The last few games you beat and rate them 5

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

Romang67

BitterSwede
Jan 2, 2011
30,254
23,009
Evanston, IL
Are they still fun to play despite being so much older now and lacking the QoL adjustments made to Elden Ring?
For the most part, I think they're holding up well. Demon's Souls has aged less than gracefully, IMO, but the other two I didn't have any real issues with in terms of design choices. Big difference from Elden Ring is, of course, that you can't scamper off elsewhere if you get stuck somewhere. But at this point, if you've played Elden Ring, I think the risk of your getting hard stuck on a boss is minimal. The one thing that would make me hesitate to recommend trying both of them is that I think you need to give DS2 a fair bit of time before deciding whether you like it or not. The early levels without high enough adaptability are ROUGH.
 

Soldier13Fox

jävlar anamma (f'ing embrace, get with it)
Sponsor
Oct 8, 2013
6,998
3,182
Coon Rapids
DS2 was, and continues to be, much maligned. Much of the criticism was deserved, some of it wasn't though. But I had a ton of fun with it back in the day. I think your review is pretty spot on about its strengths and weaknesses, the DLC were certainly awesome, but I did enjoy the base game as well.

Have fun with bloodborne, it's awesome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Romang67

PeteWorrell

[...]
Aug 31, 2006
4,963
2,144
Dark Souls 2 is not a Miyazaki game and it shows. It feels like it's a game made by fans that have their own interpretation about what Dark Souls is all about.

I loved the worlds and lore presented in games like Demon's Souls, Bloodborne, Dark Souls 1 and 3, Sekiro and Elden Ring. I could not give a rat's ass about the one in Dark Souls 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blitzkrug

Blitzkrug

Registered User
Sep 17, 2013
26,462
8,258
Winnipeg
Long rant/train of thought ahead but i decided to play Tears of the Kingdom again and i think i dislike it much more now than when i did at launch.

When it came out, i played through it, liked it, but there was a strange feeling left afterwards that left me thinking "something isn't right here, but i can't figure out what." Was it the fact they recycled the same Hyrule? Not sure. But after i came back this time i think i can finally put my finger on it; this game, that is positioned as a sequel isn't actually a sequel at all and that it should have stayed as DLC like it started its life as. (And these thoughts come from someone who played Breath of the Wild again earlier in the year as well, and i can say that game still hits the mark for me)

The big thing the devs pushed in marketing advertising was the sky islands. The game starts you in the sky which is the right call because it's such a grand spectacle and truly gives you a sense of wonder as you want to explore those weird floating islands out on the horizon. And for the first little bit? It's fantastic. But then you start to realize pretty much all the islands follow the same pattern; large islands with a shrine telling you to go fetch the big stupid crystal in pretty much the same way. Those big circular islands? yup, just the same boss fight for the umpteenth time. Those big ass mazes that are now floating in the sky for some reason? yup, those are all the same.

What about the depths? That weird underground/clear dark world allegory that somehow eluded everyone until the community actually got their hands on the game? Also junk. Once again, same deal. At first it's like "woah holy shit what is this place?" as you cautiously explore the dark hellhole for the first few hours. After that, it's the exact same thing as the sky islands; Everything looks, and is the same outside of the occasional lava flow, yiga hideout or zonite spot. (Which is why the depths under Death Mountain is actually sick, because it's different than the same drab shit the other 85% of the depths has.) Outside of zonite and a small quest, there's nothing worth exploring down here because the rewards are junk too. Oh boy, i found another pair of Link's pants from a past game! Not like you can use them because upgrading is incredibly tedious/obnoxious.

Ultrahand is a cool mechanic especially if you have a creative side, but even this is extremely costly since you either need Zonai parts on hand, or to be carrying zonite which will be a hefty price depending on how intricate your build is. This is why pretty much everyone and their grandmother ends up building the same shitty hoverbike to travel because it's cheap and easy. The hoverbike will last a full 30 in game minutes, other stuff, namely the wings which a lot of people use as a base for flying vehicles poof out of existence within a minute? Why? Why promote creativity then smack the player with a ruler for actually being creative?

At the same time, this creative aspect of the game in a lot a ways i think works against it. Shrines in BOTW were more in line with standard Zelda puzzles; a small room with a specific solution that requires the player to work within its limitations to find the solution. Shrines in TOTK go a different direction, turning themselves more into an excuse for the player to muck around the physics engine. (which credit where it's due, they did a fantastic job with it and i imagine a good chunk of the 6 years needed to make this alone) in some cases, it works, but in other cases the shrines open themselves up to the player realizing the same idea (like say, using recall to just do some platform jankery) in multiple places which kills creativity. This is assuming of course the shrine you stumbled on isn't one of 48 (out of 150) "blessing shrines" which is just an altar that gives you the stuff needed for upgrades

Dungeons get hit especially hard by this conflict with the exception of the Lightning Temple. You can straight up break the Fire and Water Temples with a vehicle to the point the dungeons become trivial. (Not that the dungeons are any good anyway outside of the Lightning one since it feels like a more traditionally designed one) And i can't stand the opinion of "well THAT'S NOT HOW THEY INTENDED YOU TO DO IT" Wrong, if i can do it without having to use a weird bug/glitch/flaw, it's intended. And that's on the devs.

The game is straight up a mile wide, and about a foot deep.

As for the "this game isn't a sequel part" this really hit me on my second playthrough. This game is supposed to take place a few years after BOTW. If that's the case, why is there no mention of the fact the Calamity Ganon was the manifestation of the dickhead locked underneath the castle? It's made of malice/gloom and we already know Ganondorf was gaining strength in the lead up to this game and during it. Why does no one remember who Link is given he saved the entire world from destruction? Why do the characters, sans a few exceptions who clearly interact with Link not remember who he is? Why did all the Shiekah tech the first game was essentially built on just vanish?

Timeline stuff is nonsense but even i can't really ignore the fact this game is the supposed "founding" of Hyrule...even though we already had that established with Ocarina of Time and Skyward Sword which is obviously a contradiction.

If you played this game without Breath of the Wild, you'd miss nothing. Even the characters who showed up in the first like Riju or Sidon could easily be new characters. Story in this game is a mess with the devs letting you discover it out of order along with creating plotholes as it goes. Not ideal/


The only reason why i don't let this affect my view of the formula BOTW laid out is because the devs have admitted multiple times this game started out as DLC and it got to the point where they kept adding shit to it and went "man, we should just make it a full game" ala Mario Galaxy 2. Which is why it probably feels so uneven too. That, and the new game coming in just over a week looks like it might be a best of both worlds situation with the combo of new aged expression/open world gameplay and traditional dungeons.
 

x Tame Impala

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 24, 2011
28,315
13,188
@Blitzkrug Right there with ya man. I think some people just REALLY like the building aspect of TOTK.

BOTW is far and away the better game, or I had much more fun playing it. In the first game Hyrule is basically the main character and Link is really just your vehicle for experiencing the map. You have to climb and glide around every inch of that place, dealing with the elements, finding food, and struggle to stay alive. You’re given some basic abilities and then you’re off to do things as you see fit. You develop an intimate relationship with Hyrule and the immersion is crazy.

TOTK erases 90% because of the reasons you mentioned above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jovavic

Blitzkrug

Registered User
Sep 17, 2013
26,462
8,258
Winnipeg
@Blitzkrug Right there with ya man. I think some people just REALLY like the building aspect of TOTK.

BOTW is far and away the better game, or I had much more fun playing it. In the first game Hyrule is basically the main character and Link is really just your vehicle for experiencing the map. You have to climb and glide around every inch of that place, dealing with the elements, finding food, and struggle to stay alive. You’re given some basic abilities and then you’re off to do things as you see fit. You develop an intimate relationship with Hyrule and the immersion is crazy.

TOTK erases 90% because of the reasons you mentioned above.
There's a great video that does a deep (and by deep i mean cavernous) dive somebody did on TOTK and all the problems the game has. I watched most of it and i honestly find myself agreeing with most of their points. They completely tear this game apart and outside of a few reaches imo (comparing the caves to gacha games is a bit of a stretch) it's pretty well thought out.



(i did say it was cavernous lol)
 
  • Wow
Reactions: x Tame Impala

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad