I’ll start. pokemon. doesn’t matter if the game’s old or new I just can’t get into how it plays. idk the gameplay just gets old to me pretty quickly, palworld is an upgrade in every way tbh
Assassin’s creed. The movement and combat didn’t feel satisfying to me at all
The Witcher. I really want to like it. It seems like the kind of game I would love and I recognize that it’s an objectively well made game. However, I’ve bounced off it at least 4 times after getting 1-4 hours in.
Thank God, I am not alone. I thought something was wrong with me for having exactly your experience.
There’s are dozens of us
If you’re talking about bouncing of the first one, that’s completely understandable. It is absolutely not an objectively well made game, and I will die on that hill. Witcher 2 does hold up well enough though, in my opinion, and is a much better place to start. Just watch a summary video of the first one and avoid a bunch of antiquated jank.
i feel exactly the same about it, this seems like a thing. and i played the second one.
i wonder if it would be easier to get into it if i fixed the controls like people hinted at in this thread.
Same actually, I got Witcher 3 as part of a console bundle and played it for a short period, not sure exactly how long but I got to the first of I’m sure many fights with a dragon. Found it really unintuitive, by the time I got frustrated enough to bother doing a web search I’d lost interest. Tried a couple of times after and just got the cbf’s every time.
Same. I tried 3 times to get into Witcher 3. No success.
Doesn’t matter, there’s tons of other fun stuff out there.
I had to push very hard to get through the clunky controls but I do admit it was worth it eventually.
My personal theory is that a lot of the love for The Witcher 3 in particular stems from the fact that very early on it has a sex scene with full nudity, with a female character who is supernaturally hot according to the lore. There’s several women Geralt can seduce, and I suspect a lot of people who mostly play hentai games were in shock to play something with more exciting gameplay than match-3 grids or a jigsaw puzzle.
The Witcher 3 doesn’t seem like a bad game, but I’m similar to you in that I’ve bounced off it a couple times after a few hours. There’s nothing particularly bad about it, but nothing that really grabbed me and made me want to keep playing more either. I still plan on giving it another shot eventually.
Me too. The control scheme is just awful.
Monster Hunter. Probably tried like 4 of those games since Tri and people keep recommending them to me, saying the newest one will surely be the one to convince me. But I found them all to be a boring grind.
They are. I tried them too and was surprised they aren’t free. Boring mechanics, scripts that are too long.
Yeah, I have a friend who develops video games and has given some good recommendations who kept trying to convince me to play the series. I’ve dipped in a couple times and just walked away unimpressed.
I did enjoy World though it involved a lot of interacting with bad UI and walking to a monster. Can’t really complain about grind, as you don’t have to fight the same monster too much. The story cutscenes and missions were painfully bad.
What I did like was fighting one big enemy rather that hordes of small ones, having to be close and it being risky, exotic weapon movesets. It is great that you can and do use the environment to your advantage all the time.
I would like to see a game that does the fighting big enemies in terrain but with more physics based attacks. The hitbox-based combat where you can put your hammer inside the beast and then swing feels silly.
I didn’t like the equipment upgrades much as they only get interesting late in the game and all weapons of the same base type are essentially the same.
D&D
I’ve been playing RPG for decades, but play D&D less than once a decade, and my impression goes form awful to not worth my money/time. When I was young and broke, having to buy a player manual + a GM guide + a monster manual when tons of RPG would fit in a single book (Yes I know, clan-books for let’s say Vampire are also a money-pit), was out of my budget, then every-time I played D&D, feel like the story were not interesting as concept like alignment and some spells like detect lies would kill many interesting plot. Too which you had a lot of character optimisation often over the long-term (If you didn’t take that feat a low level you cannot have the killer feat at high level), let alone the people mixing RPG and miniature games
Sure you can have some funs game with D&D and play it differently but there is so many other game out-there (and so few time) , that why would I even bother joining a D&D game rather than another,
I was lucky that we just had friends that loved making them. So we wouldn’t have books or such, and we just made our player cards on paper with knowledge of what can grow and when. Then the world’s would grow crazy if we wanted them to, or not. Hell we had one game we played specifically when we were drunk. We would close the bar down, pick up a 12 pack a piece and cigarettes. Then we would sit out on the porch from 2am and play till sunrise every weekend, sometimes both Friday and Saturday night. In that game we’d note our cards on our phones so we’d remember and the DM would have us send them to him at the beginning and end of the night so he could reference/ make sure they weren’t all fucked up before the next play session. It gave us crazy things to talk about at the bar; what we wish we did differently, what we would want do aim to do, where we might want to go, and that just all fed content to the DM and they would draw up ways to integrate possibilities for the next week or so. Even had a couple side characters so if someone else happened to be in town or wanted to join us we could auto scale the character by doing a quick percentage off of some of main characters current stats. 1 or 2 people spend 5 mins to bring the person up to speed with what their character story is and where/what is going on or maybe overall goals while another one of us just writes down their updated stats for them and sends it to them.
