Games you hate that everybody raves about

Post Reply New Topic

Combat is easy as hell in that game for one reason: Most RPG fans (who often arent exactly big on action games) cant dodge a damn thing to save their lives. It's an RPG using bullet-hell type combat, with bullet-hell being a genre that's... ridiculously far from what RPGs are. That developer was well aware of these things (the game never would have taken off if he hadnt been). Even the game's absolute hardest bosses (Omega Flowey, Asriel, and Sans) would be considered pretty darn easy if actually placed into a game in that genre. The difficulty is VERY dumbed down, definitely.

If you watch the average RPG fan play that game, they smack into EVERYTHING. It's embarrassing to see. I always want to do many facepalms and facedesks. If you watch them try an ACTUAL bullet hell game, well... the experience is very short. Humorous, but short.

That being said.... in RPGs, the combat (and everything else) is USUALLY insultingly easy. At least it is with JRPGs, as that's been my experience with that entire genre. Particularly games made by Square... but that's a whole other rant. Games that focus heavily on story though tend NOT to focus on difficulty... God forbid the player not be skilled enough to see the end of the all-important story, after all. That could lead to an angry consumer!


Bah, I'll stop before this turns into too much of me rambling about the lack of game difficulty these days. Again.

Its KINGDOM HEARTS, not Kingdom OF Hearts. Which is the second best game ever made.

-I love Pokemon, but gen 4 SUCKED.

-Halo, Call of duty, Grand Theft Auto, and stuff like that. I hate bloody and violent games. (And anime for that matter)

-Every Playstation. I said I liked KH, but I like the story. I watch the movies made out of cutscenes on youtube and play the DS games when they come out. Haha I'm a huge SquareSoft fangirl, and I wish they stayed with Nintendo. N64 KH would have been a thing of beauty.

-First Wii. I played Brawl at my friend's house, and it was fun, but I bet thats the only one that doesnt reqire arm flailing. I love nintendo, but that console sucked.

-Xbox 360. I have one, but I only use it to play minecraft on, but all its got is BLOODY GAMES!! !

Halo
Call of Duty
Anything sports

I never finished Last of US. It had good graphics and was super cinematic, but playing the game got really boring. I like more interesting environments and monsters. Zombies are boring. I got really sick of all the stealth stuff as well. It just got old really fast. The last story-driven FPS game I really liked was the original Half-Life. It had a lot more variety of game play plus really creepy monsters.

Counter strike: Global Offensive

I really find it very boring, unoriginal and poorly made, i seriously don't see what the fuss is about.

COD

same as the previous one, only better made, but it is copy and pasted from the previous one in the cod series.

Xenoblade chronicles series:
recycled environments, horribly boring and slow combat, unoriginal characters with poor animation and voice acting, a story thats all over the place with no actual point to it....why is this popular again?

Everything that's "Free to Play" but has microtransactions. I like knowing up front how much something is going to cost me. I also find them highly dishonest and manipulative. This part fascinates me at the same time though.

I think that some games do it better than others. Compare Team Fortress 2 to Battlefield Heroes. The latter no longer exists, but I played both.

Some will always reply "but if you don't wanna pay a cent, you don't have to". But many such games are carefully engineered to eventually become un-fun until you pay. Usually by turning grindfest where there is little to no progression, or by making it harder to play with people you know. Battlefield heroes did this, by giving you a queue to wait out if you wanted to join a server a friend was playing in. You could pay for a month of no queues, or something.

I think the psychological tricks they employ are fascinating. Like exploiting the sunk cost fallacy, and how they intentionally obfuscate what something will cost by using various types of in-game currencies that have an exchange rate with actual money.

Or how you're given perfectly useless and worthless (on the in-game market) items like a crate, which can only be turned into something useful (but randomized, adding a gambling element) after buying a "key" to open them. The key might as well come with its own free crate; crates can usually be obtained for free from others if you ask them, and they go for 2 cents on the in-game market. Because 2 cents is the lowest amount possible. This also means you can't dump them for free on the market just to be rid of them. They'll stay there, reminding you of the potentially very valuable item inside of them, as if it's already in your possession but you just need a way to open the box.

