6 ms·

Then you should play uncharted and the last of us. This is peak AAA

by baby 5y ago

levesque 5y ago
Am I the only one that can't stand these games? They are so restrictive in their gameplay, so linear! It feels like watching an interactive movie more than playing a game.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  Hmm, I like them. The only times in TR that I do not like are the ones in which you have been completely kicking ass, and then inevitably get knocked out during a cutscene. And there’s quite a lot of those.
  - account42 5y ago
    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutsceneIncompetence https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutsceneIncompet...
- stevenwoo 5y ago
  I think I could not get past this after a couple of cinematic sequences in Uncharted 2. I just wanted to go to youtube and watch the cinematics stitched together uninterrupted. There was this point in game development where a big technical goal was to make the transition from cinematic to gameplay and back seamless. Now that it's a given in games I personally am not wowed anymore. Maybe for each of us the balance of challenging gameplay and rewarding cinematics/feel of accomplishment lies on this spectrum and these type of cinematic heavy games went too far on the spectrum towards interactive movie and just don't appeal to some of us. I am reminded of Dragon's Lair in arcades which was all quicktime events and was appalling to me for the 2-4x the price of other arcade games but other people I went with loved this type of challenge.
- ravishi 5y ago
  No, you're not the only one. I feel the same. OTOH, my friends who praise these games do so exactly because of that. To which their own.
- sascha_sl 5y ago
  I found it annoying in Uncharterd, but The Last of Us made it work somehow. They had just enough freedom and side content to have it be a game while also telling a compelling story that very much demands linearity.
- oneoff786 5y ago
  Linear games are better in my opinion. Linearity isn’t the problem though. Mario is linear and very fun. Tomb raider just sort of takes away you doing anything. You have no real agency for a lot of it. Just told what buttons to press indirectly and then you do it.
  - dayvid 5y ago
    They require different design skillsets or experiences. Elden Ring and Zelda are designed to be more non-linear and they work, but have completely different strengths and focuses vs. a linear approach. More based on creating an engrossing world and mechanics that allow you to play most sections out of order and create your own adventure vs. the control you have over story nuances when you make a linear title (e.g. Half-Life 2).
    - oneoff786 5y ago
      I feel elden ring really failed on the non linear aspect to be honest. It was frustratingly open ended up front, and then very linear at the end. I started the game, went to margit, found him too difficult, and then, with no particular alternatives, pretty much explored the entire map aimlessly, wishing for a clear direction on level appropriate content. It was hard to find the next thing to do. I didn’t want to skip through things with ashes or multiplayer. I didn’t want to farm. By the time I actually found this content there was nothing left to do besides warp to bosses and murder them, or look up the obtuse quest lines and warp around to complete those. A huge floor on character progression is finding the flask upgrades. But since they’re just lying around you just go from having none of them to quickly finding more than you need for 80% of the game. Like… dark souls would just be a worse game if every door and elevator was open from the beginning. It would just be confusing and frustrating if you started making “wrong” explorations. I would greatly have preferred elden ring with pretty much the entire open world cut and instead just a tour of the legacy dungeons. The open world just compounded on some of dark soul’s weaknesses. Like finding even more cool weapons that you can’t practically try without farming a ton of upgrades and changing your build.
      - 5y ago
- robonerd 5y ago
  You're not alone. These sort of games offer very little opportunity for players to creatively express themselves. This is more like watching a movie than playing a game.
  - mrtranscendence 5y ago
    It can be fun to express yourself, and some games get plenty of mileage out of offering people various opportunities to do just that. But sometimes you want to "play" a movie, and there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. I had a lot of fun with the Tomb Raider games despite the lack of creative expression -- the mechanics were fun, the story was dumb but entertaining, and there was a lot of spectacle to soak up. I don't need to engage every part of my brain all the time.