So we’d spend nothing on the game itself. We had a blast
the trick is that you can live this great moment with other RPG too, and most of them are IMO way better than the good old D&D, which is why I prefer different games
I really enjoy D&D-based video games, but actual pen and paper is just frustratingly slow. I think if I could change my mindset to consider it a social activity first and a game second, I might find it more enjoyable. But that is also really dependent on the group dynamic and seems more likely attainable for playing in-person rather than with an online group.
I love Into the Odd so much for a single-book game. It just hits me right.
But yeah 100% there are so many better games to play than modern D&D.
Min maxing is so irritating to me. DnD is bad about it but I find that seasoned players will find a way with just about any but the most basic systems.
unstoppable forces of nature aren’t necessary, and are especially unnecessary when the GM refuses to build a force of nature to counter them.
Idk. I like the people I play with, but the gameplay isn’t why I come back to the table every week.
The Bethesda (and related) RPGs. The core gameplay loop just feels so shallow in both, meaning most of your time is spent wandering with nothing meaningful to do, or in spammy, often janky combat. The parts that are interesting, the character builds and the lore, aren’t super involved in most of the game. You spend so little time building characters, and most of the lore is in written logs and books.
While I like Bethesda games quite a bit, I do agree on the in-game lorebook stuff. I can’t see the appeal of the stuff. It’s a collection of extremely short, in my opinion not-very-impressive stories. I just can’t see someone sitting there and reading them and enjoying the things — if I’m going to read fantasy, I’d far rather spend the time on an actual novel. Yet I’ve seen people obsess online about how much they like the in-game lorebooks.
I’ve wondered before whether maybe people who are talking about how much they like them haven’t gone out and read full-length fantasy books, and so they’re getting a tiny taste of reading fantasy fiction and they like that, but it’s the only fantasy that they’ve read.
I wouldn’t say the problem is with their length or simplicity. I’m sure I could enjoy a short anthology in one of these universes. The bigger problem is the fact that its embedded into a game, effectively breaking the pacing and flow of both the written text and the game. Ideally, this would at least allow you to use environmental and visual storytelling alongside the text, but this is rarely done well enough to justify all the downsides, so you end up with the worst of both worlds.
I can think of lots of series that I don’t like, just because I’m not into the genre. I think that everyone has genres that they don’t like.
I think a more-interesting question is about popular series that I don’t like within a genre that I do like.
I didn’t like Frostpunk, despite liking city-builders. Felt like the decisions were largely mechanical, didn’t involve a lot of analysis and tweaking levers.
I didn’t like Sudden Strike 4, despite liking lots of real time tactics games, like Close Combat. It felt really simplified.
I didn’t like Pacific Drive, despite liking survival games. It has time limits, and I often dislike time limits in games.
I didn’t like Outer Wilds, despite liking a lot of space games. Didn’t like the cartoony style, the low-tech vibe, felt like it wasn’t respectful of player time.
I didn’t like Elden Ring, though I like a number of swords and sorcery games. Just felt simple, repetitive and uninteresting.
EDIT: A couple of honorable mentions that I don’t hate, but which were disappointing:
Borderlands. The gunplay can be all right, and the flow of new guns and having to adapt to them is interesting. But every Borderlands game I play, the always-respawning enemies are a turnoff. Feels like the world is immutable. Also don’t like the mindless farming of every container with glowing green dots. And for a combat-oriented game, it doesn’t make me mix up my tactics much based on whatever I’m facing. While I finish the game, I always wind up feeling like I’m not having nearly as much fun as I should be having.
Choice of Games. I like text-based games, but a lot of games published by this company, even otherwise well-written ones, have adopted a convention of making one win by playing consistently to certain characteristics of a character, so one tries to just figure out at every choice what option will maximize that characteristic. That’s extremely uninteresting gameplay, even if the story is nice and the text well-written. I feel like the same authors would have done better just writing choose-your-own-adventure type games if they weren’t focused on the stats. I also really dislike the lack of an undo, to the point that I’ve put some work into a Choicescript-to-Sugarcube converter.
