The last few games you beat and rate them IV

Status
Not open for further replies.

GlassesJacketShirt

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
11,681
4,722
Sherbrooke
So I think I screwed myself. I only beat the first boss of the DLC and then get rekt by the other two (that dragon and Artorias). The issue is that I'm playing new game + so the difficulty is higher, and I made a PvP build and don't want to increase my level since apparently 120 is the meta for being able to find more people based on the ranges for who can play against each other. So I either start a new game with a different character, or say screw level 120 and keep leveling up my guy. God damnit From, Software.

No one said Dark Souls was perfect :laugh:.

I'm not sure how much leveling will help at this point. Artorias can be bested with enough practice, once it clicks you'll discover how fair he is as a boss. Kalameet..........well, that move where he literally halves your health bar was a shocker, but again it's mostly fair.

Manus, the final boss.............good luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 50 Sheas of Grey

Frankie Blueberries

Dream Team
Jan 27, 2016
9,414
10,992
No one said Dark Souls was perfect :laugh:.

I'm not sure how much leveling will help at this point. Artorias can be bested with enough practice, once it clicks you'll discover how fair he is as a boss. Kalameet..........well, that move where he literally halves your health bar was a shocker, but again it's mostly fair.

Manus, the final boss.............good luck.

...so what you're saying is....git gud.

I think I can beat Artorias, only tried two solo attempts and got him down to about 40% HP. It's pretty difficult to heal though, he gives you no breathing room with his reach and quick attacks.

Kalameet didn't even land when I approached him twice. He just kept flying over top of me and breathing down fire. I don't even know how to initiate the fight lol.

I'm sure I could easily beat them if I summon others, but that always feels like a bit of a cop out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GlassesJacketShirt

GlassesJacketShirt

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
11,681
4,722
Sherbrooke
...so what you're saying is....git gud.

I think I can beat Artorias, only tried two solo attempts and got him down to about 40% HP. It's pretty difficult to heal though, he gives you no breathing room with his reach and quick attacks.

Kalameet didn't even land when I approached him twice. He just kept flying over top of me and breathing down fire. I don't even know how to initiate the fight lol.

I'm sure I could easily beat them if I summon others, but that always feels like a bit of a cop out.

D'oh, my bad, I didn't put two and two together until this post. Yeah, the game doesn't like to tell you important information, but you need to beat Artorias first. Kalameet only becomes an actual fight once you move past Arty. Find the blacksmith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 50 Sheas of Grey

Ryuji Yamazaki

Do yuu undastahn!?
Jul 22, 2015
9,451
6,225
Dark Souls was amazing. Couldn’t get into all the other ones after that. It tried too hard to be hard.

Bloodborne was great though.
 

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,926
10,814
I finished DOOM 64. It was terrific. It plays like DOOM II, but has much more complex and dynamic levels. It was my first time playing it and I really enjoyed it, especially for the nostalgia, but also because it's just a good shooter. If you're an old-school DOOM fan and haven't played it, pick up the new port for PC/Xb1/PS4/Switch for about $5.

Dark Souls sucks

I tried to play it a few years ago and I have to tell you... I've played some bad PC ports, but that one might just take the cake. I think that it was the developer's first time ever working with PC, and it showed. The display options were woeful and they didn't have a clue how to support mouse and keyboard. I recall that navigating the in-game menus like the inventory was a huge pain because the click boxes weren't where they were supposed to be. I gave up on it and skipped to Dark Souls II, which was a little bit better of a port (since the developer learned from mistakes on the first one), but I still didn't like the gameplay. I'm generally not a fan of "brawler" gameplay like that, though, so it may not be anything unique about Dark Souls that I didn't like.
 
Last edited:

Ceremony

How I choose to feel is how I am
Jun 8, 2012
114,305
17,395
Dark Souls (and the other games in the same mould) seem like a world design and art style I could pour hundreds of hours into, but what little I know of the gameplay and the progression structure isn't the sort of game I like at all.
 

Frankie Blueberries

Dream Team
Jan 27, 2016
9,414
10,992
I tried to play it a few years ago and I have to tell you... I've played some bad PC ports, but that one might just take the cake. I think that it was the developer's first time ever working with PC, and it showed. The display options were woeful and they didn't have a clue how to support mouse and keyboard. I recall that navigating the in-game menus like the inventory was a huge pain because the click boxes weren't where they were supposed to be. I gave up on it and skipped to Dark Souls II, which was a little bit better of a port (since the developer learned from mistakes on the first one), but I still didn't like the gameplay. I'm generally not a fan of "brawler" gameplay like that, though, so it may not be anything unique about Dark Souls that I didn't like.

