Review the game you finished recently.

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,351
Finish Ghostrunner. The game was awesome. It's basically Celeste, but cyberpunk and first person. You die A LOT.

Some really tricky levels, you will go out of your mind and think you can't do it. But you can. Amazing game.
 

WarriorX

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
2,128
Subnautica: Below Zero

Overall had a great time with the game and I think it is an excellent addition to the Subnautica series. I enjoyed the new equipment (perhaps could have had more) and the returning favorites was welcome. There was some nice QoL improvements as well that I hope they patch into the original.

Playtime for this expansion was less than the original, but its fair as its not a sequel but an extra adventure go to on. The story and objectives to complete is decent but I didn't enjoy it as much the original. Not sure why but I felt the original story was more memorable. It did have its moments though.

The new zones were fun and I actually liked the land biomes.

Can't wait to see what they do next in the series.
 

Corporate Thug

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 3, 2021
Messages
73
RE7: I really started playing RE from 5 onward after the original. Village is my favorite out of the new-ish ones. Although it's still and survival horror game, the mechanics make it feel more of a shooter than the prior games in my opinion with more zombie mobs, interaction with the environment, etc. The porting of the controls to PC however is pretty bad.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,622

Dying Light


Image taking the worst aspects of modern video games and then basing your entire product around it. That is what Dying Light is. It isn't a shooter or a fighting game despite how it is advertised. It is a scavenging game. This means constantly holding the F key constantly to pick up items. You cannot make a game more mundane and shallow than an item picking up game. You'll have to pick up all kinds of useless items, for hours on end. That is 90% of the game time. Absolutely boring and skill less. There are some zombies in the game and enemy humans. This is where the game becomes contradictory as if two different teams merged two projects into one at the last moment. The first project is about slowly collecting garbage from cans and cabinets. This requires slowly moving through each dumpster/building. The second requires you to run, and run fast, to avoid enemies and literally level up. Either way you play the game punishes you because there is no cohesive goal. Do you collect or do you run? Or do you fight? I'm not sure, and neither were the developers.

Weapons themselves are very weak. It can take 10-15 wacks to knock down an enemy. They can kill you in 4-5. To get weapons you need to pick up junk and then scroll through and endless menu of crap to craft. Why the developers thought this would be funner than actual combat is mind boggling. Games are fun when you're fighting or doing something. Not holding E or trying to figure out where to find a rotten apple to make a new weapon. Enemy humans get firearms and they can kill you in 2-3 seconds. Meanwhile you have to run up to them and whack them 10-15 times. Good luck getting up to them before they kill you. You can get guns to, but you'll attract super strong enemies that require a good 20+ whacks and maybe 1-2 hours worth of F pressing and holding. So they're useless. You'll spend 1-2 hours of F pressing/holding in a matter of seconds taking down a handful of enemies.

And I should mention the combat makes little sense either. Animations are not synced at all. Start whacking a zombie? Well you might take damage because they started an attack. Their animation may be of the zombie pulling their arm back to take a swing as your axe impales their head but instead of registering as a hit on your part, it will register as a hit on the NPC's part. The axe physically impaling the NPC will not register, but the attack said NPC did not finish executing will. This makes the combat impossible to follow because what is shown on screen doesn't line up with the results the game calculates. This is unacceptable for a supposed melee game.

There is no save system at all either. So if you quit the game will randomize some situation to plop the player into. This makes progressing in the game practically impossible because you'll never know what you did, what you need to redo, and where you are.

Story is practically not there. Voice acting is bad. Sounds are bad. Music is generic background stuff. Graphics are average if not a bit dated for its time.

2/10


Just awful. Developers need to learn that junk collecting and crafting is the worst thing you can add to a game. We play games to fight, kill, shoot, destroy, fly, race, escape a pursuit or do something fun and interesting. And holding F at a garbage can 300 times is not interesting.
 
Last edited:

KickAssCop

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 19, 2003
Messages
6,894

Dying Light


Image taking the worst aspects of modern video games and then basing your entire product around it. That is what Dying Light is. It isn't a shooter or a fighting game despite how it is advertised. It is a scavenging game. This means constantly holding the F key constantly to pick up items. You cannot make a game more mundane and shallow than an item picking up game. You'll have to pick up all kinds of useless items, for hours on end. That is 90% of the game time. Absolutely boring and skill less. There are some zombies in the game and enemy humans. This is where the game becomes contradictory as if two different teams merged two projects into one at the last moment. The first project is about slowly collecting garbage from cans and cabinets. This requires slowly moving through each dumpster/building. The second requires you to run, and run fast, to avoid enemies and literally level up. Either way you play the game punishes you because there is no cohesive goal. Do you collect or do you run? Or do you fight? I'm not sure, and neither were the developers.