Frostpunk
I get it. I like city builders too and the idea of a game that’s constantly threatening your city with crisis seemed interesting, but every run seems to be the same.
Outer Wilds
Alright, you and I are gonna fight now.
Frostpunk is a puzzle game not a city builder would be why
It just uses a city builder as the UI.
Great example of mistaken expectations and mislabeled genre.
I’m not sure I’d count Outer Wilds as a space game (assuming you mean something in the vein of Elite Dangerous), despite it objectively including a lot of space travel. It’s a detective game, the point is to unravel a mystery
maybe they’re confusing it with Outer Worlds?
I’d be very surprised if “cartoony style” and “low-tech vibe” is not describing Wilds. I assume the bit about respecting of time is something to do with the various timed events in each loop like Ash Twin. I don’t agree with them in the slightest, but I assume that’s what it is
Some of those can be explained by bad expectations.
Frostpunk is not a city builder, more like a puzzle game.
Outer wilds is not a space game, it’s a time loop mystery.
Fantasy sword and sorcery is hardly the most important side of souls games. They’re technical performance games.
They all technically include those elements you like, but were more about something else.
Pokemon - having to watch animations and not being able to speed anything up killed my interest
Skyrim - tried a melee run recently and the combat feels like you’re whacking air
The legend of Zelda - played Tears and the story and puzzles were a bit too kid friendly
Doom - I really tried to like it but I felt like I didn’t get anything out of it. It doesn’t scratch that itch I get out of FromSoft’s Souls games where I want to learn a boss’s patterns and die to it a million times.
In general I don’t think I can do story games anymore
Modern DooMs are… strange. The legendary status of Doom is granted by Doom 1 and 2. And those games are very different from Doom 3-5.
Original gameplay is quite saved by GZDoom and similar projects. Add there something like BrutalDoom add-on and you’ll get the best from both worlds: old Doom gameplay and more modern graphics.
I still need to finish Dark Age but the level design was quite good. Felt way more like the original Jaquays type maps, lots of loops and alternate paths you naturally explore.
Project Warlock is still better tho
The legend of Zelda - played Tears and the story and puzzles were a bit too kid friendly
It’s actually a kid friendly franchise, all of it. The only surprisingly mature themed zelda game is Majora’s Mask, it deal with death and loses and hopelessness way more than BOTW is comfortably touch, and it’s made in a year.
Twilight Princess is worth mentioning too. It was rated Teen, and had this scene (no gore or sex or anything, just weird surreal horror).
Zelda is such a diverse franchise it really depends on the game. I love Twilight Princess and Majora’s Mask, but didn’t like BotW or Windwaker at all. It’s almost like 2 or 3 different franchises crammed into one.
Up until Breath of the Wild, maybe Skyward Sword, the Zelda series didn’t shy away from being a bit fucked up. There’s an entire torture-themed dungeon in Ocarina of Time. Majora’s Mask is an exploration of impending doom, Twilight Princess features a botched execution. These games used to have characters in actual danger, scary enemies, confronting themes…Breath of the Wild is post apocalyptic and everyone is just happy clappy.
In general I don’t think I can do story games anymore
Wow, that’s the complete wrong take if you ask me! It sounds like your problems with these games are mostly in the gameplay, not the story? Have you ever played Outer Wilds or The Talos Principle? Unique puzzle games with a great story.
I’ve played both of those, and I really enjoyed Talos 2 since it mostly just fed you lore while you were trying to do a puzzle, but don’t ask me what the story was because I couldn’t tell ya.
I didn’t mean I couldn’t connect with the story in just those games, but in games in general. So when I talk about a game, I don’t really put much weight into my thoughts on the story, just the mechanics.
Couldn’t agree more with Skyrim, Oblivion was the same when I tried that too I just can’t stand it. Easily some of the most over rated games IMO.
Also agree with Zelda but I think the same about all of the Nintendo IPs, they are just boring and the fan base makes me dislike them even more!
Same for me, but starting with Morrowind. The leveling system was too weird, compared to other RPGs of that time. I remember I missclicked, fallen out of the window of some tower, got an Acrobatics skill improved and a level up.
well falling out of a tower window is quite the experience, and if you survived you learnt a lot about how to cope with deep falls, so the level ups are well earned
i think you can disable the animations in the console games for pokemon, unless they changed it for the new games.
They removed the options to skip battle animations for the newer games. There’s an option that removes cutscenes, but that doesn’t affect anything in battles like the ten minute long terastallizations.
i see, they did that for the online card game too. in the older ones i removed the animations so i can progess through the battle tower faster. good thing i never gotten into the post- burnt out masuda games.
the combat in Skyrim always felt so stiff so i get you, just didn’t feel enjoyable to me
Pokemon - having to watch animations and not being able to speed anything up killed my interest
That’s why I play on emulator most of the time, especially for games I’ve already beaten
Yeah that’s the way to go, sadly. Funny enough I was eventually able to enjoy Pokémon through the fan game Pokerogue then a RuneScape rom hack called pokescape
Souls games.
I really want to like them too, but they seemingly aren’t compatible with how I play games. I need to be able to put a game down for a couple of weeks and not feel like I’m back at square one because the specific muscle memory for that game has gone.
Just kinda kills the fun when the game is effectively telling me to get good, when I don’t actually have the amount of free time IRL necessary to do that.
for me it feels like they don’t respect me as an adult. i need to be able to pause and save games. sometimes i get phone calls. sometimes the power goes out. sometimes i spill my drink. but no, it’s all just “get gud”.
also i just can’t handle the aesthetics .
Could you talk a little more about the aesthetics thing? I have no intention to pick a fight with you or tell you that your opinion is wrong, I’m just curious because I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that about them before
Also yes the no pausing thing is very frustrating
everything is dark and gray and meaty and slimy and gory and bloody and disgusting and sad and lonely and unpersonal and depressing and hopeless and evil and hateful and murderous and dead and off and…
even screenshots fucking wreck my mental health.
There are some stunningly beautiful scenes too though. I get what you mean regardless, its a grimdark setting for sure.
yeah let me just wade through this ocean of death so i can see a dying sun set over a dead world.
things may be beautiful in isolation but the context is what gives them meaning, and the meaning in most fromsoft worlds (and things inspired by them) is “look at how awful everything is here; it’s your fault if it doesn’t get better”.
“haunting” is a better word than “stunning” there.The intended meaning of most of from soft games is perseverance in spite of objective futility and the failure of society.
The world has died, society has failed, the powerful both good and bad have failed. No one, no matter their intentions can change the world for everyone around them let alone themselves by themselves. The good can not make the world better and the bad can not make it worse.
To inact change requires people to sacrifice and push forward. Even if it means their doom, even if it’s pointless. For no good ever comes from half measures, from hiding away, or from denying that which is around them because it is unpleasant.
For only with perseverance and the lasting memory and hope of change being taken up be each successor can true change be made.
And even still, to fight to hold that change still, and deny the next generation their right to enact change is just as futile and harmful as not trying at all.
This not including the additional horrors and commentary from their armored core games or spin offs such as Bloodborne. Even those series still have this under lying messaging.
While you arnt wrong on the aesthetics and what they give off on a surface level. You clearly lack the context of the world and story of the main souls games beyond only what is on the cover. You are very much in the wrong and deeply at that, over what the meaning of the worlds of from soft games.
Haunting IS a better word to describe it then stunning tho.
For as “nuanced” as people like to claim the from soft games are. They are very very blunt with their messaging, even if the stories they tell are terribly convoluted.
You clearly lack the context of the world and story of the main souls games beyond only what is on the cover.
…yes? i don’t know how much more clearly i can spell out that what’s on the cover is preventing me from playing the games.
You are very much in the wrong and deeply at that, over what the meaning of the worlds of from soft games.
until this sentence i was completely certain that you were agreeing with me
Omg I feel seen. Yeah I might not be fully unappreciative of the aesthetic, but shit can be dark and grim in real life as it is and it feels edgy and emo to go all gore gothic all the time. Every videogame trailer that starts with “shit’s horrible around here” is an instant “next”. Also I’ve always had a problem with eternal unliveable dungeons that make no architectural sense. Even though it is fantasy, it makes it far more childish, which matters if they’re trying to take themselves seriously.
It’s okay if grimdark doesn’t appeal to you. I like stories about people doing the right thing in a hostile setting,
that was my point yes
I disagree with you completely on this but I really enjoy your point of view here
i’m glad.
