| @docrob regarding sniper zoom and headshots, MDK predates Goldeneye by a few months. Then again, Goldeneye sold a lot more, so people would definitely think about that first (not that MDK was a failure, in fact it was very successful, but 500k copies can't exactly compare with 8 million copies). |
Recently-abandoned games • Page 249
-
Malek86 11,533 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 14 years ago -
One_Vurfed_Gwrx 4,173 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 14 years agoRhaegyr wrote:
The Thief series springs to mind here. I agree that more games should do this.
Wish a few more games did what Goldeneye did - more objectives depending on the difficulty level you select. Thought this was a great idea and can't really think of another game that uses this well. -
Theticket 129 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 10 years agoI've had it with Fire Emblem: Three Houses. Reached Chapter Nine, but I just cannot tolerate the dismal Monastery stuff, running around doing unbelievably pointless fetch quests. So much (very badly written) dialogue to skip through. The game has been enjoyable enough, but I can't see myself going back to it. -
TechnoHippy 18,359 posts
Seen 6 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoSinking City
The investigations worked well (the few I've done) and the atmosphere was good, but the open world, controls and combat are awful. I might try again, but not for a while. -
Rodney 4,875 posts
Seen 39 minutes ago
Registered 14 years agoBatman Arkham City and knight. They are okay but the combat is just so boring. And there isn't much going on inbetween. -
Rodney 4,875 posts
Seen 39 minutes ago
Registered 14 years agoI also recently abandoned Shadow of Mordor for the same reason too so I obviously don't like that combat system, and yet I really liked Mad Max. Weird -
Rogueywon 10,707 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 15 years ago@Rodney I loved Arkham Asylum, found City a disappointment and loathed Knight. The formula they had there worked best as a Metroidvania. Going open world robbed it of its magic. -
Dombat 1,877 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoRogueywon wrote:
I agree, although I never played any sequels after City as I figured it would be more of the same and that game dragged towards the end. Really enjoyed Arkham Asylum though.
@Rodney I loved Arkham Asylum, found City a disappointment and loathed Knight. The formula they had there worked best as a Metroidvania. Going open world robbed it of its magic. -
JoeBlade 5,714 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoRogueywon wrote:
Agreed. I almost finished AA in one sitting (not really but I had trouble putting it down to say the least), I've started City numerous times but never got very far and didn't even bother with the other ones.
@Rodney I loved Arkham Asylum, found City a disappointment and loathed Knight. The formula they had there worked best as a Metroidvania. Going open world robbed it of its magic.
The open world angle made it feel like a generic-o-tron Ubisoft/Rockstar/whatever game with a Batman coat of paint. AA however was an awesome Batman game, and I'm not even a fan of Bats specifically or comics in general. -
Rodney 4,875 posts
Seen 39 minutes ago
Registered 14 years agoNot having a good run. Just gave up on Wolfenstein 2. The gunplay was surprisingly bad. The guns sounded weak and the enemies were bullet sponges - and playing on the difficult setting you only have 50% health - which altogether made the whole thing a bit frustrating. -
JamboWayOh 22,460 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 8 years agoRodney wrote:
You could have just turned the difficulty down.
Not having a good run. Just gave up on Wolfenstein 2. The gunplay was surprisingly bad. The guns sounded weak and the enemies were bullet sponges - and playing on the difficult setting you only have 50% health - which altogether made the whole thing a bit frustrating. -
docrob 1,720 posts
Seen 10 hours ago
Registered 13 years agoJoeBlade wrote:
Really can’t agree. AA was the best game of the series, no question, but the feeling of swinging over the rooftops as Batman in City was incomparable.
Rogueywon wrote:
Agreed. I almost finished AA in one sitting (not really but I had trouble putting it down to say the least), I've started City numerous times but never got very far and didn't even bother with the other ones.
@Rodney I loved Arkham Asylum, found City a disappointment and loathed Knight. The formula they had there worked best as a Metroidvania. Going open world robbed it of its magic.
The open world angle made it feel like a generic-o-tron Ubisoft/Rockstar/whatever game with a Batman coat of paint. AA however was an awesome Batman game, and I'm not even a fan of Bats specifically or comics in general. -
Rogueywon 10,707 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoJamboWayOh wrote:
Yeah, I never get this whole "I MUST play on a high difficulty setting even if it is making me hate the game" thing. For god's sake, drop the difficulty and come back for a replay on something harder once you're done.
Rodney wrote:
You could have just turned the difficulty down.
