> Most gamers would disagree with you. That's alright, art is subjective and different people are allowed to like different things. Maybe you just don't like games with a lot of story? If so there are plenty of genres that aren't story heavy like arcade games, tile-matching/match 3 games, fighting, FPS, sports, etc. Or maybe action/adventure might just not be the genre for you?
I understand it is a contrarian take. That doesn't mean that it is without merit. I also find it tiresome when people just claim everything is subjective when it really isn't.
The game play is bad. Joel's movement is slow, like too slow. You can't take certain enemies down without certain weapons. The scavenging aspect becomes a chore.
The buddy system they demoed originally was downgraded heavily from the original E3 demo, which was probably 20 years ago now. They took Uncharted, slowed it down and layered a depressing story on top which people think is deep.
The game is boring to play once you know the story. The presentation is excellent, masks this. It does not change the fact that the gameplay is at best "ok". It has virtually no replayability, to the point where I was dreading having to play the next section, as I knew it was a total chore.
There are plenty of problems that I can point to that are not subjective.
> As for original mechanics there's very little out there, but that was true even in the 2000s to the mid-2010s (which would include both uncharted, and the last of us). Most games are just building off of what's been done before. You can find clever twists on old mechanics or rare combinations of them, but it's very hard to find something really different. When you do, it's hit or miss on them being worthwhile, but sometimes the novelty helps make up for the shortcomings.
I am talking about the fact that they didn't even bother changing it. IIRC, in the Farcry games, you can essentially poison/confuse enemies via arrows or something. This exists in a bunch of games.
Ghosts of Tshushima has the exact same mechanic. They didn't even bother dressing it up differently. The game is fun when you are taking out the camps. However, there is the whole Assassin's Creed gameplay collect-a-thon.
A lot of the games are carbon-copy clones of one another, and the only thing that is different is the setting.
> Upgrade systems are supposed to provide progression. It rewards you for your progress in the game with fun abilities. It also helps keep gameplay fresh over the 25/40/60/120+ hours you play by giving you a steady stream of exciting new abilities/weapons to try out. There's often a new game+ option that lets you play the game again with all the best abilities from the start. Upgrade systems are generally a good thing! Sometimes things can go wrong though, for example one of the many problems with Marvel's Spider-Man 2 was starting your character out far too weak compared to how he was at end of the first game and the upgrades you eventually got weren't great either.
I know what it's supposed to do. The games are long because they are padding with bullshit. Why do I want to write haikus in an action game? It's not even a mini game, FFS. They really shouldn't be. It becomes a chore. I've got hundreds of hours in Hell Divers, yet it isn't because I can fire up the game for 30 minutes or all Saturday evening.
How it is implemented often sucks. I am supposed to believe at the start of Ghosts of Tshushima, Jin, who is a trained samurai, can barely fight. The old GoW games at least de-powered you via the plot device, and all the core game mechanics still worked. Why do I have to have a cut scene (which you have to play through but is still really a cut scene) to stab a Mongol in the back?
How about I start awesome and become even more awesome? Or make it make sense that I am weak and incorporate it into the gameplay itself.
> Speaking as a somewhat older gamer, if you really want variety in gameplay I'd recommend trying to branch out to new genres, indie titles, and lower budget PC games. The AAA games with huge budgets can tell a great story with amazing visuals and satisfying gameplay but they aren't going to take a lot of risks because of the amount of money on the line. That might also be why they can come off as PG-13, they want a wide audience.
I am not talking about what I like/don't like. My entire critique is around the problems with the Last of Us and Triple-A games, as you specifically mentioned. I play different games these days and just picked up Ghost of Tsushima because it was on sale and I heard it was good.
As for PG-13, the old God of War games managed to garner a wide audience while being R rated. The argument doesn't make sense.
They also soft-censor a lot of games. For example, the Stellar Blade demo originally (it was patched later) had a lot of gore and cleavage. The game that finally released toned down both.
The new Tomb Raider games (not so new now), Lara is completely sexless. You have this gorgeous athletic woman, and nobody finds her attractive or even comments on it?
I understand it is a contrarian take. That doesn't mean that it is without merit. I also find it tiresome when people just claim everything is subjective when it really isn't.
The game play is bad. Joel's movement is slow, like too slow. You can't take certain enemies down without certain weapons. The scavenging aspect becomes a chore.
The buddy system they demoed originally was downgraded heavily from the original E3 demo, which was probably 20 years ago now. They took Uncharted, slowed it down and layered a depressing story on top which people think is deep.
The game is boring to play once you know the story. The presentation is excellent, masks this. It does not change the fact that the gameplay is at best "ok". It has virtually no replayability, to the point where I was dreading having to play the next section, as I knew it was a total chore.
There are plenty of problems that I can point to that are not subjective.
> As for original mechanics there's very little out there, but that was true even in the 2000s to the mid-2010s (which would include both uncharted, and the last of us). Most games are just building off of what's been done before. You can find clever twists on old mechanics or rare combinations of them, but it's very hard to find something really different. When you do, it's hit or miss on them being worthwhile, but sometimes the novelty helps make up for the shortcomings.
I am talking about the fact that they didn't even bother changing it. IIRC, in the Farcry games, you can essentially poison/confuse enemies via arrows or something. This exists in a bunch of games.
Ghosts of Tshushima has the exact same mechanic. They didn't even bother dressing it up differently. The game is fun when you are taking out the camps. However, there is the whole Assassin's Creed gameplay collect-a-thon.
A lot of the games are carbon-copy clones of one another, and the only thing that is different is the setting.
> Upgrade systems are supposed to provide progression. It rewards you for your progress in the game with fun abilities. It also helps keep gameplay fresh over the 25/40/60/120+ hours you play by giving you a steady stream of exciting new abilities/weapons to try out. There's often a new game+ option that lets you play the game again with all the best abilities from the start. Upgrade systems are generally a good thing! Sometimes things can go wrong though, for example one of the many problems with Marvel's Spider-Man 2 was starting your character out far too weak compared to how he was at end of the first game and the upgrades you eventually got weren't great either.
I know what it's supposed to do. The games are long because they are padding with bullshit. Why do I want to write haikus in an action game? It's not even a mini game, FFS. They really shouldn't be. It becomes a chore. I've got hundreds of hours in Hell Divers, yet it isn't because I can fire up the game for 30 minutes or all Saturday evening.
How it is implemented often sucks. I am supposed to believe at the start of Ghosts of Tshushima, Jin, who is a trained samurai, can barely fight. The old GoW games at least de-powered you via the plot device, and all the core game mechanics still worked. Why do I have to have a cut scene (which you have to play through but is still really a cut scene) to stab a Mongol in the back?
How about I start awesome and become even more awesome? Or make it make sense that I am weak and incorporate it into the gameplay itself.
> Speaking as a somewhat older gamer, if you really want variety in gameplay I'd recommend trying to branch out to new genres, indie titles, and lower budget PC games. The AAA games with huge budgets can tell a great story with amazing visuals and satisfying gameplay but they aren't going to take a lot of risks because of the amount of money on the line. That might also be why they can come off as PG-13, they want a wide audience.
I am not talking about what I like/don't like. My entire critique is around the problems with the Last of Us and Triple-A games, as you specifically mentioned. I play different games these days and just picked up Ghost of Tsushima because it was on sale and I heard it was good.
As for PG-13, the old God of War games managed to garner a wide audience while being R rated. The argument doesn't make sense.
They also soft-censor a lot of games. For example, the Stellar Blade demo originally (it was patched later) had a lot of gore and cleavage. The game that finally released toned down both.
The new Tomb Raider games (not so new now), Lara is completely sexless. You have this gorgeous athletic woman, and nobody finds her attractive or even comments on it?