Weapons themselves are very weak. It can take 10-15 wacks to knock down an enemy. They can kill you in 4-5. To get weapons you need to pick up junk and then scroll through and endless menu of crap to craft. Why the developers thought this would be funner than actual combat is mind boggling. Games are fun when you're fighting or doing something. Not holding E or trying to figure out where to find a rotten apple to make a new weapon. Enemy humans get firearms and they can kill you in 2-3 seconds. Meanwhile you have to run up to them and whack them 10-15 times. Good luck getting up to them before they kill you. You can get guns to, but you'll attract super strong enemies that require a good 20+ whacks and maybe 1-2 hours worth of F pressing and holding. So they're useless. You'll spend 1-2 hours of F pressing/holding in a matter of seconds taking down a handful of enemies.

And I should mention the combat makes little sense either. Animations are not synced at all. Start whacking a zombie? Well you might take damage because they started an attack. Their animation may be of the zombie pulling their arm back to take a swing as your axe impales their head but instead of registering as a hit on your part, it will register as a hit on the NPC's part. The axe physically impaling the NPC will not register, but the attack said NPC did not finish executing will. This makes the combat impossible to follow because what is shown on screen doesn't line up with the results the game calculates. This is unacceptable for a supposed melee game.

There is no save system at all either. So if you quit the game will randomize some situation to plop the player into. This makes progressing in the game practically impossible because you'll never know what you did, what you need to redo, and where you are.

Story is practically not there. Voice acting is bad. Sounds are bad. Music is generic background stuff. Graphics are average if not a bit dated for its time.

2/10


Just awful. Developers need to learn that junk collecting and crafting is the worst thing you can add to a game. We play games to fight, kill, shoot, destroy, fly, race, escape a pursuit or do something fun and interesting. And holding F at a garbage can 300 times is not interesting.
I tried playing this game 4 times due to such high praise and everytime I was like: This is not fun. This is not enjoyment. This is garbage. Seems you felt the same. I had the same issue about running vs. combat. For the little time I played I did spend so much time in menus it was retarded. Also, hunting for garbage got old in the first 3 hours. Finally, when I picked up an ammo based weapon, I was out in 10 seconds. It was worse than blowing your load after a month of not sex. At least that way I last 5-6 minutes. Wtf.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,351
Weird. I really loved Dying Light. The survival mechanics really made it feel like an apocalypse. It was difficult but not impossible. Anyhow I liked it a lot.

Just finished Devil May Cry 5. I thought it was pretty good. Lots of cutscenes, and the graphics were top notch. It wasn't too hard but the boss battles made it challenging enough. Solid action title.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,622
Just finished Devil May Cry 5. I thought it was pretty good. Lots of cutscenes, and the graphics were top notch. It wasn't too hard but the boss battles made it challenging enough. Solid action title.

I should write up my thoughts on that one. I had no idea what I was doing because the three different characters changed every two or so hours right when I was learning their moves but I thought it was fun and looked great.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,622
And just to give you how bad of an alpha state Dying Light is, I decided to try the DLC The Following to see if it was better. Still an incomplete game.

Example of what happened:

There is a buggy that is essentially required. Map is flat and bigger which means a lot of driving. Buggy gets stuck. There is supposed to be a reset button at safe houses. Except there isn't. So I head to a safe house, sleep, and quit to the main menu. Maybe that would reset the car? You'd think sleeping would "save" the game. It doesn't. Well, it saves the car stuck on a map prop. But doesn't save anything else. There is a quest I finished three (3) times. But because I am trying to figure out a workaround to unfuck the car it resulted in the quest being reset three times. I'll now have to repeat it a 4th time. Did I mention the car does not reset, but your quests do? And when you "save" in the safe house it instead spawns you far away. In the middle of enemies. So I spawn and get instantly killed because it spawns you between 30-40 enemies.

What is the point of save houses if they don't even work?

Game is an alpha stage, about on par with what Just Cause 4 used to be.