Not having a good run. Just gave up on Wolfenstein 2. The gunplay was surprisingly bad. The guns sounded weak and the enemies were bullet sponges - and playing on the difficult setting you only have 50% health - which altogether made the whole thing a bit frustrating.
That said, Wolfenstein 2 was a bit poo and the gunplay was not good. -
DUFFMAN5 26,466 posts
Seen 11 hours ago
Registered 16 years ago@Rogueywon
Another that has no ego when it comes to difficulty settings. I'm not sure I ever did but now I will play a game on normal or easy. End of the day I don't need too much of a challenge. I want to take it all in and soak it up with out repeating time and time again, hearing the same conversion loops for example.
Chap at work loves playing on the hardest settings as when he "beats" a game he feels a sense of enormous well-being and achievement
He did say to me that he was surprised and could not understand that I did not feel the same way and IF I manged to beat on any game higher skill levels I would indeed feel some great accomplishment. I said that as much as I enjoy gaming it is just that...gaming, so not really.
Now if I were to learn a tricky guitar part or Bench more then that would indeed give me a sense of enormous well-being and achievement. But beating a level that had higher bullet sponge enemies or less health for me, just to see the same cut scene, not so much.
Edited by DUFFMAN5 at 07:56:41 08-08-2019 -
Mola_Ram 25,163 posts
Seen 59 minutes ago
Registered 9 years agoI generally get more satisfaction from more of a challenge, but there's a limit to that. It probably looks like a bell curve for me, with my usual setting "one above the middle one" for most games. Or the middle one if there's only three choices.
That changes with certain games. I'd never play a Fire Emblem below Hard difficulty for example, I'd get too bored. -
Dombat 1,877 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoYeah, I don't mind a fair challenge - I love Dark Souls for example. The problem is often I hear about harder difficulties ramping up the enemy counts in games that already have enough (maybe too much) combat and/or they're more bullet spongey, and I know I'd enjoy the game less which far outweigh any sense of achievement for me.
Also I hate redoing bits in games that aren't designed to be failed repeatedly, for example cinematic games where you have to go through the same set piece over and over, ruining the flow.
Another thing is games with long loading after you die or get game over. Games like Trials and Hotline Miami throw you instantly back in so the challenge drives you to keep playing.
Edited by Dombat at 07:54:32 08-08-2019 -
Mola_Ram 25,163 posts
Seen 59 minutes ago
Registered 9 years agoAlso, I think there are some games where you just do not get the full experience playing on Easy.
Into the Breach is a prime recent example of this. On Easy, it's mostly possibly to kill enemies as they pop out, and you rarely get overwhelmed. That completely changes on Normal, where you often can't kill everything, so the game instead becomes about positioning, risk management and decision-making.
It's more of a puzzle, basically, and you would not get that element of it playing on Easy.
Edited by Mola_Ram at 08:09:07 08-08-2019 -
DUFFMAN5 26,466 posts
Seen 11 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoMola_Ram wrote:
I can understand this.
Also, I think there are some games where you just do not get the full experience playing on Easy.
. -
Darth_Flibble 4,818 posts
Seen 9 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoRogueywon wrote:
They messed with the combat (and stealth) in 2 and made game horrible to play at times. (Also the level design was worse)
That said, Wolfenstein 2 was a bit poo and the gunplay was not good. -
Rogueywon 10,707 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoOn difficulty, I think a lot of my approach comes down to "what did the developers intend?". That's usually the optimum way to play the game. In fact, quite a lot of games outright tell you.
Souls/Borne games make this very simple. There are no difficulty options. They're hard games, the difficulty is intrinsic to the gameplay (sorry, whinging journalists, but it is) and the developer intent is very clear. And - with the exceptions of Sekiro and Lords of the Fallen - I generally love those games.
Elsewhere, "normal" difficulty tends to be the mode that the developers have optimised the game for. In the average shooter, much of the gunplay (player health, enemy health etc) will feel most natural on the normal difficulty setting. Easy is there for people who need some help and the harder settings are there for hardcore players to challenge themselves on, but normal will usually give you the experience the developers wanted you to have.
Other genres tend to take a different approach. A lot of strategy games outright tell you to start on the lowest difficulty. The XCom reboots do this and the forum threads on here are full of new players bouncing off those on "normal" difficulty. I've pumped hundreds of hours into the two Total War: Warhammer games and have beaten each of them with one faction on the top difficulty. But when picking up a new faction in DLC and the like, I will always play on "normal" and I will plead with new players to start on "easy". -
evild_edd 4,289 posts
Seen 9 hours ago
Registered 14 years agoWhen I played loads of games I'd default to Hard, particularly if they were shooters or action titles.
Now my gaming time is limited I default to the developers default (usually normal). This limits my sense of wasting 'precious' gaming time repeating sections.
If I'm REALLY enjoying a title, however, I'll still happily sink a load of hours into it. But I do find I'm more relaxed at abandoning games that don't click and are punishingly hard.
I'm on the cusp of dropping Darkest Dungeon as I just can't seem to make any progression. Might have to refer to a guide, but I realise it's a title where the player should really explore the systems themselves. I just don't have the time... -
DrStrangelove 15,375 posts
Seen 8 minutes ago
Registered 11 years agoDucktales: Remastered from the final Steam sale (€3.49) before it's removed forever (in 24 hours if anyone's interested).
Played the demo for this back then on PS3 and didn't like it, but grabbed it now anyway because it was cheap and will disappear soon. Sadly, it is not a good remaster. One of the issues is that it's full of completely pointless idle talk cutscenes, a bigger issue is massive input lag (which reminded me of Sonic 4), and then I was fighting the redesigned Amazon boss (that Inca statue, not Jeff Bezos) which was just a pain in the arse. This fight wasn't exactly engaging in the original, but it was inoffensive and very brief. Now they added some super generic crushing floor/wall/ceiling stuff and it takes fucking ages, really annoying.
Then I quit and fired up the original. And yeah, it is much better. No stupid cutscenes, responsive controls, less annoying bosses etc.
No score--just play the original if you have the chance. -
QBX 206 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 11 years agoVoid Bastards
I have a love/hate thing going on with this.
Started and within a couple of hours was pretty bored. Restarted on a higher difficulty and found that hook managing a few decent runs. But underneath it there is a frustrating game and when it wants to fuck you it will fuck you HARD. A few favourites include: cameras that give you zero time to react, wall to wall hazards that are impassable or piling on enemies before your beyond the first door.
I may come back to it but at the moment I can't be bothered going through yet another ammo run only to be shafted by something beyond my control later on.
Positives: the game is in a comic box style and has a unique sense of humour which will appeal to some. -
RawShark 1,497 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoRodney wrote:
Holy Moley - if you didn’t get to the drone battles in Knight then your patience has never been fully tested.
Batman Arkham City and knight. They are okay but the combat is just so boring. And there isn't much going on inbetween. -
RawShark 1,497 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 9 years ago@DrStrangelove would have been better with Jeff Bezos. -
DrStrangelove 15,375 posts
Seen 8 minutes ago
Registered 11 years agoBattlefield 1 (single player campaign)
Just like BF4, I managed to complete about 2/3 before I just couldn't take it anymore. It's been a while since I played that, but honestly I believe this is even worse. Most on-foot missions is stupid bare-bones stealth stuff (where most of the time it's better to just go Rambo and shoot everyone), but surprisingly, worst of all was the MK V Landship campaign.
That thing looks spectacular in the trailers and I was really curious about how it'd play, turned out it's one of the dreariest will-it-never-end gaming experiences of recent memory. And of course, half of it is stupid on-foot stealth missions.
The game certainly looks good, but again that's something that impresses you for a minute or so. As a single-player game, just forget this. Clean your toilet or something instead, that's just as entertaining and actually productive. And hopefully shorter.
Edited by DrStrangelove at 20:19:05 21-08-2019 -
Darth_Flibble 4,818 posts
Seen 9 hours ago
Registered 16 years ago@DrStrangelove
The battlefield campaigns are always mediocre, they should just focus on the MP side.I remember the bad company campaigns were good at the time, not sure how they stack up in 2019 -
JamboWayOh 22,460 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 8 years agoThey were at least not a MP map with some bots in. The last two BF campaigns have been dreadful. People give CoD shit but at least there's actual effort in the single player. -
DrStrangelove 15,375 posts
Seen 8 minutes ago
Registered 11 years agoYeah I know, they're MP games. And I wouldn't have bought it if it wasn't for €5 and I had some interest in WW1.
But if they're making a single player campaign and advertise the game with it, they're kinda suggesting it's got some worth as an SP game too. So that's a little misleading.
Now I'm playing Battlefront 2 (also campaign) which is a similar story. It's not good, but much better than BF1. It's sufferable enough that I may finish it even though I just found out I'm only halfway through and there's still 2-3 hours to go. Eurgh.
Anyway, Titanfall 2 is downloading in the background. From what I hear, that's the one I'm really looking for. -
Now TF2 is a brilliant sp campaign.
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