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  When it's done well, I'm willing to embrace the cinematic nature of these games. Like a movie, the game is taking me on an adventure, but unlike a movie, I am responsible for whether my character succeeds or fails. If I don't jump at the right time, or deal with the attacker coming up behind me, my character will die and it will be my fault. Sure, I'm aware somewhere in the back of my mind that everything has been laid out for me, but in my favorite games, I'm able to suspend my disbelief. However, if I can't figure out where to go, or if the game is too hard and I die too frequently, or if the game is too easy and I don't feel a threat, or if the pacing gets bogged down by optional side quests and bullshit skill trees... it's very easy for any of these things to break the illusion. I'd actually hold up Portal 2 as the best example of a linear cinematic experience done right. The pacing is perfect, the difficulty is perfect, and there's no distracting side quests or experience points. Combined with the first person perspective and the mute protagonist, I really feel like I am Chell, trapped inside Aperture Science and talking to Wheatley.
  - garaetjjte 5y ago
    >my character will die and it will be my fault. About that... Tomb Raider 2013 has probably the most gruesome death animations I ever encountered in video game.
    - brimble 5y ago
      So much so that it felt like someone involved's... uh, particular interests were coming through in the game, in a way that was kinda off-putting.
    - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
      So, I actually suspect that this was intentional, and kind of clever. When games don't have a penalty for dying, players will sometimes fall back on a trial-and-error approach, where each individual attempt stops being meaningful. Some experiences, like Celeste, are designed around this type of gameplay loop, but it usually doesn't work well in a cinematic experience. The most common penalty for dying is lost progress, but this also doesn't work well for cinematic games, because the experience looses its magic once you know what is going to happen. So Tomb Raider takes a different approach. Checkpoints are frequent, but the death animations make you really, really not want to die! I'm very squeamish, so I always had to close my eyes when I died. But even the chance that I might see something was a good incentive!
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
Actually, I greatly prefer Tomb Raider 2013 to any of the Uncharted games I've tried (2, 3, and some of 4). TR2013 is laser focused on cinematic platforming and awe-inspiring set pieces, with much less conventional shooting. I've played through the game several times over the years, and I always come away thinking it's an underrated title. TR2013 doesn't push any boundaries, but it does execute a standard formula more effectively than anything else I've tried. I did not think the two sequels were anywhere near as good! (I haven't played The Last of Us though. I hear it's incredible, but I can't deal with the subject matter.)
- brimble 5y ago
  IMO 2 and 4 are easily the best Uncharted games. I wouldn't recommend 1 or 3 at all, despite 3 having a plot that should have really appealed to me. The first one mostly suffers from unrefined mechanics making it a slog, but they fixed that in 2. But, 2 and 4 are very different. 2 is a solid 3d action-platformer, while my favorite parts of 4 were when it basically just became a "walking simulator"-type game for long stretches, with most of the action and platforming just feeling tacked-on and superfluous. > (I haven't played The Last of Us though. I hear it's incredible, but I can't deal with the subject matter.) I should have loved it, but bounced off hard. The prologue had me, but a little while into the game proper I just wanted all the main characters to die, including the one you're really, really not supposed to want to die. They're all horrible and I didn't like or care about them a single bit, to the point that I wanted them to fail. The protagonist in particular, I had to root for him to fail because clearly this humanity-on-the-brink would be better off with one fewer self-interested mass-murders around making things even worse. That's... not a great way to motivate the player.
  - giobox 5y ago
    > I had to root for him to fail because clearly this humanity-on-the-brink would be better off with one fewer self-interested mass-murders around making things even worse. That's... not a great way to motivate the player. Isn't the question of the players morality vs the "enemies" core to the entire concept of the game though? I think the lesson the game is trying to teach is exactly that: by what standard is the protagonist actually any "better" than those he regards as enemies? By the end of the game, I think doubting the main character is hopefully exactly the point - he isn't a good person either. In a completely lawless world such as that inhabited by the characters, I think this makes sense to explore. Make the central character a likable, non-mass murdering fellow and this huge central theme of the game disappears - The Last of Us is harrowing by design, I'd argue, and its commitment to being harrowing is what sets it apart as a game in a sea of relatively emotionally shallow "AAA" titles of the same era.