CS: GO feels more like a poor man's (rich man's? those weapon skins are pretty expensive) Call of Duty rather than a proper Counter Strike game. The worst part about it is how they've completely f****d with the weapon balance. 1.6 is a better game, but even then it's kind of overrated. I'd almost rather play the original CoD: Black Ops, but no one plays that anymore. THAT was a military shooter I actually LIKED. The Rainbow Six: Vegas games are pretty good too.

TF2 is a fine enough game at its core, but the F2P update kind of ruined it. The only good thing about F2P is that new players tend to be good cannon fodder.

Ark: Survival Evolved. This is as much about unoptimised early access titles in general, but I can't see why people would want to play a game with such terrible performance. I'd much rather wait until it's finished and look into it then. I don't have any problem with early access titles in general, but IMO they have to be worth the purchase at the time I purchase it. I don't want to buy a thing with the promise that someday it might be worth the asking price. This game runs horribly, something like 20FPS on my high end computer and the only way to get reasonable performance is to run it at 720p and at low settings. The trailers are a load of bull, I am sure they are all non-realtime prerendered because the only way I could get the game running like that would be to make it a slideshow.

First person shooters. I used to like some of them, but i cannot understand why CS is turning into an actual sport or why people get paid to play it. At least Starcraft is an intellectual challenge that requires dynamic thinking.

And sport games... i played a few management games on the C64, but pure sports games i cannot begin to understand why they are so popular.

^ Playing Counter Strike effectively requires tactics and teamwork. Unfortunately, you aren't likely to see either of those things playing online with randoms. Of course, I think the whole e-sports scene is cancerous, and it's ruined a good number of games that are otherwise fun to play.

Has there been a bad GTA release ever? I love GTA III, IV, V and Vice City and San Andress but I'll admit that Vice City Stories on the PSP sucked bad but mostly cause of the technical limitations of the PSP. Probably was good on PS2.

GTA is dope up there with the legends of Skyrim, Mario, Zelda and Dragon Age.

Check your machine and drivers.

A game like that doesnt get as popular as it is if it genuinely runs like crap; the complaints would be unending. For most players, it does not run like that.

If you have a high-end PC and something is giving you a whole 20 FPS, then something is really off.

Update your drivers, turn off things like shadows (eats a ton of processing power, they do), and various other things. If you still cant get it, ask on the support forum, as there could be a glitch or incompatibility acting up; the devs cant fix it if they dont know it's there.


I buy a ton of early-access games myself, and honestly, I've yet to run into one that's genuinely badly optimized.

Minecraft? That's about as badly optimized as it gets, mainly because it's written in Java rather than an actual natively compiled language. For as little graphic detail it has, it sure cooks my Core i3 to the max and barely maintains 25 FPS. I've been trying out Minetest recently, which is an open-source Minecraft clone in C++, and it runs much better. I'm also writing my own Minecraft style game in C as a test of my abilities.

Cool thanks for mentioning Minetest, I like it but I can't say I like it more than Minecraft itself. I have never noticed a performance issue with Minecraft but then again I have a super computer that reminded me how awesome it is when I maxed out Doom 4 inside of a guest operating system and soared into a 100 frames per second. God I am in love, I can run anything with Arch Linux. I know this is off topic but wow my computer is awesome.

Back on topic, is there a minecraft clone written in C that actually uses Minecraft worlds and assets?

One exception doesnt disprove my point. It also isnt in early access, hasnt been for years.

I'm aware of Minecraft's issues, but most games simply arent written in Java.

Why in the world it ever was written in Java, I'll never know. Of course, with Minecraft it's possible to download a certain mod that makes it run dramatically better.

You speak of this and then not name it, why?

Source?

I am on Ubuntu at the moment though my Arch Linux rig is in my living room. Minecraft is installed on my Ubuntu rig right now. Basically does this mod work on Ubuntu or Arch Linux?