The Following DLC is entirely broken and cannot be completed. So I suppose the score it gets:

0/10

If you can't figure out a save system it should legally not be sold. Wish Valve actually gave a damn about their customers and would remove malware like this from Steam.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,172
Never played the following, but I throughly enjoyed dying light. only complaints I have are weapon durability (a mod fixes that) and the overall color pallet gets dull quickly.

Never had any issue with combat animations not being synced, in fact its one if the more fluid first person brawlers imho. If anything it gets to easy to fast outside of the volitials at night.

The story is barebones, hardly makes sense why you keep calling the GRE and taking their missions.

Combat is fast and fun, using the enviroment combined with your toolkit is a ball, very simple to just slaughter zombies for exp. The rise of the human enemies as the game progresses brings in more guns to play with.

Movement was a blast, being able to parkour over the map or around a battle, bodying zombies to clump em up is a ball.

Overall the game is to easy, could have used more special zombies to flesh out the challenge. The story is almost laughably bad, but its easy enough to skip dialogue if it bugs someone thst much. 7/10 with moments of 8/10.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,351
Yeah, I really loved the game. I didn't encounter any bugs or anything. I mean, there were some balancing issues, sure, but overall it was an awesome game.

Weapons broke too soon, and some of the gang dudes could cheap shot you before you got enough guns/ammo to fight back. And those night zombies were way too powerful, but I guess that was the point.

Honestly, there are not many parkour action games, so this was just about the best. Especially in the second city with the grappling hook, OMG.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,622
There was just so much wrong with that game. It is best described as a later stage alpha. No save system, no fast travel, controls that only work half the time, no markers for objectives, no map (it is just a colorful graphic without providing navigation aids) and more. Then you have contradicting gameplay mechanics. In one section at certain railing can be climbable. Then the exact same railing design is not climbable on another tower. So you'll jump to it multiple times and fall to your death because the developers decided to change what props were interactable randomly. I'm assuming this was out of incompetence. For every proper game known to mankind, they will mark interactable things. Climbing games like Tomb Raider will mark climbable areas with chalk. You know that rock is climbable because of map design cues.

In Dying Light, the same red pipe goes from being climbable to non-climbable. It changes back and fourth. Add in no save system and no map (again, it is a colorful graphic) and it makes getting back to where you were impossible.

Example of a game with consistent interaction cues:

mountain-village-59.jpg

You see that, you know you can climb up it. In Dying Light, half the time it would be climbable and half the time not climbable. And then when you die the game restarts in some randomized state because they were too lazy to implement a save system. A feature that has been standard in games since the 90s. As if their incompetence wasn't low enough, that is just unacceptable.

The list is incomplete and incoherent decisions can make a case study of what not to do in games. Don't bind traversing with throwing explosive devices that can kill the player. How many games bind walking forward and grenade throwing with W? I thought I'd never see the day, until I experienced this trash game. Yes, movement and exploding devices are mapped to the same button. Wheel based combat is general is horrific to. The fact that you can't quick throw or select grenades or explosives quickly is the piss icing on the turd cake.

Here is an example of how the climbing mechanism randomly fails half the time during gameplay. Your character randomly is unable to grab onto edges half the time. Failure rate for climbing is around 33-40%:


Shit "game" made by shitty con-artists that should be in jail. Really no different than someone dealing in counterfeits or other false advertising. Companies like TechLand (or whatever their shitty studio is called) need to face legal consequences.
 
Last edited:

Pivo504

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
2,644
Just finished carrion and I must say it was really good 9 /10. It def felt like something I've never played before being a monster and all. Can't wait for a sequel.
I'm currently playing battlefield V story mode and I must say I was pretty impressed by it. Most of the reviews I've seen on bfv weren't that great but this was the first bf game where I really enjoyed the single player game play and story. Are any of the other ones this good or is there anything as good?
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,351
Yeah, the BF single player 3, 4, and 1 were all solid. Need to finish V, I remember I was having issues with SLI at the time and stopped playing it (since sold the second card).

Also, check out CoD WWII, the campaign is actually really good.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,622
Yeah, the BF single player 3, 4, and 1 were all solid. Need to finish V, I remember I was having issues with SLI at the time and stopped playing it (since sold the second card).

Also, check out CoD WWII, the campaign is actually really good.