Seems like the type of game you'd want to play with a USB controller like the Xbox one. Did you give it a shot with one of those?

Dark Souls (and the other games in the same mould) seem like a world design and art style I could pour hundreds of hours into, but what little I know of the gameplay and the progression structure isn't the sort of game I like at all.

It's punishing yet fair, it rewards patience and learning the ropes. The gameplay and depth of the combat is almost like a fighting game, more than an action RPG, just based on all the counters and how you need to learn enemy move sets. It's a fantastic game if you're willing to put in the time and effort to learn the mechanics.
 

Ceremony

How I choose to feel is how I am
Jun 8, 2012
114,305
17,395
Seems like the type of game you'd want to play with a USB controller like the Xbox one. Did you give it a shot with one of those?



It's punishing yet fair, it rewards patience and learning the ropes. The gameplay and depth of the combat is almost like a fighting game, more than an action RPG, just based on all the counters and how you need to learn enemy move sets. It's a fantastic game if you're willing to put in the time and effort to learn the mechanics.
I don't like fighting games and I'm not overly keen on RPGs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 50 Sheas of Grey

Commander Clueless

Apathy of the Leaf
Sep 10, 2008
15,855
3,862
Seems like the type of game you'd want to play with a USB controller like the Xbox one. Did you give it a shot with one of those?
A controller is pretty much required for the Dark Souls games and their like, which is unfortunate for PC where the native controls are keyboard/mouse....although not exactly a unique phenomenon and is understandable.

It's punishing yet fair, it rewards patience and learning the ropes. The gameplay and depth of the combat is almost like a fighting game, more than an action RPG, just based on all the counters and how you need to learn enemy move sets. It's a fantastic game if you're willing to put in the time and effort to learn the mechanics.

This is true to a point.

However, the games suffer from a myriad of technical issues...from glitches through walls to freezing/stuttering problems to just generally not working features that are distinctly "unfair" in the context of a game. These problems were particularly prevalent in the PC ports which were not well done on a performance level.

To be fair to From Software, they have improved immensely with each new game they create. Sekiro, for example, runs very well in comparison to its predecessors.

That said, nobody will ever convince me that whoever designed the multiplayer component of Dark Souls 3 wasn't pure evil. :laugh:



I will admit I have respect for From Software for building something different that was clearly in demand, but count me out.
 

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,926
10,814
Seems like the type of game you'd want to play with a USB controller like the Xbox one. Did you give it a shot with one of those?

No, I didn't have one at the time. I do now, but mostly for side-scrollers and arcade games. I may give it a second chance, but playing more complex 3D games (especially ones with in-game menus) with a controller is not a comfortable thought to me. I gave up console gaming after the SNES era, so I'm not used to playing 3D games with a controller and prefer to play them with mouse and keyboard or not at all. That hurts my enjoyment of a lot of series, though, so it's not really specific to Dark Souls.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 50 Sheas of Grey

bambamcam4ever

107 and counting
Feb 16, 2012
15,070
7,154
You would have to be pretty damn good to beat Dark Souls with a mouse and keyboard. That setup is ideal for shooting and strategy games, but the From games are designed for joystick controls.
 

Unholy Diver

Registered User
Oct 13, 2002
20,215
3,869
in the midnight sea
Red Dead Redemption 2 - 9/10

Another great Rockstar epic, story was good, while it might not make sense I thought it was a great game though it wasn't the most fun game, some of the characters were good, some were just so-so, and the game seemed to drag at times
 

bambamcam4ever

107 and counting
Feb 16, 2012
15,070
7,154
Red Dead Redemption 2 - 9/10

Another great Rockstar epic, story was good, while it might not make sense I thought it was a great game though it wasn't the most fun game, some of the characters were good, some were just so-so, and the game seemed to drag at times
Just curious, if a game isn't that fun, why is it worth 9/10?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kid Icarus

Frankie Spankie

Registered User
Feb 22, 2009
12,432
443
Dorchester, MA
I always find that kind of rating strange. It's your rating, if you didn't like it, it's OK to rate it poorly. I feel like that way of rating games hurts because game companies just care about ratings and sale numbers. If there's something to improve on, and nobody brings it up, future games won't get improved.