Is it particularly more your fault that things don’t better in Souls games than in any other game in which you are meant to save the world? I think the only difference is that in the Souls ones and others like them, the world is already horrible and needs repaired in some way rather than on the verge of becoming horrible
Interestingly Elden Ring went for quite a different direction. The world is, unquestionably, still an enormous mess that would be horrendous to live in, but they’ve left in far more of the beauty. I particularly like how every so often you hear hostile NPCs playing music or singing if they haven’t spotted you yet, and how there’s a little puzzle side quest about a painter; people are still making art in this ongoing apocalypse. One important allied NPC even actually openly makes an argument that the world is worth preserving if it looks like you’re going for the “destroy everything” ending
Of course the atmosphere and gameplay are still heavy going, both in the Souls trilogy and Elden Ring. I get why that wouldn’t be for everyone. It’s like playable Cormac McCarthy stories, except you can punch your way out of most of the misery if you get it right
idk i can barely look at the games without feeling awful, im just going off of the opinion of others
Try “Death Door”. It is as hard but fun to play.
bro the difficulty is yet another reason why i don’t want to get into it. you really think i’m in a mental state to be beaten to a bloody pulp after a rant like that? i gave up on tunic because the combat was too hard.
it is my firm belief that soulslikes have ruined metroidvanias because they now apparently all need to beat you to death for attempting to enjoy them.
Death’s Door isn’t nearly as difficult as the Souls games; it just felt like a solid metroidvania. I don’t enjoy beating my head against high difficulty curves these days and it felt very approachable and fun to me. I even went back after my first playthrough and did the achievement where you only use the weaker umbrella weapon.
Souls games autosave constantly, you can quit out at any time and reload to where you were. The only exception being that if you quit out during a boss fight you’ll have to restart.
Soulslikes are fucking boring. I did that beat my head against the too-hard boss fight 289348923x when I was a kid because that was the only option and I had all the time in the world. Neither of those is still true.
Yeah. Heard so much about Elden Ring, and watched the kids play it, so I thought I’d give it a shot.
After about 45 minutes of wandering aimlessly and nearly as many deaths, I decided I wasn’t having a good time.
I finally had the Get Good moment where everything clicks recently, its very real. Now im on Nightreign like its crack.
Level your Vigor, people. Farm that little village with the soldiers and get a few levels into your health bar. And boom! Now you don’t die bc you missed a dodge. There’s good starting gear there too.
Once you “get it”, suddenly Elden Ring becomes like the coolest DnD game ever from an old-school perspective. Honestly, its not much different from Zelda - if you can play that, you can play Elden Ring i think.
That has been my experience with it too. It’s probably more fun with good gear, but i just see hours on the couch in my future that I don’t want to spend.
The gear would not have saved you. The game gets substantially more difficult as you progress, even accounting for your character getting stronger, and if you don’t do a decent job of levelling up appropriate skills that will compound the issue. The starter gear for most of the classes is actually perfectly viable all the way to the end of the game for most players too, it’s not notably weak at all
I love Elden Ring, but I can absolutely respect why it wouldn’t be for everyone. No sense in playing it if you’re not enjoying it, the point is still to have a good and/or interesting time
The beauty of Elden ring is that you can explore without actually killing much. Eventually you’ll find some cool weapons or smithing stones to upgrade your current weapon and some runes to get a couple of levels (putting points on vigor helps a lot early on)
And then the game starts feeling less rough.
But I can definitely understand why it’s not for everyone.
I feel similar. After having tons of people tell me for years I need to get into them, I finally played Bloodborne, which multiple people have told me is their favorite.
I pushed through it on my own first. I actually didn’t die quite as much as I expected, though I definitely had to spend time watching YouTube videos and reading 3 different fan-made wiki’s to figure everything out. I managed to finish it, but I didn’t think it was worth it and would not have finished it if not for wanting to be able to talk about it with my friends.
Then I did another playthrough with a friend doing co-op. When it worked (ugh) it was a way better experience. Partly because of my previous experience - I had a better feel for how to build my character, I remembered most of the environments and enemy placement, and still had that muscle memory from my first run. Partly because it’s better as a cooperative experience. Having an ally makes the world feel less desolate. Having another player to take aggro so you can heal is huge- some bosses almost feel like they were designed for multiplayer. And it’s fun just cracking jokes and hanging out, making fun of how ridiculous some of the stuff is.