BF1 and BF5 campaigns weren't that great. CoD WWII was the best CoD campaign aside from Infinity War. Gameplay might be a bit limited and scripted but it was solid and had a decent narrative. Makes me wonder if we'll ever get that Brothers in Arms sequel.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
19,439
I wanted to like Dying Light, but I found it to be sloppy and repetitious. I started and went back to it 2-3 times and just never could get into it enough to keep going. I didn't hate it...but I didn't like it, either. For me it was more like a 5 or 5.5/10.
 

AzixTGO

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 21, 2016
Messages
109
Marvels Spider Man remastered.

I think most people can agree that Its a well made game. The combat mechanics have some depth and you can be as varied or monotonous with it as you want. The story itself is ok, not great because its kind of predictable. Which I guess should be expected since its spiderman. Its been done. An alternate reality might be better. If you get caught up in the collection quests or go for platinum it can be a chore.

Combat, polish and traversal are well done.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,622
Days Gone

Sony's second high profile port to PC has arrived. Days Gone attempts to walk a well trodden path by being both a zombie and "survival" game, of which there have been ample offerings over the years.

The game gets off to a slow start. People have turned to zombies and you play as a hipster biker in Oregon. Bent Studio, the ones behind Days Gone, are headquartered in Bend, OR so I assume they put some passion into the localities and likely are close to the mark with the hipster biker vibe. The player is thrust into this world with seemingly little backstory. Up front the story is slow and lacks context. It largely gets lost in a flurry of annoying back and fourth quests that make you wonder what exactly happened. Thankfully the story does pick up as the game goes on. You'll get more context as you go through the game and a better understanding of what happened in the world. However, the story and lore is full of every video game/movie cliche you can imagine. People who become extreme, insane, sadistic fanatics because of societal breakdowns? Check. Stereotypical factions in the game? Check. Predictable outcomes? Check. And herein lies the problem with the narrative; you can see what is coming a mile away. Everything has been done before in the same manner and Days Gone didn't manage to add their own flair to it. Through the course of the game the story is enough to prop up the game but it would've been so much better if it avoided overused scenarios and outcomes.

Days Gone Screenshot 2021.06.12 - 22.32.02.64.png
In Days Gone everyone is a rapist, thief and murderer. Or are about to be raped, stolen from or murdered. Little in between.


The main character is Deacon St. John, who is one of the more insufferable characters I've played as in a video game. He rants about everything, in a very angry tone with little context at times. I'll also mention that while the voice acting itself is fine it often seems out of place. Deacon's voice is often far louder than the NPCs. They'll be talking in a calm matter while Deacon is shouting. During conversations I've had to constantly adjust the volume to prevent Deacon from making me go deaf. He isn't the worst video game character, but I liken him to Aiden Pearce of Watch Dogs. Just a much louder, more angry version.

The gameplay is, much like the narrative and lore, serviceable but lacking. The game has an open world but is actually fairly guided which I enjoyed. There are repetitive side quests that have unique dialogue but are the same general tasks: Kill these people, kill these fanatics, rescue this person. Eventually you'll be able to determine what is a side quest and what is a story quest. The story quests themselves are branching and the game hands down 1-3 at a time. It may take a few missions before you can continue a certain story quest branch because it is guided. The side missions themselves often take you back to places and while they were okay up front, eventually they become too repetitive. Story quests had sufficient diversity and setups but sometimes there was a little overlap with side quests.

Days Gone Screenshot 2021.06.12 - 22.38.41.81.png
Do the same thing, but slightly better.

As you play a hipster biker, you main mode of transport is a motorcycle. You'll have to upgrade this as the game progresses. The problem is how lifeless the motorcycle is. Upgrades essentially just make the bike suck less rather than give it new gameplay options. Upgrade it to drive further without refueling. Make it take less damage, or drive 10% faster. Nothing substantial ever changes and is a huge gameplay opportunity that was missed. One would ask, how can you make a motorcycle play differently with upgrades? I'm not sure, but to base a character around a motor bike and the biker lifestyle while leaving said bike so mundane and generic is odd.

Days Gone Screenshot 2021.06.12 - 22.30.51.12.png
Mundane upgrade options for your bike, like making it drive a bit further or faster. You can change the color to but realistically you never get a close up look at it anyways.