As an example, I don't like Resident Evil's game design where you're better off shooting a zombie and then running by it while it staggers from the shot. As a result, I gave RE2 remake like a 7 because the world was nice, the puzzles and exploration was fun, but I thought the game play wasn't that engaging. People criticized my review of the game because "that was the point LUL," but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I thought it was bad game design and I dinged it a few points because of that. Obviously many people disagreed considering how popular the game was but that's my opinion and I think that's the point of writing a review.
 

Unholy Diver

Registered User
Oct 13, 2002
20,215
3,869
in the midnight sea
I always find that kind of rating strange. It's your rating, if you didn't like it, it's OK to rate it poorly. I feel like that way of rating games hurts because game companies just care about ratings and sale numbers. If there's something to improve on, and nobody brings it up, future games won't get improved.

As an example, I don't like Resident Evil's game design where you're better off shooting a zombie and then running by it while it staggers from the shot. As a result, I gave RE2 remake like a 7 because the world was nice, the puzzles and exploration was fun, but I thought the game play wasn't that engaging. People criticized my review of the game because "that was the point LUL," but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I thought it was bad game design and I dinged it a few points because of that. Obviously many people disagreed considering how popular the game was but that's my opinion and I think that's the point of writing a review.


The thing is I never said that I didn't like the game, maybe the movie comparison made it seem that way, just that it wasn't all that fun, and maybe the using the word "fun" is the issue, it was dramatic, and dark, and often sad, I liked the game and I'll be right there in line if and when RD3 is made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankie Spankie

bambamcam4ever

107 and counting
Feb 16, 2012
15,070
7,154
The thing is I never said that I didn't like the game, maybe the movie comparison made it seem that way, just that it wasn't all that fun, and maybe the using the word "fun" is the issue, it was dramatic, and dark, and often sad, I liked the game and I'll be right there in line if and when RD3 is made.
That's fair, but for me personally, if I find I'm not having fun I will quit playing. This is why I haven't played RDR2 as I've seen the gameplay described as tedious.
 

Unholy Diver

Registered User
Oct 13, 2002
20,215
3,869
in the midnight sea
That's fair, but for me personally, if I find I'm not having fun I will quit playing. This is why I haven't played RDR2 as I've seen the gameplay described as tedious.


Yeah I know where you are coming from, the first one I played about halfway through then put it down for a few years before finishing it, this one I worked through in about a month or 6 weeks maybe, not sure how many hours I put into it...tedious can certainly be a fair assessment of some parts of it, I've been splitting time between RDR2 and Animal crossing the last few weeks so that kind of balanced the dourness or RDR out with the light heartedness of Animal Crossing
 

Ceremony

How I choose to feel is how I am
Jun 8, 2012
114,305
17,395
Y9Qq8FE.jpg

Mafia III (PS4, 2016)

The defining characteristic I've noticed of 8th gen open world sandboxes has been size. Gratuitous size. Huge maps with little meaningful detail and even less meaningful content, usually the same basic task repeated over and over with uneventful journeys from one to the next. Maybe there's some other things dotted around to try and break up the monotony but for the most part, they're timesinks. And not even enjoyable ones.

And so 2016 brought us Mafia III, a somewhat misleading title as it has little to do with Mafia I or Mafia II. I wonder what people who make games or films or things in franchises think when they make a numbered game that has scant connection to the previous instalments. You play as Lincoln Clay, a fittingly unsubtle name for a black Vietnam veteran who makes his way through New Bordeaux's organised crime hierarchy on a mission of what the box describes as "military-grade revenge." Lincoln was betrayed by the local Mafia boss, Sal Marcano, and the game sees you take down Marcano's empire to get him back.

The start of the game is quite confusing. It switches between Lincoln on the job where he's betrayed, Lincoln when he's just arrived back home and documentary-style flashbacks from the 'present' from characters describing the events of the game. It takes around two hours to get through these set-ups and then you're fired into tutorial versions of the main missions that make up the bulk of the game while some new characters are introduced. By the time you have genuine open-world freedom your probably around five hours in. This made the game very hard to get into, and even beyond that I felt somewhat overwhelmed. It doesn't help either than the menus and objective tracker are overly-stylised and difficult to follow. Side-missions will show up in your objective list even if you haven't technically unlocked them yet. Why?