Then you should play uncharted and the last of us. This is peak AAA

by baby 5y ago

Then you should play uncharted and the last of us. This is peak AAA

Am I the only one that can't stand these games? They are so restrictive in their gameplay, so linear! It feels like watching an interactive movie more than playing a game.

Aeolun 5y ago
Hmm, I like them. The only times in TR that I do not like are the ones in which you have been completely kicking ass, and then inevitably get knocked out during a cutscene. And there’s quite a lot of those.
- account42 5y ago
  https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutsceneIncompetence https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutsceneIncompet...
stevenwoo 5y ago
I think I could not get past this after a couple of cinematic sequences in Uncharted 2. I just wanted to go to youtube and watch the cinematics stitched together uninterrupted. There was this point in game development where a big technical goal was to make the transition from cinematic to gameplay and back seamless. Now that it's a given in games I personally am not wowed anymore. Maybe for each of us the balance of challenging gameplay and rewarding cinematics/feel of accomplishment lies on this spectrum and these type of cinematic heavy games went too far on the spectrum towards interactive movie and just don't appeal to some of us. I am reminded of Dragon's Lair in arcades which was all quicktime events and was appalling to me for the 2-4x the price of other arcade games but other people I went with loved this type of challenge.
ravishi 5y ago
No, you're not the only one. I feel the same. OTOH, my friends who praise these games do so exactly because of that. To which their own.
sascha_sl 5y ago
I found it annoying in Uncharterd, but The Last of Us made it work somehow. They had just enough freedom and side content to have it be a game while also telling a compelling story that very much demands linearity.
oneoff786 5y ago
Linear games are better in my opinion. Linearity isn’t the problem though. Mario is linear and very fun. Tomb raider just sort of takes away you doing anything. You have no real agency for a lot of it. Just told what buttons to press indirectly and then you do it.
- dayvid 5y ago
  They require different design skillsets or experiences. Elden Ring and Zelda are designed to be more non-linear and they work, but have completely different strengths and focuses vs. a linear approach. More based on creating an engrossing world and mechanics that allow you to play most sections out of order and create your own adventure vs. the control you have over story nuances when you make a linear title (e.g. Half-Life 2).
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    I feel elden ring really failed on the non linear aspect to be honest. It was frustratingly open ended up front, and then very linear at the end. I started the game, went to margit, found him too difficult, and then, with no particular alternatives, pretty much explored the entire map aimlessly, wishing for a clear direction on level appropriate content. It was hard to find the next thing to do. I didn’t want to skip through things with ashes or multiplayer. I didn’t want to farm. By the time I actually found this content there was nothing left to do besides warp to bosses and murder them, or look up the obtuse quest lines and warp around to complete those. A huge floor on character progression is finding the flask upgrades. But since they’re just lying around you just go from having none of them to quickly finding more than you need for 80% of the game. Like… dark souls would just be a worse game if every door and elevator was open from the beginning. It would just be confusing and frustrating if you started making “wrong” explorations. I would greatly have preferred elden ring with pretty much the entire open world cut and instead just a tour of the legacy dungeons. The open world just compounded on some of dark soul’s weaknesses. Like finding even more cool weapons that you can’t practically try without farming a ton of upgrades and changing your build.
    - 5y ago
robonerd 5y ago
You're not alone. These sort of games offer very little opportunity for players to creatively express themselves. This is more like watching a movie than playing a game.
- mrtranscendence 5y ago
  It can be fun to express yourself, and some games get plenty of mileage out of offering people various opportunities to do just that. But sometimes you want to "play" a movie, and there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. I had a lot of fun with the Tomb Raider games despite the lack of creative expression -- the mechanics were fun, the story was dumb but entertaining, and there was a lot of spectacle to soak up. I don't need to engage every part of my brain all the time.
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
When it's done well, I'm willing to embrace the cinematic nature of these games. Like a movie, the game is taking me on an adventure, but unlike a movie, I am responsible for whether my character succeeds or fails. If I don't jump at the right time, or deal with the attacker coming up behind me, my character will die and it will be my fault. Sure, I'm aware somewhere in the back of my mind that everything has been laid out for me, but in my favorite games, I'm able to suspend my disbelief. However, if I can't figure out where to go, or if the game is too hard and I die too frequently, or if the game is too easy and I don't feel a threat, or if the pacing gets bogged down by optional side quests and bullshit skill trees... it's very easy for any of these things to break the illusion. I'd actually hold up Portal 2 as the best example of a linear cinematic experience done right. The pacing is perfect, the difficulty is perfect, and there's no distracting side quests or experience points. Combined with the first person perspective and the mute protagonist, I really feel like I am Chell, trapped inside Aperture Science and talking to Wheatley.
- garaetjjte 5y ago
  >my character will die and it will be my fault. About that... Tomb Raider 2013 has probably the most gruesome death animations I ever encountered in video game.
  - brimble 5y ago
    So much so that it felt like someone involved's... uh, particular interests were coming through in the game, in a way that was kinda off-putting.
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    So, I actually suspect that this was intentional, and kind of clever. When games don't have a penalty for dying, players will sometimes fall back on a trial-and-error approach, where each individual attempt stops being meaningful. Some experiences, like Celeste, are designed around this type of gameplay loop, but it usually doesn't work well in a cinematic experience. The most common penalty for dying is lost progress, but this also doesn't work well for cinematic games, because the experience looses its magic once you know what is going to happen. So Tomb Raider takes a different approach. Checkpoints are frequent, but the death animations make you really, really not want to die! I'm very squeamish, so I always had to close my eyes when I died. But even the chance that I might see something was a good incentive!

Wowfunhappy 5y ago

Actually, I greatly prefer Tomb Raider 2013 to any of the Uncharted games I've tried (2, 3, and some of 4). TR2013 is laser focused on cinematic platforming and awe-inspiring set pieces, with much less conventional shooting. I've played through the game several times over the years, and I always come away thinking it's an underrated title. TR2013 doesn't push any boundaries, but it does execute a standard formula more effectively than anything else I've tried. I did not think the two sequels were anywhere near as good! (I haven't played The Last of Us though. I hear it's incredible, but I can't deal with the subject matter.)

brimble 5y ago
IMO 2 and 4 are easily the best Uncharted games. I wouldn't recommend 1 or 3 at all, despite 3 having a plot that should have really appealed to me. The first one mostly suffers from unrefined mechanics making it a slog, but they fixed that in 2. But, 2 and 4 are very different. 2 is a solid 3d action-platformer, while my favorite parts of 4 were when it basically just became a "walking simulator"-type game for long stretches, with most of the action and platforming just feeling tacked-on and superfluous. > (I haven't played The Last of Us though. I hear it's incredible, but I can't deal with the subject matter.) I should have loved it, but bounced off hard. The prologue had me, but a little while into the game proper I just wanted all the main characters to die, including the one you're really, really not supposed to want to die. They're all horrible and I didn't like or care about them a single bit, to the point that I wanted them to fail. The protagonist in particular, I had to root for him to fail because clearly this humanity-on-the-brink would be better off with one fewer self-interested mass-murders around making things even worse. That's... not a great way to motivate the player.
- giobox 5y ago
  > I had to root for him to fail because clearly this humanity-on-the-brink would be better off with one fewer self-interested mass-murders around making things even worse. That's... not a great way to motivate the player. Isn't the question of the players morality vs the "enemies" core to the entire concept of the game though? I think the lesson the game is trying to teach is exactly that: by what standard is the protagonist actually any "better" than those he regards as enemies? By the end of the game, I think doubting the main character is hopefully exactly the point - he isn't a good person either. In a completely lawless world such as that inhabited by the characters, I think this makes sense to explore. Make the central character a likable, non-mass murdering fellow and this huge central theme of the game disappears - The Last of Us is harrowing by design, I'd argue, and its commitment to being harrowing is what sets it apart as a game in a sea of relatively emotionally shallow "AAA" titles of the same era.