significant. See D2 chat gem, etc, or if there is something that appears insignificant, people will try to do it repeatedly until something happens after X times. I'm not saying you need to go to a world where nothing is connected, but a nice middle-ground.

I suppose meaningful actions and meaningful consequences are needed.

@Blondish83,

Thank you for raising the issue of 'load screen paralysis', I'm a sufferer too... but for a different reason.

Online walkthroughs and guides are a blight on modern gaming. They effectively replace the joys of unexpected discovery with the dread that comes of fore-knowledge.

Gameplay systems have become increasingly complicated, just as in-pack user manuals have disappeared and in-game tutorials have become perfunctory at best. The result is that many games such as Demons/Dark Souls (both of which I love, by the way) are all but unplayable without recourse to YouTube, a walkthrough or a friendly forum at one time or another.

The effect on me has been that I often find myself unable to load up a game once I know that I have to backtrack through five levels to find Sword X or spend three hours grinding Potion Y or face an agonising save-crawl through Dungeon Z. There were nights when I literally stared at the Dark Souls case for half an hour, trying to find the strength to remove the disk and place it in the tray of the console.

What I would love - but what I know won't happen - is to see the return of epic paper manuals of yore that one knew contained if not the answer, but at least a strong hint about what to do when one got stuck in particular places.

Instead, at the moment, if you blink and miss it in the tutorial then there's pretty much no option but to go online.

Finally, Madden was never better than Madden 96 on the MegaDrive/Genesis. So much fun with only the aid of three buttons and a D-pad. Generally speaking more complicated controls have only made modern games worse than their forebears.

I'd rather have a dodgy story that serves great game play than dodgy game play that serves a great story.

I don't want to do complex math to work out the best upgrade for a character or to have to visit the website of some guy who's done the complex math for me.

Loot games often have weak, repetitive game play.

I've flirted with buying games day one and now I'm going back to buying them weeks or months after release. The joy at having a game day one was always overshadowed by the feeling of having spent too much on the game and a vaguely unsettling notion that I'd been manipulated into buying it with offers of cheap DLC trinkets. Buying games later means I get them cheaper (you often get the preorder trinkets anyway if you buy new) and the pressure is off in terms of the game being worth the price of admission. I'm also generally well aware of a games short comings by then and can take them in my stride.

Lo-Fi graphics aren't automatically good. They don't automatically have character, charm or any other appeal. You know what you call crap graphics in the 8/16bit era? Crap graphics.

Now, if you make the style work for you, then great, just as other developers can make a realistic style work for them.

I'm done with mouse and keyboard as a way to play games.

KingGorilla wrote:

I will fight to the death defending that Starcraft is not only a bad strategy game, but is a very bad poorly balanced mess.

Why would you be so passionate about defending a position that will strike people as being founded in ignorance? There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but deciding you'll never change your mind even before you know what the counter argument is, that's silly.

Hit percentages on XCOM f*ck up what could be a tremendous tactics game.

As it stands, they force you to turtle up. The rewards for taking cover and using poor shots seriously outweigh moving into more dangerous positions in search for a flank (not to mention the times you activate another alien group doing so). Because 88% are not 100%, sometimes you'll miss and get one-hit killed the next turn. Why risk veteran soldiers to expendable enemies? Digging in and taking crap-shots will achieve the same result most of the times.

As such, the game suffers

kyrieee wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I will fight to the death defending that Starcraft is not only a bad strategy game, but is a very bad poorly balanced mess.

Why would you be so passionate about defending a position that will strike people as being founded in ignorance? There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but deciding you'll never change your mind even before you know what the counter argument is, that's silly.

SC is actually an economics and logistics game first, not balanced for casual players. I think I agree.

Sometimes I think wrong, though.

10 pages in and not ONE confession regarding the Postal series. Wow, they must be that bad.

brouhaha wrote:

10 pages in and not ONE confession regarding the Postal series. Wow, they must be that bad.

I've played through Postal2, it's not that bad. But then I don't find a lot of the things that get people up-in-arms about that offensive, for example I rolled my eyes a lot when the Batman Arkham City thread turned all righteous over the non-progressive sexual attitudes of the thugs in that game and other issues.

kazooka wrote:

I have a multi-player game I play with my grandparents--it's called my grandparents are dead you bastards. DEEEEAAAAAD!!!

I just spit out tea on my keyboard at work from this line. Thanks, but f*ck you

detroit20 wrote:

Online walkthroughs and guides are a blight on modern gaming. They effectively replace the joys of unexpected discovery with the dread that comes of fore-knowledge.

I would not be a gamer if online walkthroughs and guides did not exist. I don't like getting lost. I don't like being stuck on the same puzzle for hours. I don't like having to work out crafting recipes for myself. Guides let me skip the parts of the game that aren't fun for me and get to the parts that are fun faster.

And yes, I like tackling an overly-complex game with guide and maps in hand. It's fun to me!

What's the deal with Superbrothers? Seriously, I do not understand.

I tear up at everything. EVERYTHING. Kingdom Hearts? Waterworks. Zelda? You bet. Mario? Well, they just look so happy to win the game!

I'll restart a game that doesn't go perfectly. Just did it with Sticker Star.

Fairy Tale Fights was a gem of a game that would not have been nearly as savaged in reviews if it wasn't from a tiny publisher. It's got issues but if you've got a 360 or PS3 and especially if you have 3 friends to co-op it with, get it cheap somewhere. It's awesome.

I HATE racing games. - if it's a race involving anything even snowboards . The only exception is if you can people on the way like the Original death track but I still don't like racing games of any kind.

I dislike Heroes of Might and Magic games. This doesn't stop me from trying to play them because I like turn based games.

When I was under the age of 16 I wasn't aware video games can be bought - I was living in Israel at the time .

Not finishing a game doesn't bother me - I'm mainly play games for the fun ride.

I think game consoles are only good for rhythm games I wasn't interested in a console until the Wii came out.

I don't seem to like any Elder scroll games - I try them and end up burning my cash.

I think all FPS games are the same and avoid playing them - the only FPS games I may play are in the BF series especially because of the coop elements. All other FPSes practically don't exist in my reality .

I sometimes buy games from a genre I like because they exist.

I still regret buying MOO3 for full price.

If the game is functional I don't care about graphics.

Games and menus that waste my time need to die in a fire.
If I'm spending as much time or more in a menu than the game itself, with long transitions, enforced pauses while the UI or cinematic designer jerks themselves off, no way to skip, then your game sucks. This kind of thing shows you hate your customer.

I can't stand slavery in games
I've killed everyone in Paradise Falls multiple times. I'm waging war against the Legion. It's one thing to read in flavor text that some race in Endless Space has slaves. It's another thing to see kids with explosive collars around their necks. I'll play a villain if I want. But I won't endorse any kind of slavery. I even tried in Fallout 3. I brought the little girl out and everything. As the slaver was about to put the collar on she said it was a pretty necklace. I clipped her in the head with my Chinese assault rifle. Then went to a save prior to taking that mission and killed every slaver I could find for an hour. It just made my skin crawl.

Rubb Ed wrote:

4x games suck balls
Yeah, I said it. Dwarf Fortress? Sucks. Hard.

IMAGE(http://rps.net/QS/Images/Smilies/emot-raise.gif) I've never ever heard anyone call Dwarf Fortress a 4X game.

Borderlands is not very fun and is not a very good multiplayer game!

Crockpot wrote:

Borderlands is not very fun and is not a very good multiplayer game!

Truth.

Any game in which players are encouraged to hold up the flow by spending five minutes in inventory after every battle is not a good multiplayer game.