To get bike upgrades and guns you'll need to get camps trust level higher. This means doing story missions as well as many side quests, or random mini encounters. You can generally get most of them by avoiding side quests but at times you'll feel obligated to do them, unless you want to have to constantly stop and refuel your bike and use the same gun for hours on end. This can make the game feel grindy at times and will mean a bit of driving back and fourth.

When off your bike, you'll typically be gathering things. This gets tedious. Yes, it is a "survival" game, but holding the E button to pick up junk gets old. And you'll have to do this constantly if you want to get necessary supplies. Sometimes you'll drive to an abandoned house, go inside, drive for 15 seconds, stop at another house and rinse repeat. You cannot buy crafting supplies, and these are necessary for certain equipment. You really cannot get by without said equipment. Halfway through the game it just gets old. By the 3rd section you'd think they'd just let you buy them.

Days Gone Screenshot 2021.06.12 - 22.40.53.70.png
Hold that E button to survive.

Combat is a typical 3rd person shooter affair. It isn't great. The combat is based too much around an over bloated "weapon wheel" which has dozens of items. You often cannot carry enough items for large encounters meaning you need to craft mid combat. This just kills the flow of gameplay and pulls you out of the experience. Selecting weapons and items is slow and cumbersome. If you have 50 zombies chasing you and try to select a decoy, only to accidentally select a different gun type you'll likely end up dead. They needed more quick switchable weapons and less reliance on a single wheel with some many options. NPCs will also often spawn in the players face, aren't the brightest, and don't offer much. When it works it can be decently fun. You can set traps and you have a decent amount of weapon and decoy options to help keep things from getting too similar.

Days Gone Screenshot 2021.06.12 - 22.36.48.80.png
Have fun running, crafting and selecting things from that awful wheel as zombies try to eat you.


Graphically the game looks a bit dated. Textures can be a bit muddy and lighting isn't the greatest. Characters have been done better in other games. Likewise for things like fire, explosions, water, and NPC animations. The game certainly doesn't look as good as Horizon Zero Dawn. But frame rate is constantly high. To keep G Sync working I locked frame rate to 90 (at 120 it still showed screen tearing). It certainly does look like a port of an older Playstation game. The port itself is fairly good, with many graphic settings and no major limitations that I came across. Suffice to say, this was a well done port and a major step up from HZD's release. Props to Bend & Sony for that.

Days Gone Screenshot 2021.06.12 - 22.39.29.83.png
Graphics look okay, but could be better. Please ignore the motion blur which seemed to have gotten turned on again.


The stability of the game is mostly good but there are some crashing problems. When the game crashes it resets video settings, so be sure to turn everything back up. I had a handful of crashes. The game doesn't have much in the way of a save system so when the game does crash you may have to replay part of it. There are minor NPC bugs here and there but generally the game worked well and as expected.

What we have here is a game that doesn't do anything unique or particularly well. Days Gone struggles to set it self apart from an abundance of zombie, junk collecting and open world games. At the same time the game doesn't necessarily fail in any major area. It takes many common gameplay loops that are proven to be workable, if bland. At close to 50 hours the game at times can feel a bit long for its own good but still managed to keep my attention throughout.


7.5 / 10

Days Gone is worth picking up and giving a try. Just don't expect excellence or something new. If you're out of must play games, do consider this and hope Sony steps up their porting efforts. Days Gone proves that Sony can make a good PC port on release.



Days Gone Screenshot 2021.06.12 - 22.39.35.09.png
Days Gone Screenshot 2021.06.12 - 22.32.08.93.png
Deacon passive-aggressively speaking to his gun. Or was it a dead rapist? Doesn't matter, Deacon hates pretty much everyone and everything.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
830
I just finished Nier: Automata. Well, I haven't gotten all the endings yet, but I did get ending C. I give it an 8.5/10. The reasons why it's not a 10 are as follows:

1. Route B doesn't add much to the story and feels like filler. It seems like most of the (very sparse) added content could have been worked into Route A somehow by having you switch between the two main characters without really losing any of the impact, and the one or two things that would count as a major spoiler could be moved to cutscenes that play right before Route C.

2. There's too much "bullet hell" stuff. Especially the hacking mini-game is kind of frustrating and isn't what I picked up an Action-Adventure/JRPG title for. I feel like I'm playing a $2 indie arcade game whenever it appears. The fact that the hacking mini-game always used to make the game crash if I wasn't running in Windowed mode probably soured me on it too.