The convoluted menus are ironic, because the game is very light on variety. Lincoln is a prospective crime boss, and those tutorial missions start with you assembling a crew of three lieutenants to assign criminal rackets and the city's districts to for them to run. This involves you going to your bff and rogue CIA agent Donovan who seemingly has the entire city bugged. He tells you who to talk to to start taking down a racket. You talk to them. You then find a snitch, destroy some merchandise or kill some people. Then the head of the racket pops up and you take him out like a demented whack-a-mole game.

Once you've taken down the rackets, the lieutenant of the district pops up. You take them out, and assign the district to one of your bosses, with various benefits for each and an arbitrary and pointless attempt at conflict if you don't distribute them evenly. As I type this, I realise it makes the Mafia seem like a giant pyramid scheme. The problem with this format is it makes the game even more repetitive than it initially seems. There's little meaningful difference between killing a racket boss or a district boss, and none of them really exist as antagonists. They only ever appear so you can kill them, so with one or two exceptions we only ever really have Lincoln's word that there's an ultimate enemy he's trying to kill.

The process of taking over rackets and districts has its benefits and drawbacks. I played the game twice to get all the trophies, because there's one for killing all the racket bosses and one for saving them. Great stuff there. It's even meaningless in-game, aside from some extra cash from the operation you have no involvement with a racket when you've taken it over. On my first playthrough I got really involved in the process of taking down enemies. I went in with just a silenced pistol most of the time, staking a location out, hiding, drawing people to me one by one. On a few occasions I even managed to get to the boss without a single enemy seeing me. This was fantastically satisfying, and although I rarely used the game's full weapon potential, the gameplay itself was mechanically very sound, which led to the satisfaction.

Then came the second playthrough, where I realised enemies were completely oblivious to pretty much anything and you could still kill them all silently even while running straight up to them for the knife to the throat move rather than sneaking around. That, and the realisation that the game was basically the exact same thing over and over for 15-20 hours, got quite old quite quickly. I was playing on the easiest of the three difficulty settings, but to be honest I don't know why it has difficulty settings. Given the ease with which you can be overwhelmed by multiple enemies who know you're there shooting at you, I don't want to know what medium or hard are like.

I'd be doing the game a disservice if I downplayed how fun the combat is though. In full-on combat, even with cover, it's not great. Even on easy you seem to take lots of damage, and there's a delay in using your health packs meaning you can be overwhelmed quickly. The guns you have access to early in the game also seem quite weak, with high rates of fire and poor damage, meaning long reload times where you end up even more exposed. Thankfully, throwable weapons are great. There's grenades, molotovs, noisemakers, proximity mines and if you have the DLC, throwing knives. Strategic deployment of these can clear an area of enemies quickly without them knowing you were there. Similarly, grabbing someone as they pass by your cover and performing a brutal takedown with Lincoln jamming a knife through their throat never gets dull.

I've gone back and forth on my opinion of the story. Aside from the confusing start and the repetitive nature of reaching the game's conclusion, the pacing and the flash-forward style of storytelling can make some moments lose their emotional resonance. I like Lincoln as a character. The writing and the voice acting for most of the characters in fact is really strong. They're earnest and human. Being set in 1968 in a fictionalised version of New Orleans and featuring a black protagonist, race is a prominent aspect of the world and the story. The game opens with a disclaimer that lots of people of different backgrounds all worked on the game and they had to include the racism because that's what the world was like. Well, yes. It'd be more jarring if you made this game without the n-bomb being thrown around like confetti. But, why do you include as one of Lincoln's mates a perpetually drunken Irishman who sends car parts to the IRA so they can commit terrorist bombings? Why is there a prominent Haitian community in one area of the game who practice voodoo and speak in patois? The game's most thoughtful moments all occur in cutscenes, and the world outside of those undermines it a lot.