I still don’t have the love for it that other people do though. I agree 100% on the aesthetic: everything in Bloodborne is just dark and wet and looks the same. FromSoft makes a LOT of game design decisions that are different from most other developers in terms of what they prioritize. Which is fine, but there are aspects of design where they clearly cut corners and the fanbae seems to laud it as a desirable artistic choice. I shouldn’t need to spend hours watching YouTube and researching fan sites to learn how to play the game, and I would argue I shouldn’t have to do that to appreciate the story. They simply do not respect my time.
The multiplayer barely works. It’s restricted to bosses and the areas leading up to them, and costs Insight (a valuable and kind-of finite resource) to use. Simply connecting is a tedious pain. You can only play either completely online or offline, so if you want to play with a friend you have to accept your whole world cluttered with annoying and distracting messages from random players and the specters where other players died. And that also opens you up to having hostile players gank you. Like… Why can’t my friend and I just pair up and play through the whole game together without inviting the rest of the internet too? Why does it cost Insight? Why are the caps for stats never communicated to the player? Why does the Hunter’s Axe do primarily Blunt damage while the KirkHAMMER does almost no Blunt damage, and for that matter why aren’t the damage types explained anywhere? I’m still not sure why some gems increase Attack, others increase Physical Attack, and others increase Blunt or Thrust, plus there are hidden damage types.
The game feels like it was designed to really get good on your second playthrough and beyond. Especially NG+, although even starting a fresh file again is much better than the first playthrough. Kinda reminds me of how some MMO fans like to say “it gets good after the first 100 hours”. For most developers, the player onboarding experience is one of the most important parts to be developed, but FromSoft basically skills over that and outsources it to their community of hardcore fans.
The only real way to play full co op is using the Seemless Co-op Mod. Also disables other players jumping in to kill you. You would have to play on PC though.
Same for me!
Try Jedi Fallen Order. It’s got a lot of the ingredients, but a lot shallower learning curve.
Fallout. I like the premise and I’ll watch other people play it, but I just cannot get into the mechanics of that franchise. Something about VATS is just not enjoyable to me.
I made it fairly far through 4 without vats and playing in third person. It just feels so much more tedious than Skyrim without anything more to show for it.
Walking simulator…no fun for me
Try the first one. Before Bethesda got a hold of it.
Name any sports title ( NHL, NFL, NBA, MBA, etcetera )that isn’t a zany, over the top SuperTuxKart or Cartoon Network Racing style kart racer and I’m out.
Same goes for any PVP shooter games such as Call of Duty, TF2 Counter Strike, etcetera. Anymore I really find no interest in them because I don’t feel like breaking things over some 6 month old who can squad wipe me, all while getting their diaper changed and slinging slurs my way.
Assassin’s Creed.
Love the historical gameplay. But I cannot stand being interrupted by the modern day parts. Even if they are small. They feel so disrespectful with my time that I’ve always been unable to play those games. I forced my way through AC2 but I have never replayed it, despite loving the actual gameplay, just for the modern day boredom.
There’s gotta be a mod for that, right?
Up until whatever came after Black Flag I was a die hard AC fan. Midnight releases and everything. And I’ll admit, the modern day sections are bad and jarring and completely unnecessary. At some point you’re a game developer wandering around an office and it’s obvious they had no idea what to do with those sections, because at that point the modern day story had been told. There was a brief cameo from some of the people you would remember from earlier games but it never got to the level of intrigue from 1-3.
Though an assassin’s creed game set in like modern day Manhattan could be fun. Watchdogs got kinda close to that before going completely off the rails.
Honestly, Black Flag is the only AC game I ever come back to. I enjoyed 1 and 2, and 3 was ok, but BF was the pinnacle of the series (only partially because of the ship combat).
I’d love a game that’s just the pirate ship parts, that was easily the best part. Setting up supply lines, capturing ships and sinking hunters. Good times.
I think Ubi tried to capitalize on that with Skull and Bones, because you’re definitely not alone. They failed miserably, but they tied.
I think I/we were too old to get into pokemon. I tried 3 games, and got bored about 4 fights in. I’m sure back when that was the peak of gaming, it was amazing. But now after modern games, turn based gameplay is just not for me too
Except Baldurs Gate 3, that’s an awesome way of doing turn-based combat
Final Fantasy. JRPGs just aren’t my thing
GTA. It just seems really boring to me, I dunno. A lot of shoot em up and not so much substance. To be honest I feel like that for a lot of open world games. It may be wide as an ocean but it’s deep as a puddle. That’s not ALWAYS bad but I generally would prefer a more linearly running game that’s a lot deeper.
Grand thef auto. Simply I don’t get it