3. The game was very buggy at launch and was never officially patched. It would never quite run stable on my Kepler-based GPU, no matter how many times nVidia tried to patch the driver. This was released in 2017, a time when Kepler was still semi-relevant and was listed as a minimum requirement. I wound up having to break out my old 560 Ti and use that to play the game at Playstation Vita resolution. Thanks to the fact that my 560 Ti has 2GB of VRAM (it needed a little over 1.5GB with FXAA forced on), the game looks great (if a bit blurry upon closer inspection) at the lower resolution. So I guess the bright side is that I found a very niche scenario where the extra gig of VRAM on a 560 Ti is actually helpful... playing a 2017 game that doesn't play nice with Kepler at sub-HD resolution with FXAA maxed out to eliminate the jagged edges that naturally result from this.

But other than that, it's got a wonderful story, the music is amazing, and the game is visually impressive (even considering the awkward circumstances of my playthrough). The game is difficult even on "normal," but thankfully not like Dark Souls and it has lots of RPG-like ways to make things easier after a very rough tutorial level, such as equipment upgrades, level grinding, and plug-in chips.

One thing I do have to recommend (if you got stuck with the PC version) is playing it with an Xbox 360 controller. The game recognizes it out of the box, it doesn't really work well with a mouse and keyboard, and being able to sit a couple feet back from your monitor helps with fooling your eye into thinking it's a higher resolution than it really is if you have to lower the resolution and use FXAA to eliminate jagged edges for some reason (like I did).
 
Last edited:

ChoGGi

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
1,626
2. There's too much "bullet hell" stuff. Especially the hacking mini-game is kind of frustrating and isn't what I picked up an Action-Adventure/JRPG title for. I feel like I'm playing a $2 indie arcade game whenever it appears.
Yeah, that was one of the annoying things about it. Good thing for cheat engine or I would've stopped playing.
 

Pivo504

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
2,644
Yeah, the BF single player 3, 4, and 1 were all solid. Need to finish V, I remember I was having issues with SLI at the time and stopped playing it (since sold the second card).

Also, check out CoD WWII, the campaign is actually really good.
Bf4 single player was good? I just got it for free on prime. Don't care for multiplayer much but do want to play single player if it's good. I haven't bought a cod since back when the second one was released on pc lol
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,622
BF4 single player is okay. The flow can be a bit odd at times because you wake up in odd situations. The BF3 campaign was better overall. Both are worth playing.

BF1 and BF5 don't really have a central campaign. They have a few fictional multi-part mini stories that take place over 3 or so missions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan_D
like this
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
2,328
Bf4 single player was good? I just got it for free on prime. Don't care for multiplayer much but do want to play single player if it's good. I haven't bought a cod since back when the second one was released on pc lol
From what I hear all the BF SP campaigns are decent at best. They just kind of include them as an extra when really their product is a MP game.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,351
Yeah, I liked BF4. The graphics were really nice, still probably hold up, and the campaign was decent. Nothing special with the story but the gameplay was solid.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
25,847
RE7: I really started playing RE from 5 onward after the original. Village is my favorite out of the new-ish ones. Although it's still and survival horror game, the mechanics make it feel more of a shooter than the prior games in my opinion with more zombie mobs, interaction with the environment, etc. The porting of the controls to PC however is pretty bad.
The mouse movement in RE8 got really screwed up, for some reason. It was perfect in RE7. Maybe a different team worked on the PC version, but that kind of regression in subsequent releases is always supremely frustrating.
I tried playing this game 4 times due to such high praise and everytime I was like: This is not fun. This is not enjoyment. This is garbage. Seems you felt the same. I had the same issue about running vs. combat. For the little time I played I did spend so much time in menus it was retarded. Also, hunting for garbage got old in the first 3 hours. Finally, when I picked up an ammo based weapon, I was out in 10 seconds. It was worse than blowing your load after a month of not sex. At least that way I last 5-6 minutes. Wtf.
The first hours of the game are definitely a slog, but the nonstop scavenging isn't really required as you learn how certain items only appear in certain types of containers and the majority of your important items are going to come from enemy drops.
There was just so much wrong with that game. It is best described as a later stage alpha. No save system, no fast travel, controls that only work half the time, no markers for objectives, no map (it is just a colorful graphic without providing navigation aids) and more. Then you have contradicting gameplay mechanics. In one section at certain railing can be climbable. Then the exact same railing design is not climbable on another tower. So you'll jump to it multiple times and fall to your death because the developers decided to change what props were interactable randomly. I'm assuming this was out of incompetence. For every proper game known to mankind, they will mark interactable things. Climbing games like Tomb Raider will mark climbable areas with chalk. You know that rock is climbable because of map design cues.

In Dying Light, the same red pipe goes from being climbable to non-climbable. It changes back and fourth. Add in no save system and no map (again, it is a colorful graphic) and it makes getting back to where you were impossible.

Example of a game with consistent interaction cues:

View attachment 364844

You see that, you know you can climb up it. In Dying Light, half the time it would be climbable and half the time not climbable. And then when you die the game restarts in some randomized state because they were too lazy to implement a save system. A feature that has been standard in games since the 90s. As if their incompetence wasn't low enough, that is just unacceptable.

The list is incomplete and incoherent decisions can make a case study of what not to do in games. Don't bind traversing with throwing explosive devices that can kill the player. How many games bind walking forward and grenade throwing with W? I thought I'd never see the day, until I experienced this trash game. Yes, movement and exploding devices are mapped to the same button. Wheel based combat is general is horrific to. The fact that you can't quick throw or select grenades or explosives quickly is the piss icing on the turd cake.

Here is an example of how the climbing mechanism randomly fails half the time during gameplay. Your character randomly is unable to grab onto edges half the time. Failure rate for climbing is around 33-40%:


Shit "game" made by shitty con-artists that should be in jail. Really no different than someone dealing in counterfeits or other false advertising. Companies like TechLand (or whatever their shitty studio is called) need to face legal consequences.
Your complaints are really just about personal objections and opinion. That doesn't justify criminal action. The majority opinion about Dying Light is that it is one of the best zombie games ever released.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
25,847
I rather enjoyed BF3's campaign. BF4's was decent.
BF4 jumped around too much, in my opinion, while BF3 was a pretty consistent experience throughout. The attack on the Titan during the campaign in BF4 was pretty good, but overall the combat scenarios in the rest of the game didn't feel real (if you know what I mean).
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
58,218
BF4 jumped around too much, in my opinion, while BF3 was a pretty consistent experience throughout. The attack on the Titan during the campaign in BF4 was pretty good, but overall the combat scenarios in the rest of the game didn't feel real (if you know what I mean).
I think BF4's scenario's were moving more towards Call of Duty's less grounded writing style.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,974

Dying Light

LOL, I actually tried to play the game a few months back myself, and had similar thoughts. But didn't post my review here because I didn't technically finish the game. Unless we bend the rules and say finishing means being done with it.

Either way here is the link to my review.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,622
LOL, I actually tried to play the game a few months back myself, and had similar thoughts. But didn't post my review here because I didn't technically finish the game. Unless we bend the rules and say finishing means being done with it.

Either way here is the link to my review.

So here we are at an impass. The game is not all bad, the parkour running would actually be enjoyable, if the game wasn't designed to be such a grind.

Pretty much. I don't even mind the lack of fast travel if the game was centered around parkour. Problem is the repeating back and fourth, not so great implementation of it, and all the grind in the beginning. Grind never gets much better either because enemies level up despite having no displayed level or no in game notification that the basic enemies have leveled up. Took me a while to figure out why all of a sudden what used to be 1-2 head shots was now 10 head shots to kill.

Either you sneak quietly picking up everything to craft your tools Resident Evil style, or you run like mad and do crazy parkour stunts in a fast paced frenzy. This game just couldn't figure out what it wanted to be.
 

Pivo504

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
2,644
BF4 single player is okay. The flow can be a bit odd at times because you wake up in odd situations. The BF3 campaign was better overall. Both are worth playing.

BF1 and BF5 don't really have a central campaign. They have a few fictional multi-part mini stories that take place over 3 or so missions.
Just started playing bf4 campaign and that intro was really fun. I actually enjoyed bfv as well. To be honest I enjoy the single player much more than multi. Anyways how is the battlefront 2 single player is it worth playing?
I just downloaded a bunch of demos on steam. Death trash seems cool but the one I enjoyed was Astalon: Tears of the Earth. Gives me sum good Retro game play wondering if it's worth a full purchase.
 
Top