I have to put in an aside here. After the game's conclusion - which features a choice which I initially approached with genuine concern, picking what's ultimately the least bad option (I think) - it features one final cutscene. One of the documentary aspects has featured Lincoln's CIA friend Donovan at a US Senate inquiry about what happened in the city. After going through all the events of the game Donovan pulls out a gun and shoots the guy heading it, claiming he was paid by Marcano to assassinate President Kennedy. It was so ridiculous, so unexpected and so f***ing stupid I burst out laughing, completely forgetting what I'd seen and heard just before then. The game struggles to balance the persecuted, thoughtful young black man Lincoln Clay (and the wider black community across the country) and the perma-raging, hellbent on revenge and destruction Lincoln who's functionally a cross between Rambo and the Terminator. Even the final confrontation with Marcano suffers from this, with a nice thoughtful cutscene followed by a hideous and incongruous death once the player has control again.

When I mentioned earlier that there's nothing in the game besides taking down rackets, I was right. The world is empty. Almost eerily empty. I had the map that came with the game on my wall to start with because I would struggle to get my bearings, but I quickly realised it was pointless because there was no need to know anywhere. I've spent a couple of weeks playing this game and I can't tell you a thing about the street layouts. There aren't any buildings to interact with. No activities outside of missions and some token races. Building facades are dull and lifeless. Pedestrians seem eager to throw themselves in front of your car even if you're nowhere near them as you drive. Tram and train lines lie empty, unused throughout the city. Half of the game's map by size is taken up by back roads in a large bayou area, but nothing happens here. You have the occasional fetch quest for a racket where you drive in and back out. It almost feels as if the game's unfinished, as if more was intended for the map but was never realised.

Just to add to that, there are collectibles dotted around that don't achieve anything. Sticking famous albums from the 60s for us to find, or Playboy magazines from the time (to be fair, you get full magazine scans, articles, naked women, the lot) around randomly doesn't add depth. Taking down one of the lieutenants you have to infiltrate a boxing hall, why not include that as an activity? Grand Theft Auto games have been around for a while, it's easier to rip them off than this. The pedestrians and the random news updates on the in-car radio don't help make the world any less sterile. It's a bit like the Truman Show, with people randomly blurting out historically relevant references to try and make the world feel real. It doesn't work.

The map isn't much fun to drive around in either. I was reminded of LA Noire's driving physics, where it feels like an old FIFA or NHL game before you could control your players in 360 degrees. Then there's the hilarious 'damage' models of cars, where you can drive into a wall at 100mph and slightly dent the bonnet of the car on one side. This game took up 66GB on my hard drive and I honestly struggle to think where it all went.

Speaking of the size, this game has bugs everywhere. My favourite was when I was driving a car I'd used in a side-mission. Once the mission was over I was still driving the car, and once I'd gone far enough away from the starting point the car disappeared, leaving me in the middle of the road firing my gun because that's the same button as the throttle, so someone ran to phone the police. I've also never heard my PS4 as loud as it was during this game. Pre-rendered cutscenes are fine, everything else and I can still hear it even with noise cancelling headphones on.

There are three DLC add-ons for Mafia III, and they address my biggest complaints to some extent. Faster, Baby! sees you in a new area of the map in an even more racist county taking down a corrupt police Sheriff. Stones Unturned sees you do some James Bond Cold War fantasy bullshit thing with Donovan stopping a rogue agent from stealing missiles for the Soviets. Sign of the Times sees Lincoln take down a weird cult that disappears as quickly as it's introduced, before you can restore the bar that was destroyed when he was betrayed by Marcano at the start of the game. There is some variety here and each episode is fairly substantial in terms of length, so I can't criticise them too much.

As I look through what I've written about this game, I realise it's a game of contrasts. That might seem a bit heavy-handed given its prominent racial themes, but for the good points, there's bad. On first playthrough, good gameplay. On second, painfully dull. For good characterisation and performances, a story which undermines it with occasional veering into the ridiculous. For good and varied gameplay mechanics, very little do to express that variation. For a decent soundtrack and care to make the game accurate to the period, a near completely sterile world to experience it in. I suppose it's down to the individual to decide whether it's a good game with bad aspects, or a bad game with good aspects.

While I was glad to finally see the back of this, Mafia III had its moments. Moments where I enjoyed what I was doing. Moments I was immensely satisfied by what I was doing. Any game where you can throw petrol bombs at a KKK rally is undeniably good. Moments where I saw real humanity being portrayed, and felt contemplative about what was happening as a result. The problem is these moments generally popped up in between a sea of forgettable drudgery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robertmac43
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad